Agenda packet — Pico Rivera City Council, January 24, 2023 (part 6 of 13)

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria

9.2.1 For seismic design of the structures, and in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2019 CBC, our recommended parameters are shown below. These parameters are based on Probabilistic Ground Motion of 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years. The Site Class was determined based on the results of our field exploration.

TABLE 9.2.1

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Seismic Item Symbol Value ASCE 7-16 or
2019 CBC Reference
Site Coordinates (Datum = NAD 83) 33.9847 Lat
-118.0984 Lon
Site Class -- D ASCE 7-16 Table 20.3-1
Soil Profile Name -- Stiff Soil ASCE 7-16 Table 20.3-1
Risk Category -- II CBC Table 1604.5
Site Coefficient for PGA FPGA 1.1 ASCE 7-16 Table 11.8-1 Peak Ground Acceleration
(adjusted for Site Class effects) PGAM 0.869g ASCE 7-16 Equation 11.8-1 Seismic Design Category SDC D ASCE 7-16 Section 11.6
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SS 1.833 g CBC Figure 1613.2.1(1) Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) S1 0.656 g CBC Figure 1613.2.1(2)
Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fa 1 CBC Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fv *1.7 CBC Table 1613.2.3(2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SMS = Fa SS
SMS 1.833 g CBC Equation 16-36
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) SM1 = Fv S1
SM1 *1.115 g CBC Equation 16-37
Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SDS=⅔SMS (short period - 0.2 sec) SDS 1.222 g CBC Equation 16-38 Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SD1=⅔SM1 (1.0 sec. period) SD1 *0.743 g CBC Equation 16-39 Short Term Transition Period (SD1/SDS),
seconds TS 0.608 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.6
Long Term Transition Period (seconds) TL 8 ASCE 7-16, Figure 22-14 * Determined per ASCE Table 11.4-2 for use in calculating TS only Project No. 3-220-0499 - 11 -

9.2.2 Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis was not included in the scope of this investigation. Per ASCE 11.4.8, structures on Site Class D with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 may require Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis. However, a site specific motion analysis may not be required based on Exceptions listed in ASCE 11.4.8. The Structural Engineer should verify whether Exception No. 2 of ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, is valid for the site. In the event that a site specific ground motion analysis is required, SALEM should be contacted for these services.

9.2.3 Conformance to the criteria in the above table for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics

9.3.1 Based on the soil conditions encountered in our soil borings, the onsite soils can be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment.

9.3.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements. Temporary excavations are further discussed in a later Section of this report.

9.3.3 The near surface soils identified as part of our investigation are, generally, moist to very moist due to the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations may encounter very moist unstable soils which may require removal to a stable bottom. Exposed native soils exposed as part of site grading operations shall not be allowed to dry out and should be kept continuously moist prior to placement of subsequent fill.

9.4 Materials for Fill

9.4.1 Excavated soils generated from cut operations at the site are suitable for use as general Engineered Fill in structural area, provided they do not contain deleterious matter, organic material, rock material larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension, or an Expansion Index greater than 20 (EI>20).

9.4.2 The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since they have complete control of the project site.

9.4.3 Import soil shall be well-graded, slightly cohesive silty fine sand or sandy silt, with relatively impervious characteristics when compacted. A clean sand or very sandy soil is not acceptable for this purpose. This material should be approved by the Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the soil characteristics summarized below in Table 9.4.3.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 12 -
TABLE 9.4.3

IMPORT FILL REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 15
Maximum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 50
Minimum Percent Passing No. 4 Sieve 70
Maximum Particle Size 3"
Maximum Plasticity Index 12
Maximum CBC Expansion Index 20

9.4.4 Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be considered.

9.4.5 Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by SALEM prior to its transportation to the site.

9.5 Grading

9.5.1 A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Geotechnical Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section as well as other portions of this report.

9.5.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

9.5.3 Site preparation should begin with removal of existing surface/subsurface structures, underground utilities (as required), any existing uncertified fill, and debris. Excavations or depressions resulting from site clearing operations, or other existing excavations or depressions, should be restored with Engineered Fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

9.5.4 Surface vegetation consisting of grasses and other similar vegetation should be removed by stripping to a sufficient depth to remove organic-rich topsoil. The upper 2 to 4 inches of the soils containing, vegetation, roots and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the surface. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. In addition, existing oversized rocks, concrete and asphalt materials shall be removed from areas of proposed improvements and stockpiled separately from excavated soil material. The stripped vegetation, oversized rocks, asphalt and concrete materials will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill or within 5 feet of building pads or within pavement areas.

However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas or exported from the site.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 13 -

9.5.5 Structural building pad areas should be considered as areas extending a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the outside dimensions of the building, including footings and noncantilevered overhangs carrying structural loads.

9.5.6 Recommendations for grading of the proposed building area are provided in Sections 9.6 and 9.7 (Options 1 or 2 for liquefaction mitigation) of this report.

9.5.7 Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 10 to 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and re-compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-07 Test Method.

9.5.8 All Engineered Fill (including scarified ground surfaces and backfill) should be placed in thin lifts to allow for adequate bonding and compaction (typically 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness).

9.5.9 All Engineered Fill soils should be placed, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.

9.5.10 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and shall be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.

9.5.11 Within pavement areas, it is recommended that scarification, moisture conditioning and recompaction be performed to at least 12 inches below existing grade or finish grade, whichever is deeper. In addition, the upper 12 inches of final pavement subgrade, whether completed at-grade, by excavation, or by filling, should be uniformly moisture-conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.

9.5.12 Final pavement subgrade should be finished to a smooth, unyielding surface. We further recommend proof-rolling the subgrade with a loaded water truck (or similar equipment with high contact pressure) to verify the stability of the subgrade prior to placing aggregate base.

9.5.13 The most effective site preparation alternatives will depend on site conditions prior to grading.

We should evaluate site conditions and provide supplemental recommendations immediately prior to grading, if necessary.

9.5.14 We do not anticipate groundwater or seepage to adversely affect construction if conducted during the drier months of the year (typically summer and fall). However, groundwater and soil moisture conditions could be significantly different during the wet season (typically winter and spring) as surface soil becomes wet; perched groundwater conditions may develop. Grading during this time period will likely encounter wet materials resulting in possible excavation and fill placement difficulties. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during construction should be performed. If the construction schedule requires grading operations during the wet season, we can provide additional recommendations as conditions warrant.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 14 -

9.5.15 Wet soils will become non conducive to site grading as the upper soils yield under the weight of the construction equipment. Therefore, mitigation measures should be performed for stabilization. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material or placement of crushed rocks or aggregate base material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product.

The most common remedial measure of stabilizing the bottom of the excavation due to wet soil condition is to reduce the moisture of the soil to near the optimum moisture content by having the subgrade soils scarified and aerated or mixed with drier soils prior to compacting.

However, the drying process may require an extended period of time and delay the construction operation.

To expedite the stabilizing process, slurry or crushed rock may be utilized for stabilization provided this method is approved by the owner for the cost purpose. If the use of slurry or crushed rock is considered, it is recommended that the upper soft and wet soils be replaced by 6 to 24 inches of 2-sack slurry or ¾-inch to 1-inch crushed rocks. The thickness of the slurry or rock layer depends on the severity of the soil instability. The recommended 6 to 24 inches of crushed rock material will provide a stable platform.

It is further recommended that lighter compaction equipment be utilized for compacting the crushed rock. A layer of geofabric is recommended to be placed on top of the compacted crushed rock to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock, resulting in soil movement. Although it is not required, the use of geogrid (e.g. Tensar TX7) below the crushed rock will enhance stability and reduce the required thickness of crushed rock necessary for stabilization.

Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to provide appropriate recommendations.

9.6 Option 1 - Shallow Foundations and Slabs with Geogrid

9.6.1 The site is suitable for use of conventional shallow foundations consisting of continuous strip footings in combination with isolated spread footings bearing on geogrid reinforced Engineered Fill.

9.6.2 Subsurface soils within the site are prone to liquefaction under high ground shaking acceleration during an earthquake. Our preliminary calculations indicated that the building areas, and at least 5 feet beyond, should be over-excavated to a depth of 4 feet below proposed footing bottom and the resulting excavation should be backfilled with a layered system of Engineered Fill and geogrid reinforcing fabric.

Any undocumented and uncompacted fills encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. The depth of the over-excavation should be measured from existing ground or rough pad grade, whichever is greater.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 15 -
A preliminary design procedure is provided below. Global seismic induced settlement of the site is still anticipated when liquefaction occurs. Prior to placing the geogrid, the bottom of the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction based on ASTM D1557.

The first layer of geogrid reinforcement will be placed directly on the prepared subgrade at a depth of 4 feet below proposed footing bottom. The geogrid material should be overlapped a minimum of 3 feet in all directions. The interlock between the geogrid and Engineered Fill will provide load transfer. No vehicles may traverse the geogrid prior to placement of the Engineered Fill cover. The next layer of geogrid should be placed on top of the compacted Engineered Fill. This and subsequent layers need only be overlapped a minimum of 1 foot on all sides.

The fill soils excavated from the area may be moisture conditioned and re-compacted between geogrid layers as reinforced fill. The reinforced fill should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and re-compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D 1557 Test Method.

A total of four (4) geogrid layers, including the layer at the base of the excavation should be installed at vertical increments of 1 foot. The geogrid layers should extend to a minimum of 5 feet beyond the exterior footing perimeter of the structure. The geogrid reinforcement fabric should consist of Tensar® TX7 Geogrid. Any additional unstable soils within building areas should be excavated and backfilled with Engineered Fill.

It is recommended that the entire site be excavated at once, and soils be stockpiled on adjacent or nearby properties. The geogrid and excavated soil may then be placed and re-compacted as recommended herein.

Alternatively, the contractor may elect to excavate the site in two stages, where excavated soil can be stockpiled over one-half of the site while the other half is mitigated. However, if the contractor elects the option of two stages over the preferred option of using one stage, a minimum of 5 feet of geogrid from the first half should overlap the second half.

Furthermore, the overlapping geogrid should be protected from damages, which may be caused by operating equipment. It is further recommended that flexible utility connections be used for the project.

9.6.3 It is recommended that continuous bearing wall footings to be utilized for the building have a minimum width of 15 inches, and a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade (18 inches for below ground structures). Isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches, and a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade (18 inches for below ground structures).

9.6.4 Footing concrete should be placed into neat excavation. The footing bottoms shall be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 16 -

9.6.5 Footings proportioned as recommended above may be designed for the maximum allowable soil bearing pressures shown in the table below.

Loading Condition Allowable Bearing
Dead Load Only 2,500 psf
Dead-Plus-Live Load 3,000 psf
Total Load, Including Wind or Seismic Loads 4,000 psf

9.6.6 For design purposes, total static settlement not exceeding ½ inch may be assumed for shallow foundations. Differential static settlement should not exceed ¼ inch over 30 feet. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete.

9.6.7 The total settlement due to seismic loads is expected to be on the order of 2.34 to 3.87 inches.

With the geogrid reinforcement, the seismic induced differential settlement is expected to be reduced to approximately ½ inch over 30 feet.

9.6.8 Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable coefficient of friction factor of 0.35 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting native subgrade.

9.6.9 Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an equivalent fluid passive pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical native footing faces.

The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combination that includes wind or earthquake loads.

9.6.10 Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars; two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer.

9.6.11 Underground utilities running parallel to footings should not be constructed in the zone of influence of footings. The zone of influence may be taken to be the area beneath the footing and within a 1:1 plane extending out and down from the bottom edge of the footing.

9.6.12 The foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition without significant shrinkage cracks as would be expected in any concrete placement. Prior to placing rebar reinforcement, foundation excavations should be evaluated by a representative of SALEM for appropriate support characteristics and moisture content. Moisture conditioning may be required for the materials exposed at footing bottom, particularly if foundation excavations are left open for an extended period.

9.6.13 Slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading. We recommend that non-structural slabs-on-grade be at least 4 inches thick Project No. 3-220-0499 - 17 -
and underlain by six (6) inches of compacted clean granular aggregate subbase material compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) should not be used within the building pad area.

9.6.14 Granular aggregate subbase material shall conform to ASTM D-2940, Latest Edition (Table 1, bases) with at least 95 percent passing a 1½-inch sieve and not more than 8% passing a No. 200 sieve or its approved equivalents to prevent capillary moisture rise.

9.6.15 We recommend reinforcing slabs, at a minimum, with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center, each way.

9.6.16 Slabs subject to structural loading may be designed utilizing a modulus of subgrade reaction K of 140 pounds per square inch per inch. The K value was approximated based on interrelationship of soil classification and bearing values (Portland Cement Association, Rocky Mountain Northwest).

9.6.17 The spacing of crack control joints should be designed by the project structural engineer. In order to regulate cracking of the slabs, we recommend that construction joints or control joints be provided at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction for 5-inch thick slabs and 12 feet for 4-inch thick slabs.

9.6.18 Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement.

The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system.

9.6.19 It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structures be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the structures is recommended.

9.6.20 Moisture within the structures may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structures. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and/or ASTM guidelines, whichever is more stringent. In addition, ventilation of the structures is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture.

9.6.21 In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness where moisture-sensitive coverings are anticipated, construction should have a suitable waterproof vapor retarder (a minimum of 15 mils thick polyethylene vapor retarder sheeting, Raven Industries “VaporBlock 15, Stego Industries 15 mil “StegoWrap” or W.R. Meadows Sealtight 15 mil “Perminator”) incorporated into the floor slab design. The water vapor retarder should be decay resistant material complying with ASTM E96 not exceeding 0.04 perms, ASTM E154 and ASTM E1745 Class A. The vapor barrier should be placed between the concrete slab and the compacted granular aggregate subbase material. The water vapor retarder (vapor barrier) should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-94.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 18 -

9.6.22 The concrete maybe placed directly on vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be inspected prior to concrete placement. Cut or punctured retarder should be repaired using vapor retarder material lapped 6 inches beyond damaged areas and taped.

9.6.23 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement. This is common for project areas that contain expansive soils since designing to eliminate potential soil movement is cost prohibitive. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

9.6.24 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.

9.7 Option 2 – Structural Slabs

9.7.1 As an alternative to the geogrid method, the building may be supported on a reinforced structural slab foundation system (e.g. mat foundation, modified mat foundation, posttensioned slab or stiffened footings with rigid grade beams) to resist damage due to seismicinduced differential settlement.

9.7.2 The foundation can be designed utilizing allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot for dead-plus-live loads. This value may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loads such as wind or seismic. The thickness and reinforcement of the structural slab should be determined by the Structural Engineer.

9.7.3 The structural slab should have a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. The structural slab should be supported by at least 3 feet of Engineered Fill except in areas where slab subgrade is deeper than 10 feet below existing grade.

9.7.4 Any undocumented and uncompacted fills encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with engineered fill.

9.7.5 Slab subgrade and Engineer Fill should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and re-compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D 1557 Test Method.

9.7.6 The total settlement due to foundation loads (static) is not expected to exceed 1 inch.

Differential settlement due to static loads should be less than ½ inch over 30 feet. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 19 -

9.7.7 The seismic-induced total settlements are expected to be on the order of 2.34 to 3.87 inches.

The seismic-induced differential settlement is estimated to be one half of the total settlements.

It is further recommended that flexible utility connectors be used for this project.

9.7.8 Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.35 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an equivalent fluid passive pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical slab faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

9.8 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance

9.8.1 Active, at-rest and passive unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are summarized in the table below:

Lateral Pressure Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf Active Pressure, Drained 40
At-Rest Pressure, Drained 60
Passive Pressure 350
Traffic Surcharge ( resultant at mid-highest)* 0.64Q/(m2+1) Related Parameters
Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.40
In-Place Soil Density (lbs/ft3) 120
*Q = line load from traffic, m=x/h where x= horizontal distance between wall and traffic, h=wall height.

9.8.2 Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At-rest pressure applies to walls, which are restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure.

9.8.3 The top one-foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation.

9.8.4 A safety factor consistent with the design conditions should be included in their usage.

9.8.5 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted solely by the passive pressure, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.5.

9.8.6 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted by the combined passive and frictional resistance, a minimum safety factor of 2.0 is recommended.

9.8.7 For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.1.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 20 -

9.8.8 For dynamic seismic lateral loading the following equation shall be used:

Dynamic Seismic Lateral Loading Equation
Dynamic Seismic Lateral Load = ⅜γKhH
2 Where: γ = In-Place Soil Density
Kh = Horizontal Acceleration = ⅔PGAM
H = Wall Height

9.9 Retaining Walls

9.9.1 Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased in freedraining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum width of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper 12 inches of backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic-concrete or other suitable backfill to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The gravel should conform to Class II permeable materials graded in accordance with the current CalTrans Standard Specifications.

9.9.2 Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain®, Enkadrain®, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation.

9.9.3 Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent floor slab or pavements. The pipe should be placed in the center line of the drainage blanket and should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches.

Slots should be no wider than 1/8-inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than ¼-inch in diameter.

9.9.4 If retaining walls are less than 5 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 2-inch minimum diameter holes (concrete walls) or unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 inches above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8-inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affixed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping.

9.9.5 During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures.

Within this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact the backfill soils.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 21 -

9.10 Temporary Excavations

9.10.1 We anticipate that the majority of the sandy site soils will be classified as Cal-OSHA “Type C” soil when encountered in excavations during site development and construction. Excavation sloping, benching, the use of trench shields, and the placement of trench spoils should conform to the latest applicable Cal-OSHA standards. The contractor should have a Cal-OSHA-approved “competent person” onsite during excavation to evaluate trench conditions and make appropriate recommendations where necessary.

9.10.2 It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide sufficient and safe excavation support as well as protecting nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements which may be damaged by earth movements. All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load.

9.10.3 Temporary excavations and slope faces should be protected from rainfall and erosion. Surface runoff should be directed away from excavations and slopes.

9.10.4 Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the slopes presented in the following table:

RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION SLOPES
Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope (Horizontal : Vertical)
0-5 1:1
5-10 2:1
10-15 4:1

9.10.5 If, due to space limitation, excavations near property lines or existing structures are performed in a vertical position, slot cuts, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation. A Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a shoring system during construction.

9.10.6 Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 26H, (where H is the depth of the excavation in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight, should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic should concurrently be limited to an area at least 3 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope.

9.10.7 The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from the borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to Project No. 3-220-0499 - 22 -
provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor’s regulations.

9.11 Temporary Soldier Pile Shoring System

9.11.1 The maximum cut required for construction of the underground parking garage and basement is estimated to be approximately 15 to 20 feet below exiting grade. Temporary excavations can be achieved using a soldier-pile and lagging system.

9.11.2 For design of a Soldier Pile Shoring System, it’s recommended a uniform distribution of 26H be used for temporary shoring design of a restrained system (tieback or rakers). Passive pressure for temporary shorings soldier beam may be doubled (i.e. effective pile width = 2 times the pile diameter) for isolated pile condition. Pile size should be determined by the structural engineer.

9.11.3 Additional horizontal pressures from surface load should be considered. Surcharge load can be computed as 0.64Q/(m2+1) where Q = line load from traffic, structures, or heavy materials, m=x/h where x= horizontal distance between shoring wall and line load, h=wall height. The resultant load is located at mid height of the wall.

9.11.4 The minimum depth of pile embedment should be 12 feet below bottom of footing or 1.4H for cantilever beams. The minimum depth of embedment should be 8 feet below bottom of footing or 0.5H for braced beams.

9.11.5 For tieback anchors, soil active wedge angle should be 35 degrees from the wall. Tieback anchor insertion angle should be a minimum of 15° from horizontal. The most common angle is between 15 to 30°. An angle steeper than 30° may be used if the ends of the anchors need to be deep to avoid encroachment of existing structures. The minimum bond length for tieback should equal to [Tendon Force / (Circumference x Shear Strength of Grout)] or 10 feet. An ultimate bond strength of post-grout (high pressure) of 1,500 psf may be used for the tieback design. The minimum overburden for the anchors should be 15 feet. Pressure grouting will be required if fissures are encountered. All anchors should be tested to 150% of the design load. At least 10% of the anchors should be tested to 200% of the design load for 30 minutes and some quantity, usually 4 anchors, should be tested for 200% of the design load for 24 hours.

9.11.6 The maximum design pressure for lagging is 65L psf, where L is the lagging clear span. Due to the property line constraints, the drainage system to be installed behind the basement wall may consist of a 6-inch wide and 24-inch high gravel pocket (equivalent to one cubic foot per foot) wrapped with filter fabric or a drainage board (e.g. Miradrain or Terradrain).

9.11.7 All void space behind lagging and shoring should be completely filled with sand/cement slurry.

Care should be exercised when excavating into the on-site soils since potential of caving or sloughing of these materials is moderately high. Shoring of excavation is the responsibility of contractor.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 23 -

9.12 Underground Utilities

9.12.1 Underground utility trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material. The material excavated from the trenches should be adequate for use as backfill provided it does not contain deleterious matter, vegetation or rock larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.

Trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction at or above optimum moisture content.

9.12.2 Bedding and pipe zone backfill typically extends from the bottom of the trench excavations to approximately 6 to 12 inches above the crown of the pipe. Pipe bedding and backfill material should conform to the requirements of the governing utility agency.

9.12.3 It is suggested that underground utilities crossing beneath new or existing structures be plugged at entry and exit locations to the building or structure to prevent water migration. Trench plugs can consist of on-site clay soils, if available, or sand cement slurry. The trench plugs should extend 2 feet beyond each side of individual perimeter foundations.

9.12.4 The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.

9.13 Surface Drainage

9.13.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change to important engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.

9.13.2 The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet.

9.13.3 Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the buildings foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project.

Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed.

9.13.4 Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out-falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimum of 5 feet away from the structures or be connected to the storm drain system for the development.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 24 -

9.14 Pavement Design

9.14.1 Based on site soil conditions, an R-value of 25 was used for preliminary flexible asphaltic concrete pavement design. The R-value may be verified during grading of the pavement areas.

9.14.2 The pavement design recommendations provided herein are based on the State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) design manual. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices.

TABLE 9.14.2

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
Traffic Index Asphaltic
Concrete
Crushed
Aggregate Base*
Compacted
Subgrade*

5.0 (Parking & Vehicle Drive Areas) 4.0" 4.0" 12.0"

6.0 (Heavy Truck Areas) 4.0" 7.0" 12.0"
*95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

9.14.3 The following recommendations are for light-duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.

TABLE 9.14.3

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
Traffic Index Portland Cement
Concrete*
Crushed
Aggregate Base**
Compacted
Subgrade**

5.0 (Light Duty) 5.0" 4.0" 12.0"

6.0 (Heavy Duty) 6.0" 6.0" 12.0"
* Minimum Compressive Strength of 4,000 psi; Minimum Reinforcement of #4 bars at 15" O.C., Each Way ** 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

10.1 Plan and Specification Review

10.1.1 SALEM should review the project plans and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.

10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services

10.2.1 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will continue as Geotechnical Engineer of Record throughout the construction phase. It is important to maintain continuity of geotechnical interpretation and confirm that field conditions encountered are similar to those anticipated during design. If we are not retained for these services, we cannot assume Project No. 3-220-0499 - 25 -
any responsibility for others interpretation of our recommendations, and therefore the future performance of the project.

10.2.2 SALEM should be present at the site during site preparation to observe site clearing, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.

10.2.3 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.

11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction is initiated. If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of such variations. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for the proposed construction.

If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the property or adjacent to the site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the conclusions and recommendations contained in our report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing. The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the on-site testing and review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the owner and project design consultants.

SALEM does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, that manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection be closely followed. Further, a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of concrete slabs and foundations in direct contact with native soil.

The importation of soil and or aggregate materials to the site should be screened to determine the potential for corrosion to concrete and buried metal piping. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.

Project No. 3-220-0499 - 26 -
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Jared Christiansen, EIT
Geotechnical Staff Engineer
Clarence Jiang, GE R. Sammy Salem, MS, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineer
RGE 2477 RCE 52762 / RGE 2549

VICINITY MAP

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Building
8825 Washington Boulevard
Pico Rivera, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO SCALE 07/2020
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-220-0499 1

SITE LOCATION
Source Image: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview
NN

SITE PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Mixed-Use Building
8825 Washington Boulevard
Pico Rivera, California
SCALE: DATE:

NOT TO SCALE 07/2020
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:

KV CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.
3-220-0499 2
LEGEND:

Soil Boring Locations
Percolation Locations
All Locations Approximate
B-1
P-1
N
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
P-1
P-2
P-3

Project No. 3-220-0499 A-1

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
Fieldwork for our investigation (drilling) was conducted on July 7 and 8, 2020 and included a site visit, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Boring logs for our exploration are presented in figures following the text in this appendix.

Borings were located in the field using existing reference points. Therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.

In general, our borings were performed using a truck-mounted CME 55 drill rig equipped with 6-inch solid flight augers. Sampling in the borings was accomplished using a hydraulic 140-pound hammer with a 30- inch drop. Samples were obtained with a 3-inch outside-diameter (OD), split spoon (California Modified) sampler, and a 2-inch OD, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches (or fraction thereof) of the 18-inch sampling interval were recorded on the boring logs. The blow counts shown on the boring logs should not be interpreted as standard SPT “N” values; corrections have not been applied. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.

Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). This system uses the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) for soil designations. The logs depict soil and geologic conditions encountered and depths at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, drill rig penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the field logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing. 0 5
10 15
20 25
165
160
155
150
145
140
3/6
3/6
3/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
6/6
9/6
13/6
5/6
8/6
11/6
8/6
14/6
15/6
8/6
15/6
16/6
AC
SM
ML
SP
SW
Asphalt Concrete w/Petromat = 4" *No Aggregate Base
Silty SAND
Loose; moist; light brown; fine
grain sand. Sandy SILT
Firm; very moist; dark brown; fine
grain sand; trace clay. Poorly graded SAND
Medium dense; damp; light brown;
fine to medium grain sand. Grades as above; slightly moist; olive brown. Grades as above. Well-graded SAND
Dense; moist; light brown; fine to
coarse grain sand; trace gravel.
6 7
22 19
29 31

3.0 22.4

1.3 3.5

3.3 1.9
103.8

90.3 99.2
-
-
-
Cu=2.50 Cc=1.23
Cu=3.00 Cc=1.33 Cu=6.00 Cc=1.31
Test Boring: B-1 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date: 07/07/2020
Client: Optimus Properties, Inc. Project: Proposed Mixed-Use Building Location: 8825 Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: EGR
Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 165' Auger Type: 6 in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/30 in Final Depth to Groundwater: N/A Notes:

Figure Number A-1

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
2 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
7/6
15/6
20/6
3/6
7/6
7/6
9/6
16/6
21/6
18/6
23/6
27/6
6/6
28/6
50/1
SM
CL
SM
Silty SAND
Dense; moist; light brown; fine to
coarse grain sand. Sandy CLAY
Stiff; moist; dark gray; fine grain
sand. Silty SAND
Dense; moist; dark brown; fine to
medium grain sand. Grades as above; very dense;
slightly moist; brown. Grades as above. End of boring at 51.5 feet BSG. 35 14
37 50
78/7"

3.5 30.2

8.8 2.2

4.9 -
-
-
-
-

Page 2 ends

Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date: 07/07/2020
Test Boring: B-1
Notes:

Figure Number A-1

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks 2
0 5
10 15
20 25
160
155
150
145
140
2/6
3/6
3/6
2/6
4/6
6/6
4/6
7/6
8/6
6/6
10/6
10/6
13/6
23/6
20/6
11/6
14/6
23/6
AC
AB
ML
SP
Asphalt Concrete w/Petromat = 4" Aggregate Base = 3 in. Sandy SILT Firm; moist; dark gray; fine grain
sand; trace clay. Grades as above; with clay. Poorly graded SAND Medium dense; slightly moist; light
brown; fine to medium grain sand. Grades as above. Grades as above; dense; damp; olive. Grades as above; slightly moist. End of boring at 26.5 feet BSG. 6 10
15 20
43 37

16.8 27.9

1.8 1.8

1.0 2.3

88.3 85.7
-
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-2 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date: 07/07/2020
Client: Optimus Properties, Inc. Project: Proposed Mixed-Use Building Location: 8825 Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: EGR
Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 164' Auger Type: 6 in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/30 in Final Depth to Groundwater: N/A Notes:

Figure Number A-2

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 160
155
150
145
140
135
3/6
4/6
8/6
3/6
5/6
6/6
4/6
7/6
7/6
4/6
6/6
10/6
5/6
13/6
22/6
8/6
13/6
15/6
AC
AB
SM
SP
Asphalt Concrete w/Petromat = 4" Aggregate Base = 3 in. Silty SAND Loose; moist; olive; fine to coarse
grain sand. Grades as above; with clay. Poorly graded SAND Medium dense; slightly moist; light
brown; fine to medium grain sand. Grades as above. Grades as above. Grades as above. End of boring at 26.5 feet BSG. 12 11
14 16
35 28

6.2 13.5

1.3 1.3

1.3 1.5
100.2

89.7 -
- 109.7
- Cu=2.86 Cc=1.40
Test Boring: B-3 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date: 07/07/2020
Client: Optimus Properties, Inc. Project: Proposed Mixed-Use Building Location: 8825 Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: EGR
Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 163' Auger Type: 6 in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/30 in Final Depth to Groundwater: N/A Notes:

Figure Number A-3

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 165
160
155
150
145
140
2/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
3/6
7/6
9/6
8/6
10/6
14/6
6/6
8/6
12/6
8/6
19/6
16/6
AC
AB
ML
SP
Asphalt Concrete w/Petromat = 4" Aggregate Base = 3 in. Sandy SILT Soft; moist; dark brown; fine grain
sand; with clay. Grades as above; firm; trace clay. Poorly graded SAND Medium dense; slightly moist; light
brown; fine to medium grain sand. Grades as above. Grades as above. Grades as above; dense. End of boring at 26.5 feet BSG. 4 7
16 24
20 35

25.5 17.6

1.7 2.0

1.9 2.1

79.8 93.4
- 94.6
-
-
Cu=2.33 Cc=0.76
Test Boring: B-4 Page 1 Of:

Figure Number A-4

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 160
155
150
145
140
135
2/6
3/6
4/6
2/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
6/6
8/6
4/6
8/6
10/6
6/6
9/6
9/6
7/6
11/6
9/6
AC
AB
ML
ML
SM
SW- SM
SM
Asphalt Concrete w/Petromat = 4" Aggregate Base = 3 in. SILT with Sand Firm; very moist; dark brown; fine
grain sand. SILT
Firm; wet; dark gray; fine grain
sand. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine to coarse grain sand. Well-graded SAND with Silt
Medium dense; slightly moist;
brown; fine to coarse grain sand. Grades as above. Silty SAND Medium dense; slightly moist; light
brown; fine to medium grain sand.
7 6
14 18
18 20

21.1 41.2

3.7 2.0

3.8 3.1

79.6 77.5
-
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-5 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date: 07/07/2020
Client: Optimus Properties, Inc. Project: Proposed Mixed-Use Building Location: 8825 Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: EGR
Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 162' Auger Type: 6 in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/30 in Final Depth to Groundwater: N/A Notes:

Figure Number A-5

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
2 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
6/6
13/6
18/6
4/6
5/6
7/6
8/6
14/6
20/6
14/6
23/6
23/6
27/6
50/1
-
Grades as above; dense. Grades as above; medium dense;
moist; brown. Grades as above; dense. Grades as above; light brown. Grades as above; very dense. End of boring at 51.5 feet BSG. 31 12
34 46
50/1"

3.9 6.0

9.9 3.5

4.0 -
-
-
-
-

Page 2 ends

Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date: 07/07/2020
Test Boring: B-5
Notes:

Figure Number A-5

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks 2
0 5
10 15
20 25
165
160
155
150
145
140
2/6
1/6
1/6
3/6
3/6
4/6
3/6
5/6
5/6
11/6
18/6
23/6
8/6
17/6
22/6
12/6
14/6
13/6
AC
AB
SM
SP-SM
Asphalt Concrete w/Petromat = 4" Aggregate Base = 3 in. Silty SAND Very loose; moist; light brown; fine
grain sand. Grades as above; loose; brown. Poorly graded SAND with Silt Loose; slightly moist; light brown;
fine to medium grain sand. Grades as above; dense. Grades as above; damp; with gravel. Grades as above; medium dense;
slightly moist. End of boring at 26.5 feet BSG.
2 7
10 41
39 27

8.0 12.4

1.7 1.5

1.0 2.2

89.8 90.7
- 99.1
-
-
Cu=3.00 Cc=0.93
Test Boring: B-6 Page 1 Of:

Figure Number A-6

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1 Granular Soils Cohesive Soils
Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected) Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected)

MCS SPT MCS SPT
Very loose <5 <4 Very soft <3 <2
Loose 5-15 4-10 Soft 3-5 2-4
Medium dense 16-40 11-30 Firm 6-10 5-8
Dense 41-65 31-50 Stiff 11-20 9-15
Very dense >65 >50 Very Stiff 21-40 16-30
Hard >40 >30
MCS = Modified California Sampler
SPT = Standard Penetration Test Sampler
Notes:

Symbol Description
Strata symbols
Asphaltic Concrete
Silty sand
Silt
Poorly graded sand
Well graded sand
Lean Clay
Aggregate Base
Well graded sand
with silt
Poorly graded sand
with silt
Misc. Symbols
Boring continues
Soil Samplers
California sampler
Symbol Description
Standard penetration test

KEY TO SYMBOLS
Percolation Test Worksheet
Project: Proposed Mixed-Use Building Job No.: Vol. in 1" Wtr Col. (in3 ): 28.3
8825 Washington Boulevard Date Drilled:

Pico Rivera, California Soil Classification: SAND (SP) Hole Dia.: 6 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-1 Presoaking Date:

Tested by: EGR Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 14.5 ft. Pipe stickup: 0.5 ft
Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test
Hole (ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level
(in.) Δ Min.

Volume of
Water
Discharged
(in^3)
Test Area
(sidewalls
& bottom)
(in^2)
Measured
Perc Rate
(in/hr)
8:00 8:10 15.0 Y 0:10 14.00 14.98 11.76 10 332.51 143.6 13.89 8:10 8:11 15.0 N 0:01 14.98 drained 1
8:12 8:22 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.85 22.20 10 627.69 271.4 13.88 8:23 8:33 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.80 21.60 10 610.73 277.1 13.22 8:34 8:44 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.75 21.00 10 593.76 282.7 12.60 8:45 8:55 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.75 21.00 10 593.76 282.7 12.60 8:56 9:06 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.70 20.40 10 576.80 288.4 12.00 9:07 9:17 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.70 20.40 10 576.80 288.4 12.00 9:18 9:28 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.70 20.40 10 576.80 288.4 12.00 9:29 9:39 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.70 20.40 10 576.80 288.4 12.00 Recommended for Design: Percolation Rate* 576.80 12.00
* Average of last 3 readings
7/7/2020
7/7/2020
7/8/2020
3-220-0499
water reamined in the hole after 10 minutes but drained before 30 minutes, the time interval between readings is 10 minutes Percolation Test Worksheet
Project: Proposed Mixed-Use Building Job No.: Vol. in 1" Wtr Col. (in3 ): 28.3
8825 Washington Boulevard Date Drilled:

Pico Rivera, California Soil Classification: SAND with Silt (SW-SM) Hole Dia.: 6 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-2 Presoaking Date:

Tested by: EGR Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 14.4 ft. Pipe stickup: 0.3 ft
Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test
Hole (ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level
(in.) Δ Min.

Volume of
Water
Discharged
(in^3)
Test Area
(sidewalls
& bottom)
(in^2)
Measured
Perc Rate
(in/hr)
9:45 9:55 14.7 Y 0:10 13.70 14.65 11.40 10 322.33 147.0 13.15 9:55 9:58 14.7 N 0:03 14.65 drained 3
10:00 10:10 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.50 18.00 10 508.94 243.2 12.56 10:11 10:21 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.45 17.40 10 491.97 248.8 11.86 10:22 10:32 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.45 17.40 10 491.97 248.8 11.86 10:33 10:43 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.40 16.80 10 475.01 254.5 11.20 10:44 10:54 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.40 16.80 10 475.01 254.5 11.20 10:55 11:05 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.40 16.80 10 475.01 254.5 11.20 11:06 11:16 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.40 16.80 10 475.01 254.5 11.20 11:17 11:27 14.7 Y 0:10 13.00 14.40 16.80 10 475.01 254.5 11.20 Recommended for Design: Percolation Rate* 480.66 11.20
* Average of last 3 readings
7/7/2020
7/7/2020
7/8/2020
3-220-0499
water reamined in the hole after 10 minutes but drained before 30 minutes, the time interval between readings is 10 minutes Percolation Test Worksheet
Project: Proposed Mixed-Use Building Job No.: Vol. in 1" Wtr Col. (in3 ): 28.3
8825 Washington Boulevard Date Drilled:

Pico Rivera, California Soil Classification: SAND (SP) Hole Dia.: 6 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-2 Presoaking Date:

Tested by: EGR Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 14.4 ft. Pipe stickup: 0.6 ft
Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test
Hole (ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level
(in.) Δ Min.

Volume of
Water
Discharged
(in^3)
Test Area
(sidewalls
& bottom)
(in^2)
Measured
Perc Rate
(in/hr)
11:35 11:45 15.0 Y 0:10 14.00 14.95 11.40 10 322.33 147.0 13.15 11:45 11:47 15.0 N 0:02 14.95 drained 2
11:48 11:58 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.80 21.60 10 610.73 277.1 13.22 11:59 12:09 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.75 21.00 10 593.76 282.7 12.60 12:10 12:20 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.70 20.40 10 576.80 288.4 12.00 12:21 12:31 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.70 20.40 10 576.80 288.4 12.00 12:32 12:42 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.65 19.80 10 559.83 294.1 11.42 12:43 12:53 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.65 19.80 10 559.83 294.1 11.42 12:54 13:04 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.65 19.80 10 559.83 294.1 11.42 13:05 13:15 15.0 Y 0:10 13.00 14.65 19.80 10 559.83 294.1 11.42 Recommended for Design: Percolation Rate* 571.14 11.81
* Average of last 3 readings
3-220-0499
7/7/2020
7/7/2020
7/8/2020
water reamined in the hole after 10 minutes but drained before 30 minutes, the time interval between readings is 10 minutes

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
In-situ data type:

Analysis type:

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Standard Penetration Test
Deterministic
NCEER 1998
Idriss & Seed
Depth to water table:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground accelaration:

User defined F.S.:

15.00 ft

7.90 0.87 g

1.30 Project title : 3-220-0499
Project subtitle : B-1
Salem Engineering Group, Inc.
8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 980-6455
N1(60)cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSR*

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 5
1 2 3 4
8 Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve
No Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Shear stress ratio

CSR CRR
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
SPT data graph
Field SPT N1(60)
N1(60)cs
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Factor of safety
F.S. F.S.=1
0 1 2 3 4 5

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Settlements (in)
Total Point

0.34 0.84 1.34 1.84 2.34

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 1 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Field input data ::

Point ID Field NSPT
(blows/feet)
Depth
(ft)
Unit weight
(pcf)
Fines content
(%)
1 2.00 4.00 110.00 40.00
2 5.00 4.00 110.00 65.00
3 10.00 14.00 110.00 2.00
4 15.00 19.00 110.00 4.00
5 20.00 29.00 110.00 4.00
6 25.00 31.00 110.00 4.00
7 30.00 35.00 110.00 15.00
8 35.00 14.00 110.00 70.00
9 40.00 37.00 110.00 20.00
10 45.00 50.00 110.00 15.00
11 50.00 78.00 110.00 13.00
Depth :

Field SPT :

Unit weight :

Fines content :

Depth from free surface, at which SPT was performed (ft) SPT blows measured at field (blows/feet)
Bulk unit weight of soil at test depth (pcf)
Percentage of fines in soil (%)
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Point ID Sigma
(tsf)
Depth
(ft)
u
(tsf)
Sigma'
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
1 2.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.56 0.88 0.64 1.00 0.64
2 5.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.99 0.56 0.88 0.64 1.00 0.64
3 10.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.98 0.55 0.88 0.63 1.00 0.63
4 15.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.97 0.55 0.88 0.62 1.00 0.62
5 20.00 1.10 0.16 0.94 0.95 0.63 0.88 0.72 1.00 0.72
6 25.00 1.38 0.31 1.06 0.94 0.69 0.88 0.79 1.00 0.79
7 30.00 1.65 0.47 1.18 0.93 0.73 0.88 0.84 0.98 0.86
8 35.00 1.93 0.62 1.30 0.89 0.75 0.88 0.85 0.96 0.89
9 40.00 2.20 0.78 1.42 0.85 0.74 0.88 0.85 0.94 0.90
10 45.00 2.48 0.94 1.54 0.81 0.74 0.88 0.84 0.93 0.91
11 50.00 2.75 1.09 1.66 0.77 0.72 0.88 0.82 0.91 0.90
Depth :

Sigma :
u :

Sigma' :
rd :

CSR :

MSF :

CSReq,M=7.5
Ksigma
CSR*
Depth from free surface, at which SPT was performed (ft) Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio calculation CRR7.5 ::

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 1 4.00 1.70 0.86 1.00 0.75 1.20 5.27 6.05 11.32 0.12
2 4.00 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.20 5.89 6.18 12.07 0.13
3 14.00 1.38 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.20 19.12 0.00 19.12 0.21
4 19.00 1.13 1.04 1.00 0.95 1.20 25.37 0.00 25.37 0.29
5 29.00 1.05 1.11 1.00 0.95 1.20 38.61 0.00 38.61 2.00
6 31.00 0.99 1.18 1.00 0.95 1.20 41.32 0.00 41.32 2.00
7 35.00 0.94 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.20 49.31 4.87 54.18 2.00
8 14.00 0.90 1.32 1.00 1.00 1.20 19.84 8.97 28.81 0.38
9 37.00 0.86 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 50.78 7.65 58.42 2.00
10 50.00 0.82 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 65.91 5.67 71.58 2.00 11 78.00 0.79 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 99.06 5.54 104.61 2.00 LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 2 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio calculation CRR7.5 ::

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 Cn :

Ce :

Cb :

Cr
:

Cs :

N1(60) :

DeltaN :

N1(60)cs :

CRR7.5) :

Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT
Addition to corrected NSPT value due to the presence of fines Corected N1(60) value for fines
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
:: Settlements calculation for saturated sands ::

Point ID N N1(60) 1 FSL ev
(%)
Settle.
(in)
1 11.32 9.44 0.15 3.63 0.00
2 12.07 10.06 0.16 3.49 0.00
3 19.12 15.94 0.25 2.59 0.00
4 25.37 21.14 0.36 2.05 1.23
5 38.61 32.18 2.14 0.00 0.00
6 41.32 34.44 1.95 0.00 0.00
7 54.18 45.15 1.79 0.01 0.01
8 28.81 24.01 0.32 1.79 1.07
9 58.42 48.69 1.70 0.02 0.01
10 71.58 59.65 1.69 0.02 0.01
11 104.61 87.17 1.70 0.02 0.01
Total settlement : 2.34
N1,(60):

N1:

FSL:
ev:

Settle.:

Stress normalized and corrected SPT blow count
Japanese equivalent corrected value
Calculated factor of safety
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain (%)
Calculated settlement (in)
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::

Point ID w FI z L
1 0.85 9.70 5.04
2 0.84 9.24 7.11
3 0.75 8.48 9.65
4 0.64 7.71 7.53
5 0.00 6.95 0.00
6 0.00 6.19 0.00
7 0.00 5.43 0.00
8 0.68 4.67 4.80
9 0.00 3.90 0.00
10 0.00 3.14 0.00
11 0.00 2.38 0.00
Overall potential IL : 34.12
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 3

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
In-situ data type:

Analysis type:

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Standard Penetration Test
Deterministic
NCEER 1998
Idriss & Seed
Depth to water table:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground accelaration:

User defined F.S.:

15.00 ft

7.90 0.87 g

1.30 Project title : 3-220-0499
Project subtitle : B-5
Salem Engineering Group, Inc.
8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 980-6455
N1(60)cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSR*

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 6
1 2
8 3
4 5
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve
No Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Shear stress ratio

CSR CRR
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
SPT data graph
Field SPT N1(60)
N1(60)cs
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Factor of safety
F.S. F.S.=1
0 1 2 3 4 5

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Settlements (in)
Total Point

0.87 1.87 2.87 3.87

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 1 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Field input data ::

Point ID Field NSPT
(blows/feet)
Depth
(ft)
Unit weight
(pcf)
Fines content
(%)
1 2.00 4.00 100.00 78.00
2 5.00 4.00 110.00 70.00
3 10.00 14.00 100.00 20.00
4 15.00 18.00 100.00 5.00
5 20.00 18.00 100.00 5.00
6 25.00 20.00 100.00 20.00
7 30.00 31.00 100.00 20.00
8 35.00 12.00 100.00 20.00
9 40.00 34.00 100.00 20.00
10 45.00 46.00 100.00 20.00
11 50.00 50.00 100.00 20.00
Depth :

Field SPT :

Unit weight :

Fines content :

Point ID Sigma
(tsf)
Depth
(ft)
u
(tsf)
Sigma'
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
1 2.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.56 0.88 0.64 1.00 0.64
2 5.00 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.99 0.56 0.88 0.64 1.00 0.64
3 10.00 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.98 0.55 0.88 0.63 1.00 0.63
4 15.00 0.77 0.00 0.77 0.97 0.55 0.88 0.62 1.00 0.62
5 20.00 1.02 0.16 0.86 0.95 0.64 0.88 0.73 1.00 0.73
6 25.00 1.27 0.31 0.95 0.94 0.71 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.81
7 30.00 1.52 0.47 1.05 0.93 0.76 0.88 0.87 1.00 0.87
8 35.00 1.77 0.62 1.14 0.89 0.78 0.88 0.89 0.98 0.91
9 40.00 2.02 0.78 1.23 0.85 0.78 0.88 0.90 0.97 0.93
10 45.00 2.27 0.94 1.33 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.89 0.95 0.94
11 50.00 2.52 1.09 1.42 0.77 0.77 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.93
Depth :

Sigma :
u :

Sigma' :
rd :

CSR :

MSF :

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 1 4.00 1.70 0.86 1.00 0.75 1.20 5.27 6.05 11.32 0.12
2 4.00 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.20 5.89 6.18 12.07 0.13
3 14.00 1.42 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.20 19.76 5.18 24.95 0.28
4 18.00 1.17 1.04 1.00 0.95 1.20 24.96 0.00 24.96 0.28
5 18.00 1.10 1.11 1.00 0.95 1.20 25.12 0.00 25.12 0.29
6 20.00 1.05 1.18 1.00 0.95 1.20 28.16 5.85 34.01 2.00
7 31.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.20 46.41 7.30 53.71 2.00
8 12.00 0.96 1.32 1.00 1.00 1.20 18.16 5.06 23.22 0.26
9 34.00 0.92 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 50.03 7.59 57.62 2.00
10 46.00 0.89 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 65.26 8.80 74.05 2.00 11 50.00 0.86 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 68.55 9.06 77.61 2.00 LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 2 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio calculation CRR7.5 ::

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 Cn :

Ce :

Cb :

Cr
:

Cs :

N1(60) :

DeltaN :

N1(60)cs :

CRR7.5) :

Point ID N N1(60) 1 FSL ev
(%)
Settle.
(in)
1 11.32 9.44 0.15 3.63 0.00
2 12.07 10.06 0.16 3.49 0.00
3 24.95 20.79 0.35 2.08 0.00
4 24.96 20.80 0.35 2.08 1.25
5 25.12 20.94 0.30 2.07 1.24
6 34.01 28.34 1.90 0.01 0.00
7 53.71 44.76 1.77 0.01 0.01
8 23.22 19.35 0.22 2.22 1.33
9 57.62 48.02 1.66 0.02 0.01
10 74.05 61.71 1.65 0.02 0.01
11 77.61 64.67 1.65 0.02 0.01
Total settlement : 3.87
N1,(60):

N1:

FSL:
ev:

Settle.:

Point ID w FI z L
1 0.85 9.70 5.04
2 0.84 9.24 7.11
3 0.65 8.48 8.44
4 0.65 7.71 7.63
5 0.70 6.95 7.38
6 0.00 6.19 0.00
7 0.00 5.43 0.00
8 0.78 4.67 5.55
9 0.00 3.90 0.00
10 0.00 3.14 0.00
11 0.00 2.38 0.00
Overall potential IL : 41.15
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 3

Project No. 3-220-0499 B-1

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Caltrans, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for in-situ dry density and moisture content, corrosivity, consolidation, shear strength, maximum density and optimum moisture content, and grain size distribution. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in the following figures.

CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
0 2
4 6
8 10

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED

CONSOLIDATION

REBOUND

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-1 @ 5'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:

Dry Density:

22.4%

90.3 pcf
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499

CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
0 2
4 6
8 10

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED

CONSOLIDATION

REBOUND

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-3 @ 20'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:

Dry Density:

1.3%
109.7 pcf
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499

COLLAPSE

CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
0 2
4 6
8 10

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED

CONSOLIDATION

REBOUND

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-6 @ 15'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:

Dry Density:

1.5%

99.1 pcf
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number:

Client:

Sample Location:

Sample Type:

Soil Classification:

Tested By:

Reviewed By:

Date:

Equipment Used:

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.000 2.000 3.000
Shear Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.865 1.560 2.316
Residual Shear Stress (ksf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height of Sample before Shear (in.) 1 1 1
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.416 2.416 2.416
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%) 32.4 24.5 23.9
Dry Density (pcf) 91.1 94.2 94.4
Slope 0.73
Friction Angle 36.0
Cohesion (psf) 129
--
--
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
3-220-0499
Optimus Properties, Inc.

B-1 @ 10'
Undisturbed Ring
Poorly graded SAND (SP)
M. Noorzay
CJ
7/20/2020

1.3 Peak Shear Strength Values
Geomatic Direct Shear Machine

0.004

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress

36.0 °
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Shear Stress psi)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1 ksf 2 ksf 3 ksf
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number:

Client:

Sample Location:

Sample Type:

Soil Classification:

Tested By:

Reviewed By:

Date:

Equipment Used:

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.000 2.000 3.000
Shear Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.741 1.584 2.100
Residual Shear Stress (ksf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height of Sample before Shear (in.) 1 1 1
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.416 2.416 2.416
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%) 26.0 24.8 25.0
Dry Density (pcf) 93.3 93.2 94.1
Slope 0.68
Friction Angle 34.2
Cohesion (psf) 116
--
--
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
3-220-0499
Optimus Properties, Inc.

B-4 @ 15'
Undisturbed Ring
Poorly graded SAND (SP)
M. Noorzay
CJ
7/23/2020

2.0 Peak Shear Strength Values
Geomatic Direct Shear Machine

0.004

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress

34.2 °
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Shear Stress psi)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1 ksf 2 ksf 3 ksf
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number:

Client:

Sample Location:

Sample Type:

Soil Classification:

Tested By:

Reviewed By:

Date:

Equipment Used:

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.000 2.000 3.000
Shear Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.774 1.332 1.920
Residual Shear Stress (ksf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height of Sample before Shear (in.) 1 1 1
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.416 2.416 2.416
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%) 36.1 35.7 36.5
Dry Density (pcf) 80.3 80.5 79.3
Slope 0.57
Friction Angle 29.8
Cohesion (psf) 196
--
--
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
3-220-0499
Optimus Properties, Inc.

B-5 @ 2'
Undisturbed Ring
SILT with Sand (ML)
M. Noorzay
CJ
7/21/2020

20.3 Peak Shear Strength Values
Geomatic Direct Shear Machine

0.004

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress

29.8 °
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Shear Stress psi)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1 ksf 2 ksf 3 ksf
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60=D50=
D30=D15=D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
0% 35% 65%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
#16 99.7%
#30 98.8%
#50 93.5%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-1 @ 5'
#100 77.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 64.6% Sandy SILT (ML)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60= 0.5 D50=
D30= 0.35 D15=D10= 0.2
Cu= 2.50 Cc= 1.23
1% 97% 2%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 97.7%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 99.5% Coefficients
#4 99.2%
#16 92.6%
#30 71.2%
#50 24.8%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-1 @ 10'
#100 4.8% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 2.2% Poorly graded SAND (SP)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60= 0.6 D50=
D30= 0.4 D15=D10= 0.2
Cu= 3.00 Cc= 1.33
0% 96% 4%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 99.5%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.9%
#16 94.7%
#30 62.1%
#50 17.9%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-1 @ 20'
#100 6.4% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 3.6% Poorly graded SAND (SP)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60= 1.5 D50=
D30= 0.7 D15=D10= 0.25
Cu= 6.00 Cc= 1.31
8% 88% 4%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 76.8%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 98.2%
3/8 inch 97.6% Coefficients
#4 91.6%
#16 51.1%
#30 26.4%
#50 12.4%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-1 @ 25'
#100 6.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 4.0% Well-graded SAND (SW)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60=D50=
D30=D15=D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
1% 80% 20%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 98.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 99.2% Coefficients
#4 99.1%
#16 96.2%
#30 91.7%
#50 74.5%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-1 @ 40'
#100 38.2% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 19.5% Silty SAND (SM)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60=D50=
D30=D15=D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
5% 81% 13%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 92.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 96.0%
3/8 inch 96.0% Coefficients
#4 94.5%
#16 89.4%
#30 81.3%
#50 63.5%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-1 @ 50'
#100 27.0% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 13.2% Silty SAND (SM)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60= 0.5 D50=
D30= 0.35 D15=D10= 0.175
Cu= 2.86 Cc= 1.40
0% 95% 5%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 99.8%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
#16 98.9%
#30 74.6%
#50 20.7%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-3 @ 20'
#100 8.3% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 4.7% Poorly graded SAND (SP)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60= 0.35 D50=
D30= 0.2 D15=D10= 0.15
Cu= 2.33 Cc= 0.76
0% 96% 4%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
#16 99.9%
#30 97.5%
#50 53.3%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-4 @ 15'
#100 12.1% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 4.2% Poorly graded SAND (SP)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60=D50=
D30=D15=D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
0% 22% 78%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
#16 99.9%
#30 99.6%
#50 98.8%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-5 @ 2'
#100 95.2% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 77.8% SILT with Sand (ML)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85=D60= 0.45 D50=
D30= 0.25 D15=D10= 0.15
Cu= 3.00 Cc= 0.93
1% 93% 6%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
#8 98.2%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.2%
#16 94.3%
#30 76.6%
#50 37.5%
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Boring: B-6 @ 15'
#100 12.9% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 6.2% Poorly graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date Sampled: 7/7/2020 - 7/8/2020 Date Tested: 7/22/2020 Sampled By: EGR Tested By: MN
Soil Description: Light Brown Silty SAND (SM)
<50 mg/kg 24 mg/kg
<50 mg/kg 24 mg/kg
<50 mg/kg 24 mg/kg
<50 mg/kg 24 mg/kg
SO4 - Modified CTM 417 & Cl - Modified CTM 417/422

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
1a.

Sample
Number
Sample
Location
Soluble Sulfate
SO4-S
Soluble Chloride
Cl pH

8.0 8.0
B-1 @ 1'-4'

8.0 Average: 8.0
1b.
1c.

B-1 @ 1'-4'
B-1 @ 1'-4'
Laboratory Compaction Curve
ASTM D1557
Project Name: Proposed Mixed-Use Building - Pico Rivera, CA Project Number: 3-220-0499
Date Sampled: 7/7/2020 - 7/8/2020 Date Tested: 7/23/2020 Sampled By: EGR Tested By: MN
Test Method: Method A
1234
Weight of Moist Specimen & Mold, (g) 3928.7 4026.9 4059.9 3973.2 Weight of Compaction Mold, (g) 2013.7 2013.7 2013.7 2013.7 Weight of Moist Specimen, (g) 1915.0 2013.2 2046.2 1959.5 Volume of Mold, (ft
3 ) 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333
Wet Density, (pcf) 126.7 133.1 135.3 129.6
Weight of Wet (Moisture) Sample, (g) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Weight of Dry (Moisture) Sample, (g) 94.9 92.4 89.6 87.6 Moisture Content, (%) 5.4% 8.2% 11.6% 14.2%
Dry Density, (pcf) 120.2 123.0 121.3 113.5
Soil Description: Light Brown Silty SAND (SM)
Sample Location: B-1 @ 1'-4'
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture Content, % of Dry Weight
Maximum Dry Density: pcf
Optimum Moisture Content: %
123.5

9.5 Project No. 3-220-0499 C-1

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence.

1.0 SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.

2.0 PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of SALEM Engineering Group, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect.

No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.

The Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers.

3.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to no less that 95 percent of relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils) based on ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition), UBC or CAL-216, or as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be determined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer.

4.0 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.

Project No. 3-220-0499 C-2

5.0 DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill.

6.0 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site.

Tree root systems in proposed improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree root excavations is not permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.

7.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill and/or building or slab loads shall be prepared as outlined above, scarified to a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils).

Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture-conditioned as necessary and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils). All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any fill material.

8.0 EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements.

9.0 FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer.

10.0 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. Compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance.

Project No. 3-220-0499 C-3

11.0 SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified.

12.0 DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term “Standard Specifications”: hereinafter referred to, is the most recent edition of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition) or California Test Method 216 (CAL216), as applicable.

13.0 PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans.

The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% (90% for fine grained cohesive soil) based upon ASTM D1557. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.

14.0 AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class II material, ¾-inch or 1½-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon CAL-216. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.

15.0 AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class II Subbase material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon CAL-216, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with the Standard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.

16.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans.

The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be PG 64-10, unless otherwise stipulated or local conditions warrant more stringent grade. The mineral aggregate shall be Type A or B, ½ inch maximum size, medium grading, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel-wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in the Standard Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved selfpropelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
Appendix D Noise and Vibration Analysis

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Appendix
July 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

OPL-01.0
Traffic Noise Calculations
Roadway Segment
Existing No Project
Existing Plus Project
Future No Project
Future Plus Project
Project
Noise Increase
Cumulative Increase
Paramount Boulevard north of Washington Boulevard 1,975 1,988 2,085 2,098 0.0 0.3 Paramount Boulevard south of Washington Boulevard 2,233 2,246 2,330 2,343 0.0 0.2 Washington Boulevard east of Paramount Boulevard 3,022 3,081 3,138 3,197 0.1 0.2 Washington Boulevard west of Paramount Boulevard 3,414 3,447 3,545 3,578 0.0 0.2 Crossway Drive north of Washington Boulevard 294 294 301 301 0.0 0.1 Crossway Drive south of Washington Boulevard 550 550 566 566 0.0 0.1 Washington Boulevard east of Crossway Drive 2,818 2,877 2,927 2,986 0.1 0.3 Washington Boulevard west of Crossway Drive 2,730 2,789 2,836 2,895 0.1 0.3 Rosemeand Boulevard north of Coffman and Pico Road 2,464 2,484 2,576 2,596 0.0 0.2 Rosemeand Boulevard south of Coffman and Pico Road 2,418 2,438 2,528 2,548 0.0 0.2 Coffman and Pico Road east of Rosemeand Boulevard 49 49 50 50 0.0 0.1Coffman and Pico Road west of Rosemeand Boulevard 125 125 130 130 0.0 0.2 Rosemead Boulevard north of Washington Boulevard 2,226 2,251 2,330 2,355 0.0 0.2Rosemead Boulevard south of Washington Boulevard 2,192 2,212 2,299 2,319 0.0 0.2Washington Boulevard east of Rosemeand Boulevard 2,526 2,559 2,622 2,655 0.1 0.2Washington Boulevard west of Rosemeand Boulevard 2,556 2,592 2,657 2,693 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.3
PM Peak hour volumes dBA Increae

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
Appendix E Service Provider Letters and
Responses

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
Appendix
July 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use MND
Police Services Questionnaire – Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD)

Page 1 of 2 ends

1. Please provide the information requested below regarding staffing for the police services for the Project Site, as well as any other station(s) not noted but pertinent.

Station Location Daily Staffing Total Staffing Equipment Pico Rivera
Sheriff’s
Station
6631 Passons
Blvd, Pico
Rivera, CA
90660
Varies by shift 4-7
units
# patrol cars
#motorcycles
Varies per shift 4-
7 cars. 1-3
motorcycles
Other stations
or smaller
office
facilities? (if
relevant)

2. What is LASD response time goal/policy standard (in minutes) for responding to emergency and non-emergency calls in the service area?
Routine calls: 60 minutes
Priority calls: 20 minutes
Emergent calls: 10 minutes

3. What is LASD’s current average response time (in minutes) for emergency and nonemergency calls? Routine calls: 34.5 minutes
Priority calls: 9.3 minutes
Emergent calls: 3.6 minutes

4. Are there any existing deficiencies (personnel, equipment, facilities) in the police protection service currently provided to the City?
Not at this time

5. Any plans for new Sheriff’s stations near the project site? No

6. Given the existing level of resources (stations, equipment, personnel), does LASD anticipate that it will have adequate resources to meet the additional demands that would be generated by the Proposed Project?
None projected at this time.

If not, please summarize any additional resources that would be needed.

Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use MND
Police Services Questionnaire – Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD)

Page 2 of 2 ends

7. What impact (if any) other than increased service calls will the Proposed Project have on LASD’s ability to provide police protection service to the Project Area? Additional traffic potentially yielding an increase in the need for traffic enforcement.

8. What are the primary sources of funding for LASD operations and improvements? Contracted through the city of Pico Rivera
Will the proposed project be responsible for any police impact fees? If yes, who collects the fees? (e.g., City of Pico Rivera as part of other development fees or LASD?) Any fees would be coordinated with the management of the city of Pico Rivera

9. Does the LASD have any design guidelines or programs pertaining to reducing and/or preventing crimes through environmental design? If yes, please provide the guidelines and/or program procedure.

Security measures such as security gates, cameras, alarms and the like are suggested as deterrents to criminal activity.

10. Please provide any additional comments you wish to make regarding the Proposed Project.

Response Prepared By:

Jodi Hutak Acting Captain
Name Title
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – Pico Rivera Station August 26, 2021 Agency Date
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use MND
Parks Questionnaire – City of Pico Rivera

Page 1 of 2 ends

1. Please identify the nearest existing parks and recreation facilities in the project vicinity.

Any planned expansion of existing parks or development of new parks? Park Location Facilities/Resources
Amigo Park -
County Park
5700 Juarez Ave, Whittier, CA
90606
Equipped with softball fields, children play area,
multipurpose field, picnic area, and walking and biking trails
Sorensen Park –
County Park
11419 Rose Hedge Dr, Whittier,
CA 90606
Baseball and softball fields, play structures, basketball courts, and green space
McNees Park –
County Park
11590 Hadley Blvd.

Whittier, CA 90606
Green space
Smith Park 6016 Rosemead Boulevard
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
A community park of 16 acres with multipurpose
auditorium, baseball/softball fields, football/soccer
stadium, basketball courts, picnic facilities, drinking fountains, Olympic size swimming pool, parking lot, and concession stand.

Rio Vista Park 8751 Coffman and Pico Rd, Pico
Rivera, CA 90660
Sports focused public recreation area with playground
equipment, concession stand, and picnic facilities.

Rivera Park 9530 Shade Ln, Pico Rivera, CA
90660
Baseball and softball fields, handball courts, picnic
facilities and play equipment.

Rio Hondo Park P, 8421 San Luis Potosi, Pico
Rivera, CA 90660
13 acres of multipurpose auditorium, play structures,
fields, and basketball and handball courts.

Veterans and
Ladies Auxiliary
Park
4904 Durfee Ave, Pico Rivera, CA
90660
Play structure and picnic area.

Other parks?
(if relevant):

2. What is the City’s standard for parks/recreation spaces for Pico Rivera residents? Is the City currently meeting the demand?
The City’s Parks and Recreation Mission is to “Enhance the quality of life of Pico Rivera present and future generations by providing safe and welcoming parks and facilities, and creative programming, while promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles.” The Los Angeles County Regional Parks and Open Space District have identified 3.3 acres per 1,000 people as typical in the local and regional area (RPOSD Park Needs Assessment, 2016). The City of Pico Rivera currently has only 1.3 acres of park or open space per 1,000 residents, and is already considered park poor. However, upon completing a California State Parks Community Fact Finder Report for the ½ mile radius surrounding the project site (Enclosure 1), it shows that there is only 0.21 acres of park space per 1,000 residents.

Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use MND
Parks Questionnaire – City of Pico Rivera

Page 2 of 2 ends

The Department of Parks and Recreation has had to scale back normal operations due to the Covid-19 pandemic and having to comply with several Federal, State, County, and local orders. This includes restricting access to certain recreation facilities and/or requiring patron compliance for disease transmission prevention. In addition, the City will lose approximately 67% of its outdoor recreation space in October 2022 due to the Whittier Narrows Dam Safety Modification project being completed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Due to these factors, and in consideration of the City’s park poor status, it is believed that the City will not be able to meet recreation demand.

3. Please indicate other applicable regulations, plans, and policies related to park services.

 LA County Code Sections (21.24.310, 21.24.350, etc.) [not sure if this applies]  LA County Parks Measure A (Effective December 3, 2019: $0.16 per square foot of development)
 Pico Rivera General Plan
 Pico Rivera Municipal Code (Sections 2.53 Park and Recreation Commission, 8.44 Parks, etc.)
It is believed that there are no Federal or State parks and recreation regulations applicable to this project.

4. Please add any other comments you may wish to make regarding this Project.

Including up to 13,500 square feet of recreational use space and a rooftop pool for residents will greatly help to reduce the impact of increased residency to our already park poor neighborhood for the project area.

Response Prepared By:

Kaili Torres Senior Manager
Name Title
City of Pico Rivera August 2, 2021
Agency Date

PROJECT AREA STATISTICS PROJECT AREA MAP
County Los Angeles
City Pico Rivera
Total Population 5,914
Youth Population 1,407
Senior Population 828
Households Without Access to a
Car
106
Number of People in Poverty 535
Median Household Income $68,664
Per Capita Income $25,424
Park Acres 1.22
Park Acres per 1,000 Residents 0.21

REPORT BACKGROUND
The project statistics have been calculated based on half mile radius around the point location selected. Only park acres within the project area's half mile radius are reported.

Population and people in poverty are calculated by
determining the percent of any census block-groups that intersect with the project area. The project area is then assigned the sum of all the census block-group portions. An equal distribution in census block-groups is assumed. Rural areas are calculated at a census block level to improve results.

Median household and per capita income are calculated as a weighted average of the census block- group values that fall within the project area.

More information on the calculations is available on the methods page.

Demographics—American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year
estimates 2014-2018; Decennial 2010 Census; the margin of error (MOE) was not analyzed.

Parks—California Protected Areas Database 2020a CFF
adjusted (6/2020) - more information at
http://www.CALands.org. Parks and park acres area based on best available source information but may not always contain exact boundaries or all parks in specific locations.

Parks are defined further in the 2015 SCORP (pg. 4).

Users can send updated information on parks to
[email protected]
Project ID: 104143
Coordinates: 33.9847, -118.0984
Date: 8/2/2021
California State Parks
Community FactFinder Report
This is your project report for the site you have defined. Please refer to your Project ID above in any future communications about the project.

SCORP Community FactFinder is a service of the
California Department of Parks and Recreation
www.parks.ca.gov
SCORP Community FactFinder created by
GreenInfo Network www.greeninfo.org
in consultation with CA Dept. of Parks and Rec

WASHINGTON AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE MND
Pico Water District Questionnaire
{152101/000/00451493} Page 1 of 4

1. Please confirm or update the following information from Pico Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
a. The District relies entirely on groundwater as its sole source of potable water supply.

Response: Pico Water District (District) currently relies solely on groundwater. b. The District does not currently and has no plans to receive imported water from CBMWD.

Response: The District does not have a connection with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to access imported water and does not purchase water from CBMWD. At this time there are no plans to have a connection made with MWD for the purchase of imported water through CBMWD.
c. Sources of water supply:
i. Groundwater from the Central Basin (Basin)

1. The District has an allowed pumping allocation of 3,624 AFY.

Yes this is correct.

2. The District’s average groundwater production from the Basin is approximately 3,127 AFY between 2010 to 2015. Does the District have more average?
The District’s average groundwater production from 2016 thru 2020 was 2,780 AFY.

3. The District operates 4 wells with a combined pumping capacity of 5,400 AFY or approximately 8,700 AFY if operated continuously.

The District operates five wells with a combined pumping capacity of 7500 gallons per minute.

4. The District’s distribution system includes one booster pump station and one reservoir with 1.25 million gallons of storage.

Yes this is correct.
ii. Recycled Water from CBMWD

1. The District obtains recycled water from Los Angeles County Sanitation District’s San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, which currently has a treatment capacity of 100 million gallons per day and serves approximately 1 million people.

Any questions related to the supply of recycled water must be directed to the Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD). The District purchases its supply of recycled water from the CBMWD. CBMWD

WASHINGTON AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE MND
Pico Water District Questionnaire
{152101/000/00451493} Page 2 of 4
has a contract with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for the supply of recycled water, which is furnished to District customers through CBMWD.
iii. District water supplies by source over the 2015-2040 period (actuals for 2015 and forecast for 2020-2040) in normal-year conditions are as shown in the following table.

1. Supplies over the 2020-2040 period are forecast at about:
iv. The District forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet demands over the 2020-2040 period in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions.

This forecast is based on moderate growth, and water availability outside of the District’s allocated water rights.
v. Wastewater generated within the District is treated by LACSD at two water treatment plants including: Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant and Joint Water Pollution Control Plant.

Any questions related to wastewater need to be directed to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District.
vi. LACSD estimates a wastewater generation of approximately 80 gallons per person per day.

Any questions related to wastewater need to be directed to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District

2. What water demand factors does the District use for each of the following land uses:
a. Multifamily Residential – Uniform Plumbing Code, local landscape ordinances, latest drought tolerant landscapes practices
Pico Water District Water Supplies Existing and Future, acre-feet per year Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year 2,794 3,697 3,774 3,853 3,933 4,015
Single Dry Year -- 2,703 2,760 2,817 2,876 2,936
Multiple Dry Years
Year 2 -- 2,796 2,854 2,914 2,974 3,036
Year 3 -- 2,698 2,754 2,812 2,870 2,930
Source: Pico Water District Urban Management Plan 2015

WASHINGTON AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE MND
Pico Water District Questionnaire
{152101/000/00451493} Page 3 of 4
b. Retail - Uniform Plumbing Code, local landscape ordinances, latest drought tolerant landscapes practices
c. Office - Uniform Plumbing Code, local landscape ordinances, latest drought tolerant landscapes practices
d. Restaurant - Uniform Plumbing Code, local landscape ordinances, latest drought tolerant landscapes practices

3. Would existing and forecast water supplies be sufficient to serve estimated project water demand, or would new or expanded water supplies be required? Response – additional information on the project’s proposed uses, including the project’s plans and drawings is necessary to respond to this question. See the accompanying letter.

WASHINGTON AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE MND
Pico Water District Questionnaire
{152101/000/00451493} Page 4 of 4

4. Do you have any other comments about this project?
Yes see attached letter.

Response Prepared By:

Mark J. Grajeda General Manager
Name Title
Pico Water District 8-16-21
Agency Date
https://lacounty.sharepoint.com/sites/publiclibrary/docs/staffservices/Documents/EIR/Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project/Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project response.docx

LA COUNTY LIBRARY

WASHINGTON AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE PROJECT

1. Please summarize existing library facilities and resources (library building square footages, collection volume, capacity, computer labs, audio books, e-books, etc.) that will serve the project site in the following table.

This project is within the service area of the Pico Rivera Library, located at 9001 Mines Ave., Pico Rivera, CA 90660, a facility with 16,000 sq. ft. of space, a collection of 54,502 books, magazines, and media, and 32 computers (as of June 30, 2020).

2. Are there any existing plans to expand library facilities and/or resources for the City? If so, please describe these planned expansions.

Currently, LA County Library does not have plans for expanding the Pico Rivera Library.

3. What generation factors or standards are used by the LA County Library to estimate library facility and resource requirement (e.g., square feet of library facility floor areas per capita and book volumes per capita)?
LA County Library service level guidelines entail a minimum of 0.50 gross square foot of library facility space per capita, 3.0 items (books and other library materials) per capita for regional libraries and 2.75 items per capita for community libraries, and 1.0 public access computer per 1,000 people served.

4. What impact (if any) will the proposed project have on the LA County Library’s ability to provide library service to the City?
Pico Rivera Library is a community library and based on the service guidelines does not currently meet the minimum requirements for the population of this service area. The current deficiency is 55,974 collection items, 8 public access computers, and 4,087 square feet of facility space.

The proposed project involves the construction of 255 residential units with a population increase of approximately 803 which creates a need for an additional 2,208 collection items, 1 public access computer, and 402 square feet of facility space.

The table below illustrates the impact of the proposed population growth from the Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project to the LA County Library service level guidelines. To fully mitigate this growth LA County Library estimates the total cost to be $512,198.

Trails at Lyons Canyon Project
Environmental Impact Report
Impact Per Capita
(population of 1,629) Estimated Costs Total Costs
a. Building 402 $1,000 sq. ft. $402,000
b. Land (4:1 land to building
ratio) 1,606 $29 (Library Planning Area 5) $46,574
c. Collections 2,208 $28 $61,824
d. Public Access Computers 1 $1,800 $1,800
Total $512,198
To meet the service demands of the current population and the proposed Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project the library will require a total of 112,684 collection items, 41 public access computers, and 20,488 sq. ft of facility space.

Given the LA County Library’s e-books, audiobooks, and internet resources, do you anticipate physical expansion of the library facilities due to the proposed development of 255 units? The Library does not anticipate physical expansion of library facilities due to the proposed development.

5. How are the library’s operation and improvements funded? Any library impact fees imposed to new development?
Funding sources for the LA County Library consist of, in descending proportions property taxes, County General Fund allocation, Library's Special Tax, Library Facilities Mitigation Fee (Developer Fee) and other miscellaneous sources.

In efforts to minimize the impact of residential projects on library services LA County Library collects a one-time Developer Fee at the time building permits are requested for all new residential dwellings located within the unincorporated areas of the County served by the LA County Library.

The current Developer Fees are as follows, by Library Planning Area, these fees are subject to a CPI increase effective July 1:

FY 2021-22 Library Facilities Mitigation Fee Schedule
Planning Area Fee per Dwelling Unit
Area 1 - Santa Clarita Valley $1,010
Area 2 - Antelope Valley $978
Area 3 - West San Gabriel Valley $1,021
Area 4 - East San Gabriel Valley $1,008
Area 5 - Southeast $1,011
Area 6 - Southwest $1,018
Area 7 - Santa Monica Mountains $1,013
The Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project is within the Library’s Planning Area 5 – Southeast, current Developer Fee is $1,011 per dwelling unit for a total of $257,805 ($1,011 x 255 dwelling units). However, since the development is located within the City of Pico Rivera, it is not subject to a Library Facilities Mitigation Fee.

LA County Library also collects an annual special tax which is levied on parcels within 10 cities (Cudahy, Culver City, Duarte, El Monte, La Cañada Flintridge, Lakewood, Lomita, Lynwood, Maywood, and West Hollywood) and unincorporated areas serviced by LA County Library. The Special Tax Rate for FY 2021-22 is $32.55 per parcel. Nevertheless, the project is not subject to Special Tax.

6. Please provide any additional comments you wish to make regarding the proposed project.

The proposed commercial component will also impact the library if the people who work, but do not live, in the area use local library services throughout their day, therefore adding to the number of resources that will be needed.

There are no mitigation factors for the impact that this project will have on library services since it is not subject to a Library Facilities Mitigation Fee or Special Tax. The library proposes discussions with City representatives and developers regarding mitigation efforts and support for the continued enhancement and delivery of library services to the residents of the City of Pico Rivera.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T - I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A
Appendix
PlaceWorks
Appendix F Transportation Impact Analysis Report

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T - I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A
Appendix
July 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT

THE MERCURY PROJECT
City of Pico Rivera, California
July 5, 2022
Prepared for:

Optimus Properties, LLC
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1
Prepared by:

Francesca S. Bravo
Senior Transportation Engineer
Under the Supervision of: Under the Supervision of:

David Roseman, P.E. Clare Look-Jaeger, P.E.

Principal Principal
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

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

1.1 Transportation Impact Analysis Overview...................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Methodology ......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status..................................... 3

2.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Existing Project Site......................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Proposed Project Description .......................................................................................... 4

2.3 Project Site Access........................................................................................................... 4

2.3.1 Vehicular Site Access.......................................................................................... 4

2.3.2 Non-Vehicular Site Access ................................................................................ 7

2.4 Project Parking................................................................................................................. 10

2.4.1 City of Pico Rivera Parking Requirements......................................................... 10

2.4.2 Specific Plan Parking Requirements................................................................... 10

2.4.3 Proposed Parking Supply.................................................................................... 11

2.4.4 Comparison to ITE Parking Standards ............................................................... 12

2.4.5 Empirical Parking Demand Ratios for Multifamily Sites................................... 13

2.5 Project Trip Generation and Distribution........................................................................ 13

2.5.1 Project Trip Generation Forecast ........................................................................ 13

2.5.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment.......................................................... 15

3.0 Project Site Context ................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Non-Vehicle Network...................................................................................................... 21

3.1.1 Pedestrian System ............................................................................................... 21

3.1.2 Bicycle System.................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Transit Network ............................................................................................................... 23

3.3 Vehicle Network.............................................................................................................. 26

3.3.1 Roadway Classifications..................................................................................... 26

3.3.2 Roadway Descriptions ........................................................................................ 28

3.4 Traffic Count Data........................................................................................................... 28

3.5 Cumulative Development Projects.................................................................................. 28

3.5.1 Cumulative Projects............................................................................................ 28

3.5.2 Ambient Traffic Growth ..................................................................................... 35

4.0 CEQA Transportation Analysis............................................................................................ 38

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .................................................................................... 38

4.1.1 Screening Criteria................................................................................................ 38

4.1.2 Impact Criteria and Methodology....................................................................... 39

4.1.3 Project VMT Analysis......................................................................................... 39

4.1.4 CAPCOA Guidance and Project Design Features.............................................. 40

4.1.5 Summary of Cumulative VMT Analysis............................................................ 41

4.2 Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis........................................................ 42

4.2.1 Adopted Plans, Policies, and Programs.............................................................. 42

4.2.2 Qualitative Impact Conclusions.......................................................................... 43 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE

5.0 Operational Analysis............................................................................................................... 44

5.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis............................................................................ 44

5.1.1 Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................ 44

5.1.2 Analysis Criteria and Thresholds........................................................................ 44

5.1.3 Transportation Analysis Scenarios...................................................................... 45

5.1.4 Existing Conditions............................................................................................. 47

5.1.5 Existing With Project Conditions........................................................................ 47

5.1.6 Future Without Project Conditions..................................................................... 47

5.1.7 Future With Project Conditions.......................................................................... 47

5.2 Access and Circulation Review....................................................................................... 54

6.0 Project Construction Phase Analysis.................................................................................... 56

6.1 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................ 57

7.0 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 60 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Scope of Study Form
B. Empirical Parking Demand Data
C. LADOT Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study
D. Count Data
E. CAPCOA TDM Strategies
LLG VMT Reduction Calculator Worksheet
F. ICU Levels of Service Explanation
ICU Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours
G. Synchro Analysis Data
Synchro Analysis Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
2–1 Project Trip Generation.......................................................................................................... 16 3–1 Existing Transit Routes.......................................................................................................... 27 3–2 Existing Roadway Descriptions............................................................................................. 30 3–3 Cumulative Projects List and Trip Generation...................................................................... 33 5–1 City of Pico Rivera Intersection Analysis Threshold Criteria............................................... 45 5–2 Summary of Levels of Service............................................................................................... 46 5-3 Summary of Vehicle Queuing ............................................................................................... 55 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
1–1 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 2 2–1 Aerial Photograph of the Existing Project Site...................................................................... 5 2–2 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................. 6 2–3 Pedestrian Access Within the Site ......................................................................................... 8 2–4 Pedestrian Access to the Site ................................................................................................. 9 2–5 Project Trip Distribution........................................................................................................ 18 2–6 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour............................................................ 19 2–7 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................ 20 3–1 Existing Nearby Pedestrian and Transit Facilities................................................................. 22 3–2 Proposed Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................... 24 3–3 Existing Transit Routes.......................................................................................................... 25 3–4 Existing Lane Configurations................................................................................................ 29 3–5 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ......................................................... 31 3–6 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour.......................................................... 32 3–7 Location of Cumulative Projects........................................................................................... 34 3–8 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour...................................... 36 3–9 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... 37 5–1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour.................................... 48 5–2 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour..................................... 49 5–3 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour.................................. 50 5–4 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................. 51 5–5 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour....................................... 52 5–6 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................ 53 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT

THE MERCURY PROJECT
City of Pico Rivera, California
July 5, 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Transportation Impact Analysis Overview
This transportation impact analysis report has been prepared to identify and evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the proposed Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use project (“proposed project”). The proposed project site is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera, California. The project site is generally bounded by adjacent commercial and residential uses to the north and west, commercial uses to the east, and Washington Boulevard to the south. The proposed project site and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1.

The transportation impact analysis follows the City of Pico Rivera’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines1 (“Guidelines”). In general, the City uses the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Guidelines2 as a benchmark for the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) requirements, with variations. The City Guidelines are focused on transportation metrics that promote: the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal networks and access to diverse land uses, as well as safety, sustainability and smart growth. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Guidelines identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. In addition, the City Guidelines require non-CEQA intersection Level of Service (LOS) analysis evaluating potential project-related effects at key intersections in the vicinity of the project site.

This assessment report (i) presents the proposed project’s existing transportation network context, (ii) forecasts project-generated traffic, (iii) presents a CEQA assessment of project-related VMT, (iv) provides a non-CEQA evaluation of project access and circulation, (v) provides a non-CEQA review of project construction activities, and (vi) recommends VMT-reducing measures or other transportation network improvement measures, where necessary.

1.2 Study Methodology
The CEQA and non-CEQA analysis criteria for this transportation impact analysis were identified in consultation with the City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department staff. The analysis criteria were determined based on the City’s Guidelines, the proposed project description and location, and the characteristics of the surrounding transportation system. As defined by the City as Lead Agency 1 City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines”, prepared by Elie Farah, Inc., July 2020.
2 Los Angeles County Public Works “Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines”, prepared by Public Works, July 23, 2020.
-1-
-2-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
under CEQA, City staff confirmed the appropriateness of the analysis methodology and criteria when it approved the transportation impact analysis Scoping Document. The approved Scoping Document is provided in Appendix A.

1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was previously a state-mandated program that was enacted by the California State Legislature with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 that primarily utilized a level of service (LOS) performance metric. Pursuant to California Government Code §65088.3, local jurisdictions may opt out of the CMP requirement without penalty if a majority of the local jurisdictions representing a majority of the County’s population formally adopt resolutions requesting to opt out of the program. As stated in a letter from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)3 , by August 28, 2019 fifty-seven
local jurisdictions, which in total represent 8.5 million in population, had adopted resolutions electing to be exempt from the CMP. With the Los Angeles County region having reached the statutorily required threshold, the provisions of the CMP are no longer applicable to any of the 89 local jurisdictions within Los Angeles County, regardless of whether or not a jurisdiction adopted an opt-out resolution. Therefore, CMP Traffic Impact Analysis is no longer required. 3 Kalieh Honish, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to Seleta Reynolds, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, “Re: Dissolution of the Congestion Management Program in Los Angeles County”, August 28, 2019.
-3-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Existing Project Site
The project site is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard (APN: 6370-027-018) situated along the north side of Washington Boulevard, west of Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera. The existing 2.85-acre project site is currently vacant, formerly occupied by a commercial building that operated as a nightclub until March 2015 and was subsequently demolished in 2020. The project site is adjacent to and would become part of the Pico Rivera Marketplace, a larger commercial site with a broad range of retail services including a fitness center, restaurants, and bank. Vehicular access to the existing project site is currently primarily provided via two driveways on Washington Boulevard. An aerial photograph of the existing project site is presented in Figure 2-1.

2.2 Proposed Project Description
The project applicant, Mercury Bowl, LLC: Green Rivera, LLC, is seeking approval from the City of Pico Rivera for implementation of the Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) that reflects the proposed development of a mixed-use building with subterranean parking, ground-floor retail, and residential uses. The proposed Specific Plan, if approved by the City, would allow for the future development of 255 residential dwelling units including 13 affordable units, 5,730 square feet of commercial/retail space; 1,750 square feet of ground-floor lobby/leasing space; and 13,500 square feet of recreational amenities for future residential tenants.

The proposed residential unit mix consists of 35 studio units, 159 one-bedroom units, 57 twobedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units. Residential amenities for the proposed mixed-use development include a swimming pool, jacuzzi, poolside cabanas, clubhouse, gym, barbecue area, and garden/green areas. Construction would begin in 2022 and occupancy of the proposed project is expected to occur by year 2024. The site plan for the proposed project is illustrated in Figure 2-2.

2.3 Project Site Access

2.3.1 Vehicular Site Access
Vehicular access to the project site will be accommodated by a total of two driveways: one existing driveway on Washington Boulevard and one existing driveway on Rosemead Boulevard. The other existing access points along Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard for the Pico Rivera Marketplace will remain. In addition, while another existing driveway curb cut will remain along the Washington Boulevard project frontage, it is not planned for vehicular access as further described below. Descriptions of the planned project site access driveways are provided in the following paragraphs.
• Existing Washington Boulevard Main Project Driveway:

This existing driveway is located on the north side of Washington Boulevard along the easterly property boundary directly west of the existing McDonalds restaurant. This driveway currently serves the existing McDonald’s restaurant adjacent to the project site.

The site driveway will provide access to the main internal roadway surrounding the proposed -4-
-5-
-6-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
building and to the subterranean parking entrance for the project. The driveway will continue to accommodate left-turn ingress and right-turn ingress and egress traffic movements (i.e., no left-turns out). No physical modifications are proposed at this driveway. • Existing Rosemead Boulevard Driveway:

This existing driveway is located on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard north of Washington Boulevard. This signalized driveway currently serves the existing Pico Rivera Marketplace and would also serve the proposed project. The driveway will continue to accommodate full access (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress traffic movements).

The curb cut for the existing westerly site driveway on Washington Boulevard will remain; however, no vehicle access would be provided from this point. The curb cut will be used solely for emergency/fire access (e.g., for fire personnel to extend hoses via this existing curb cut).

Within the project site, vehicular circulation will be accommodated by a drive aisle which is adjacent to the north and east sides of the proposed building. The drive aisle will be no less than 28 feet wide in order to accommodate Fire Department access to the project site.

While the parking structure entrance design shown in the site plan is conceptual, the project’s final design would provide a gate and storage for a minimum of two vehicles at the access control point of the parking structure.

2.3.2 Non-Vehicular Site Access
Pedestrian access to the project site will be accommodated via the existing public sidewalks and pedestrian facilities provided along Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard. A handicap accessible ramp is planned to be installed at the west corner of the site driveway at Washington Boulevard. Pedestrian access within the project site will be accommodated by an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant walkway that will connect the building entrance and retail frontages to the public right-of-way. This walkway will provide exclusive pedestrian and bicycle access from the public sidewalks to the proposed project, thus minimizing the extent of pedestrian and bicycle interaction with vehicles at the site and providing a comfortable, convenient, and safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the proposed project from the public right-ofway. Pedestrian pathways will also be constructed surrounding the proposed building and will connect to the existing shopping center pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian access to and from the project site is illustrated in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3 also shows the proximity of the nearby existing transit stops located both east and west of the project site. Pedestrian access within the project is shown in Figure 2-4.
-7-
-8-
-9-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

2.4 Project Parking

2.4.1 City of Pico Rivera Parking Requirements
The City of Pico Rivera off-street parking requirements are set forth in Section 18.44 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Municipal Code4
. In accordance with the Municipal Code parking
regulations, the following parking requirements are applicable to the project:
• Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Units:
- Resident Parking: 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit (DU) (within a parking garage or carport)
- Guest Parking: 1.0 space for each 8 DUs
• Commercial Use: 1.0 parking space per 250 square feet (SF) Based on strict application of the City Code parking requirements, a total of 572 spaces would be required for the project as summarized below:
• Resident Parking: 255 units x 2.0 spaces/DU = 510 spaces • Residential Guest Parking: 255 units x 1.0 space/8 DUs = 32 spaces • Commercial (Leasing Space and Retail): 7,480 SF x 1.0 space/250 SF = 30 spaces Total City Code Required Project Parking = 572 spaces
As noted above, the residential parking requirements for the project is 542 spaces (i.e., 510 resident + 32 guest = 542 spaces). The overall Code residential parking ratio equates to 2.13 spaces per DU (i.e., 542 residential parking spaces/255 DU = 2.13 spaces/DU). Based on reviews of other parking standards outlined in nationally recognized publications and parking demand characteristics at other multi-family residential complexes similar to the proposed project, it can be expected that residential parking demand would be much lower for the project than what is currently required by strict application of the City Code.

2.4.2 Specific Plan Parking Requirements
As outlined in the Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan, the development parking standards for the project are outlined below:
• Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Units:
- Studio Unit: 1.0 parking space per DU
- One-Bedroom unit: 1.4 parking spaces per DU
- Two-Bedroom unit: 1.6 parking spaces per DU
- Three-Bedroom unit: 2.0 parking spaces per DU
4 Source: City of Pico Rivera Municipal Code (Section 18.44). -10-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc
- Guest Parking: 1.0 space for each 8 DUs
• Commercial Use: 1.0 parking space per 250 square feet (SF) Based on application of the Specific Plan parking requirements, a total of 420 spaces would be required for the project as summarized below:
• Studio Resident Parking: 35 units x 1.0 space/DU = 35 spaces • One-Bedroom Resident Parking: 159 units x 1.4 spaces/DU = 223 spaces • Two-Bedroom Resident Parking: 57 units x 1.6 spaces/DU = 92 spaces • Three-Bedroom Resident Parking: 4 units x 2.0 spaces/DU = 8 spaces • Residential Guest Parking: 255 units x 1.0 space/8 DU = 32 spaces • Commercial (Leasing Space and Retail): 7,480 SF x 1.0 space/250 SF = 30 spaces Total Required Project Parking = 420 spaces

2.4.3 Proposed Parking Supply
The proposed project is planned to provide a total of 464 vehicular parking spaces on-site, including 437 spaces within the new parking garage and 27 on-site surface parking spaces. The new parking structure is planned to provide 390 residential spaces (i.e., 358 resident parking spaces and 32 spaces for residential guest parking) and 47 secured parking spaces. The proposed project also includes 27 on-site surface spaces located outside the structure, which would be designated and signed for the commercial uses (i.e., 26 spaces for retail/leasing use and one (1) dedicated US Postal Service parking space). Based on the residential parking supply of 390 spaces, the overall project residential parking ratio is 1.53 spaces per DU (i.e., 390 residential parking spaces/255 DU = 1.53 spaces/DU).

As part of the parking supply, a total of 19 handicap accessible spaces will be provided on-site, of which 16 spaces are allocated for residential use and three (3) spaces are allocated for the commercial use. In addition, 47 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) installed spaces will be provided on-site (i.e., 44 residential spaces and 3 commercial spaces). Bicycle parking and storage would also be provided for the project, with a minimum of 12 long-term bicycle spaces and a minimum of four (4) short-term bicycle spaces. Short-term bicycle parking typically consists of bicycle racks. Long-term bicycle parking are fully enclosed spaces and typically consist of bicycle lockers, bicycle rooms, or bicycle cages.

Residents will be required to provide the make, model, and year of their vehicle/s during lease execution and subsequently will be issued an access card or key for entry into the parking garage.

All resident and employee parking policies will be outlined in the lease/rental agreement. “No Overnight Parking” signs will be posted within the existing shopping center to prohibit tenants from parking in the center overnight and will be enforced by security staff monitoring the center on a 24- hour basis. The signage will also include verbiage that notes that any violations of the parking restriction are subject to towing.
-11-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
The project applicant (or successor owner/s) will identify a Community Liaison/Parking Ombudsman in order to keep nearby residential communities informed on various matters and provide an open line of communication. The Community Liaison/Parking Ombudsman will efficiently manage parking and enforce changes that the project management will make to prevent local neighborhood parking intrusion. The parking ombudsman will be responsible for enforcing resident and employee parking rules and will address any complaints from the public regarding neighborhood parking intrusion. The telephone number of the parking ombudsman will be disseminated to the surrounding communities. For example, should a community member notice a resident or employee parking in their neighborhood, they will be able to notify the ombudsman of the intrusion, as well as request enforcement if it was determined that the motorist parking was attributable to the proposed project. All verifiable violations will be documented for monitoring and reporting purposes and warnings and fines/penalties will be issued. A resident or employee that has been determined by the parking ombudsman to have violated the lease agreement policy (i.e., no onstreet parking within the neighborhood) will receive a verbal warning upon their first violation. An employee with a second violation will receive a formal written warning that includes a restatement of the policy along with a notification that the employee’s supervisor/manager has been informed of the multiple violations. A resident with a second violation will receive a formal written warning that includes a restatement of the policy to be included in the resident’s file. Should a subsequent employee violation occur, it will result in the preparation of a formal letter to the Human Resources department to be included in the employee’s file and the employee’s supervisor/manager will again be notified in order to determine the appropriate penalty. Should a subsequent resident violation occur, it will result in the issuance of a lease termination/non-renewal letter for violation of the terms outlined in the lease/rental agreement.

2.4.4 Comparison to ITE Parking Standards
Research was conducted of applicable parking ratios for multi-family residential uses outlined in industry standard publications. The parking demand for multi-family residential uses can be estimated using ratios published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation5 publication. When utilizing the ITE publication, the parking demand for the proposed project can be calculated based upon ratios per DU. More specifically, the ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing [Mid-Rise]) parking demand ratios were reviewed and the average weekday peak period parking demand ratio could be used to forecast the parking demand expected for the proposed project. The ITE parking demand ratios for multi-family residential are summarized below:
• Weekday peak period parking demand ratio – Average Rate (General Urban/Suburban, no nearby rail transit): 1.31 spaces per dwelling unit (73 study sites, inclusive of resident and guest parking demand)
• Weekday peak period parking demand ratio – 85th Percentile Rate (General Urban/Suburban, no nearby rail transit): 1.47 spaces per dwelling unit (73 study sites, inclusive of resident and guest parking demand)
5 Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Washington D.C., 2019. -12-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
Application of the higher ITE published parking demand ratio to the proposed project would yield a peak residential parking demand of 375 spaces as summarized below:
• Peak Parking Demand: 1.47 spaces/DU x 255 DU = 375 parking spaces In comparison, the residential parking demand of 375 spaces forecast for the project per ITE is significantly lower than the City’s Code residential parking requirement of 542 spaces. In addition, the overall project residential parking ratio of 1.53 spaces per DU is higher (i.e., more conservative) than the ITE peak parking demand ratio of 1.47 spaces per DU.

2.4.5 Empirical Parking Demand Ratios at Other Multifamily Residential Sites A review was also conducted of site-specific multifamily residential parking surveys that have been previously conducted by LLG. Parking demand data for other existing multi-family residential sites are based on the empirical parking demand studies conducted at the following three (3) multi-family residential sites:
• Paragon at Old Town located at 700 S. Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia (163 units) • Trio Apartments located at 44 N. Madison Avenue, Pasadena (304 units) • Main Street Village located at 2555 Main Street, Irvine (481 units) The peak parking demand ratios for these facilities ranged between 1.22 spaces per unit (i.e., Trio Apartments) to 1.48 spaces per unit (i.e., Paragon at Old Town). The average of the peak parking ratio results for the three (3) surveyed sites was 1.36 spaces per unit. The summary of the existing parking supply ratios, as well as the observed and forecast (i.e., at full occupancy) parking demand ratios based on the number of units at the comparable sites is provided in Appendix B.

Application of the highest residential peak parking demand ratio to the proposed project would yield a forecast peak parking demand of 377 parking spaces (i.e., 1.48 spaces/DU x 255 DUs = 377 spaces), which is significantly lower than the City’s Code residential parking requirement of 542 spaces. The overall project residential parking ratio of 1.53 spaces per DU is higher (i.e., more conservative) than the empirical (observed) parking demand ratio of 1.48 spaces per DU. Therefore, the parking requirements proposed in the Specific Plan are consistent with the empirical parking demand ratios and the ITE published residential parking demand ratio.

2.5 Project Trip Generation and Distribution

2.5.1 Project Trip Generation Forecast
Traffic trip generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed project were forecast for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and over a 24-hour period. Trip -13-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc
generation rates provided in the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual6 were utilized to forecast project traffic generation for the proposed project, with the exception of the 13 affordable housing dwelling units. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the residential component of the proposed project were based upon rates per number of dwelling units. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the commercial component of the proposed project were based upon rates per 1,000 square feet. For purposes of trip generation, the proposed commercial/retail space was assumed to consist of 2,865 square feet of retail space and 2,865 square feet of restaurant space. Trip generation average rates for the following uses were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project:
• ITE Land Use Code 221: Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise) • ITE Land Use Code 820: Shopping Center
• ITE Land Use Code 932: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant As the ITE publication does not provide trip rates for a land use such as the project’s affordable housing residential land use component, it was deemed appropriate to forecast the trips expected to be generated by the affordable housing land use component using trip rates published by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) in the City’s Transportation Assessment Guidelines7 (TAG) which are directly applicable to the proposed project. The LADOT trip generation rates for affordable housing projects were developed based on vehicle trip count data collected at affordable housing sites in the City of Los Angeles during year 2016. A copy of the Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study contained in LADOT’s TAG is provided in Appendix C.

The LADOT affordable housing trip rates include three (3) different housing type categories:
affordable family housing; affordable senior housing, and affordable special needs and supportive housing. In this instance, the affordable family housing category is directly applicable to the proposed project. LADOT’s affordable family housing category trip rates are summarized below:

Affordable Family Housing
• Average AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips per dwelling unit; 38% inbound and 62% outbound
• Average PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.38 trips per dwelling unit; 55% inbound and 45% outbound
In addition to the above project trip generation forecasts, a forecast was made of likely internal capture/captive market trips projected at the site with respect to the proposed uses. Internal capture and captive markets trips are trips made from other components of the project and other uses in the immediate vicinity of the site. The internal capture/captive market reduction for the residential uses 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2017. 7 Transportation Assessment Guidelines, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, July 2020. -14-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc
has been estimated based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook8, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 – “Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments”9
and in consultation with City Public Works staff. A conservative 15 percent (15.0%) internal capture/captive market reduction factor has been applied to the AM and PM peak hour traffic volume forecasts, as well as to the daily traffic volume forecast for the residential component of the proposed project to reflect the internal trip making between the project land uses and other site uses, as well as from other uses in the immediate vicinity.

The trip generation forecast for the proposed project is summarized in Table 2-1. The trip generation forecasts for the proposed project were submitted to City staff for review and were subsequently approved for analysis purposes. As presented in Table 2-1, the proposed project is expected to generate 111 vehicle trips (40 inbound trips and 71 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 134 net new vehicle trips (80 inbound trips and 54 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 1,594 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (approximately 797 inbound trips and 797 outbound trips).

2.5.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:
• The site's proximity to major traffic corridors (i.e., Washington Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, etc.);
• Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent roadway channelization and presence of traffic signals;
• Existing intersection traffic volumes;
• Ingress/egress scheme planned for the proposed project; • Nearby population and employment centers; and
• Input from City staff.
8 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2017. 9 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 – “Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments,” 2011.
-15-
Table 2-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1]

DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2]

LAND USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Apartment [3] 242 DU 1,316 23 64 87 65 41 106
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (197) (3) (10) (13) (10) (6) (16) Affordable Housing [5] 13 DU 54 3 4 7 3 2 5
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (8) 0 (1) (1) 0 0 0 Retail [6] 2,865 GLSF 108 2 1 3 5 6 11
Restaurant [7] 2,865 GSF 321 15 13 28 17 11 28
TOTAL 1,594 40 71 111 80 54 134
[1] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 10th Edition, 2017 and Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG), City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), July 2020.
[2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multi-Family [Mid-Rise]) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 5.44 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.36 trips/dwelling units; 26% inbound/74% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.44 trips/dwelling units; 61% inbound/39% outbound [4] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Handbook", 3rd Edition, 2017 and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 - "Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments", 2011. Internal capture and Captive markets trips are trips made to and from other components of the project and other uses in the immediate vicinity of the site. A 15% internal capture/captive market reduction factor has been applied to reflect the internal trip making between the project land uses and other uses in the area. [5] LADOT trip generation average rates for Family Affordable Housing. - Daily Trip Rate: 4.16 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips/dwelling unit; 38% inbound/62% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.38 trips/dwelling unit; 55% inbound/45% outbound [6] ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 37.75 trips/1,000 SF; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.94 trips/1,000 SF; 62% inbound/38% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.81 trips/1,000 SF; 48% inbound/52% outbound [7] ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-Down] Restaurant) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 112.18 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.94 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 55% inbound/45% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.77 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 62% inbound/38% outbound LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-16-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
The general, directional traffic distribution pattern for the proposed project is presented in Figure 2-

5. The forecast weekday AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes at the study intersections associated with the proposed project are presented in Figures 2-6 and 2-7, respectively. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 2-6 and 2-7 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 2-5 and the project trip generation forecasts presented in Table 2-1. -17-
-18-
-19-
-20-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

3.0 PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
The following sections provide an overview of the transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed project, including infrastructure which supports both motorized and non-motorized transportation modes.

3.1 Non-Vehicle Network
Non-vehicular transportation generally encompasses walking, biking, and other active transportation modes. Distinct facilities are often provided for these non-vehicular modes. Most prominently, paved sidewalks are typically provided to facilitate pedestrian travel outside of the roadway. In some cases, bicycle facilities such as painted bike lanes or separated bike paths are provided within the roadway in order to separate bike traffic from vehicular traffic. Roadways which are designed to prioritize non-vehicular transportation modes utilize complimentary non-vehicular infrastructure in order to promote comfortable, safe travel for both pedestrians and bicyclists. A review of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure provided in the vicinity of the project site is provided below.

3.1.1 Pedestrian System
Public sidewalks and pedestrian facilities are provided on all streets within the project vicinity.

Figure 3-1 shows the existing pedestrian and transit facilities near the project site. The proposed project is designed to encourage pedestrian activity and walking as a transportation mode with a Walkability score for the project site of approximately 81 (Very Walkable) out of 100. 10 As
indicated in Figure 2–2, walkways are planned within the proposed project which will connect to adjacent sidewalks in a manner that promotes walkability. Walkability is a term for the extent to which walking is readily available as a safe, connected, accessible and pleasant mode of transport.

There are several criteria that are widely accepted as key aspects of the walkability of urban areas that should be satisfied. The underlying principle is that pedestrians should not be delayed, diverted, or placed in danger. The widely accepted characteristics of walkability are as follows:
• Connectivity: People can walk from one place to another without encountering major obstacles, obstructions, or loss of connectivity.
• Convivial: Pedestrian routes are friendly and attractive, and are perceived as such by pedestrians. • Conspicuous: Suitable levels of lighting, visibility and surveillance over its entire length, with high quality delineation and signage.
• Comfortable: High quality and well-maintained footpaths of suitable widths, attractive landscaping and architecture, shelter and rest spaces, and a suitable allocation of roadspace to pedestrians.
10 Refer to http://www.walkscore.com/, which generates the walkability score for the project site. Walk Score calculates the walkability of an address by locating nearby stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc. Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a car-lite lifestyle.
-21-
-22-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Convenient: Walking is a realistic travel choice, partly because of the impact of the other criteria set forth above, but also because walking routes are of a suitable length as a result of land use planning with minimal delays.

A review of the proposed project pedestrian walkways indicates that these primary characteristics are accommodated within the project. Proposed project features would include landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting facilities within the site, as well as connections with the adjacent public sidewalks on the Washington Boulevard project frontage for access to nearby pedestrian and transit facilities. As part of the Specific Plan, street trees and streetscape plantings will be provided along the public frontages in accordance with the City’s standards. In addition, project signage will include wayfinding pedestrian signage around the perimeter of the project site, building identification signs, and other sign types. Wayfinding signs would be located at access points to the on-site amenities and facilities and parking areas.

3.1.2 Bicycle System
Bicycle infrastructure consists of both facilities within the roadway as well as public bicycle parking spaces. The Federal and State transportation systems recognize three primary bikeway facilities:

Bicycle Paths (Class I), Bicycle Lanes (Class II), and Bicycle Routes (Class III). Bicycle Paths (Class I) are exclusive car-free facilities that are typically not located within a roadway area. Bicycle Lanes (Class II) are part of the street design that is dedicated only for bicycles and identified by a striped lane separating vehicle lanes from bicycle lanes. Bicycle Routes (Class III) are preferably located on collector and lower volume arterial streets.

Bicycle access to the project site will be facilitated by the County’s bicycle roadway network. Walk Score calculates a bike score based on the topography, number and proximity of bike lanes, etc., and generates a bike score for the project site of approximately 58 (Bikeable) out of 100.11 Proposed bicycle facilities (e.g., Class I Bicycle Path, Class II Bicycle Lanes, Class III Bicycle Routes, Proposed Bicycle Routes, Bicycle Boulevards, etc.) identified in the City’s Circulation Element12 will be located within an approximate one-mile radius from the project site. The location of the proposed bicycle lane network for the City in close proximity to the project site and in the surrounding area is illustrated in Figure 3-2. As shown in Figure 3-2, a Class II Bicycle Lane is proposed for Rosemead Boulevard between Gallatin Road and I-5 Freeway. In addition, a Class III Bicycle Route is proposed for Washington Boulevard between Telegraph Road and the San Gabriel River.

3.2 Transit Network
Public transit service in the vicinity of the project is currently provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Montebello Transit and Norwalk Transit. The existing public transit routes in the project site vicinity are illustrated in Figure 3–3. A summary of 11 Refer to http://www.walkscore.com/, which generates a bike score for the project site. Walk Score calculates the bike score of an address by locating nearby bicycling facilities as well as connections to bus/rail transit routes and stops. Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a car-lite lifestyle. 12 City of Pico Rivera General Plan Circulation Element, October 2014. -23-
-24-
-25-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
the existing transit service, including the transit routes, destinations, and the peak hour headways is presented in Table 3–1. As summarized in Table 3-1, a total of 9 public transit routes provide service near the project site.

Metro is evaluating an extension of the Metro L (Gold) Line further east from its current terminus in East Los Angeles potentially through the cities of Commerce, Montebello, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier. The proposed light rail line would travel south along Atlantic Boulevard underground from the current Metro L (Gold) Line terminus at Pomona Boulevard and Atlantic Boulevard to the Citadel Outlets in the City of Commerce. The route would then proceed east along Washington Boulevard via aerial and/or at-grade (street level) configurations with an above-grade station at Rosemead Boulevard and ending at Lambert Road in the City of Whittier.

3.3 Vehicle Network

3.3.1 Roadway Classifications
The City of Pico Rivera utilizes the roadway categories recognized by regional, state and federal transportation agencies. There are four (4) categories in the roadway hierarchy, ranging from freeways with the highest capacity to two-lane undivided roadways with the lowest capacity. The roadway categories are summarized as follows:
• Freeways are limited-access and high speed travel ways included in the state and federal highway systems. Their purpose is to carry regional through-traffic. Access is provided by interchanges with typical spacing of one mile or greater. No local access is provided to adjacent land uses.
• Arterial roadways are major streets that primarily serve through-traffic and provide access to abutting properties as a secondary function. Arterials are generally designed with two to six travel lanes and their major intersections are signalized. This roadway type is divided into two categories: principal and minor arterials. Principal arterials are typically four-or-more lane roadways and serve both local and regional through-traffic. Minor arterials are typically two-to-four lane streets that service local and commuter traffic. • Collector roadways are streets that provide access and traffic circulation within residential and non-residential (e.g., commercial and industrial) areas. Collector roadways connect local streets to arterials and are typically designed with two through travel lanes (i.e., one through travel lane in each direction) that may accommodate on-street parking. They may also provide access to abutting properties.
• Local roadways distribute traffic within a neighborhood, or similar adjacent neighborhoods, and are not intended for use as a through-street or a link between higher capacity facilities such as collector or arterial roadways. Local streets are fronted by residential uses and do not typically serve commercial uses.
-26-

ROADWAY(S)

ROUTE DESTINATIONS NEAR SITE DIR AM PM
Metro 62 Downtown Los Angeles to Hawaiian Gardens via Telegraph Road, Slauson Avenue NB-WB 2 3 Boyle Heights, Commerce, Pico Rivera, Norwalk and Cerritos SB-EB 2 2 Metro 108 Marina Del Rey to Pico Rivera via Fox Hills, Hyde Park, Paramount Boulevard, Slauson Avenue EB 4 3 Los Angeles, Huntington Park and City of Commerce WB 3 3 Metro 265 Pico Rivera to Lakewood via Downey, Paramount and Paramount Boulevard, Washington Boulevard NB 1 1 Long Beach SB 1 1
Metro 266 Pasadena to Lakewood via Temple City, South El Monte, Rosemead Boulevard, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 Pico Rivera, Downey and Bellflower SB 2 2
Montebello Transit 10 Monterey Park to Whittier via Montebello and Pico Rivera Rosemead Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard EB 4 4 WB 4 5
Montebello Transit 20 Montebello to Pico Rivera Greenwood Avenue, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 SB 2 2
Montebello Transit 50 La Mirada to Downtown Los Angeles via Whittier, Rosemead Boulevard, Washington Boulevard EB 2 1 Pico Rivera and East Los Angeles WB 1 2
Montebello Transit 70 Montebello to Pico Rivera Greenwood Avenue, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 SB 2 2
Norwalk Transit 1 Bellflower to Pico Rivera via Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs Norwalk Boulevard, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 SB 2 2
TOTAL 40 41
[1] Sources: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), City of Montebello Bus Lines and City of Norwalk Transit websites, 2021.

Table 3-1
EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES [1]
NO. OF BUSES/TRAINS

DURING PEAK HOUR
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-27-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

3.3.2 Roadway Descriptions
Immediate access to the project site is provided via Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard. The existing roadway configurations and intersection controls at the study intersections are displayed in Figure 3-4 and descriptions of the existing roadways (e.g., roadway classifications, number of travel lanes, median type, speed limit, etc.) are provided in Table 3-2.

3.4 Traffic Count Data
Manual counts of vehicular turning movements by vehicle classification were conducted at each of the study intersections during the weekday morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) commute periods to determine the peak hour traffic volumes. The manual counts were conducted by an independent traffic count subconsultant (City Traffic Counters) at the study intersections from 7:00 to 9:00 AM to determine the weekday AM peak commute hour, and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM to determine the weekday PM peak commute hour. In conjunction with the manual turning movement vehicle counts, a count of bicycle and pedestrian volumes were also collected during the peak periods.

Traffic volumes at the study intersections show the typical peak periods between 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM generally associated with metropolitan Los Angeles area weekday peak commute hours. It should be noted that while the traffic counts were conducted during various days in March 2021 (i.e., at a time when some Covid-19 business and school restrictions were still in effect), the count data were compared with prior (2019), non-pandemic count data provided by the City. Based on those comparisons, the through traffic volumes along Rosemead Boulevard were increased by 7.5 percent (7.5%) per year, or by a total of 15 percent (15%) to reflect pre-Covid conditions. No annual adjustments were necessary along Washington Boulevard. In addition, minor adjustments were made to some traffic movements to ensure peak hour traffic flow consistency on a corridor-level basis.

The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 3-5 and 3-6, respectively. Summary data worksheets of the manual traffic counts at the study intersections are contained in Appendix D.

3.5 Cumulative Development Projects

3.5.1 Cumulative Projects
A forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to (i.e., without) implementation of the proposed project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (cumulative projects) in the area. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of likely future development that would be in place when the project becomes operational. The cumulative projects research was based on information on file at the City of Pico Rivera Community and Economic Development Department, County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, and City of Montebello. In addition, cumulative projects lists from recently approved transportation impact study memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and transportation impact studies in the project vicinity were also reviewed.

The list of cumulative projects in the project site area is presented in Table 3-3. The location of the cumulative projects is shown in Figure 3-7.
-28-
-29-
Table 3-2

EXISTING ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS

TRAVEL LANES MEDIAN SPEED
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION [1] DIRECTION [2] NO. LANES [3] TYPES [4] LIMIT Paramount Boulevard Major Arterial NB-SB 4 N/A 30
Crossway Drive Local Street NB-SB 2 N/A 25
Rosemead Boulevard Major Arterial NB-SB 4 N/A 35
Coffman & Pico Road Local Street EB-NB 2 2WLT 35
Washington Boulevard Major Arterial EB-WB 6 [11] 2WLT 35 Notes:
[1] Roadway classifications obtained from the City of Pico Rivera General Plan Circulation Element, October 2014. [2] Direction of roadways in the project area: NB-SB = northbound and southbound; and EB-WB = eastbound and westbound. [3] Number of lanes in both directions on the roadway. Variations in number of travel lanes due to time restricted on-street parallel parking are noted below. [4] Median type of the road: RMI = Raised Median Island; 2WLT = 2-Way Left-Turn Lane; and N/A = Not Applicable. [5] Tow Away No Stopping 4 PM to 7 PM in the northbound direction. [6] Tow Away No Stopping 7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM in the southbound direction. [7] Tow Away No Stopping 7 AM to 9 AM in the southbound direction. [8] Class III Bike Route
[9] Class II Bike Lane
[10] Tow Away No Stopping 4 PM to 7 PM in the northbound and southbound direction. [11] Tow Away No Stopping 4 PM to 7 PM in the eastbound direction and westbound direction. [12] Tow Away No Stopping 7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM in the westbound direction.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-30-
-31-
-32-
Table 3-3
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST AND TRIP GENERATION [1]

PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
MAP PROJECT PROJECT NAME/NUMBER LAND USE DATA DATA TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2] NO. STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL City of Pico Rivera
PR1 Proposed 5201-5211 Paramount Boulevard Medical Office Building 10,000 GSF [3] 348 22 6 28 10 25 35 PR2 Proposed Southwest Corner of Durfee Avenue Bank 12,925 GSF [4] 1,293 71 52 123 132 132 264 and Whittier Boulevard
PR3 Proposed 9102 Slauson Avenue Apartment 6 DU [5] 44 1 2 3 2 1 3 PR4 Proposed Westside of San Gabriel River Single-Family Residential 18 DU [6] 170 3 10 13 11 7 18 at Burke Street
PR5 Entitled 7105 Paramount Boulevard Industrial 28,458 GSF [7] 141 18 2 20 2 16 18 PR6 Entitled 9056 Burma Road Apartment 4 DU [5] 29 0 2 2 1 1 2 PR7 Entitled 9141 Slauson Avenue Fitness Center 675 GSF [8] None 1 0 1 1 1 2 PR8 Proposed Village Walk Shopping Center Fast Food Restaurant 3,432 GSF [9] 1,575 49 46 95 50 46 96 8580 Whittier Boulevard Restaurant 2,000 GSF
Retail 1,800 GLSF
Coffee Shop 1,800 GSF
PR9 Proposed Beverly Boulevard Warehouse Project Warehouse 375,903 GSF [10] 808 50 17 67 27 61 88 Beverly Boulevard & San Gabriel River Copy, Print, Express Ship Store 2,500 GSF PR10 Proposed Baybar Distribution Building Light Industrial 44,620 GSF [11] 221 27 4 31 4 24 28 3900 Baybar Road
PR11 Proposed 301 Jacmar Drive Townhomes 31 DU [12] 227 3 11 14 11 6 17 TOTAL 4,856 245 152 397 251 320 571
[1] Sources: City of Pico Rivera Community & Economic Development Division and County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, except as noted below and by applying trip rates as provided in the ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 10th Edition, 2017. [2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 720 (Medical-Dentist Office Building) trip generation average rates. [4] ITE Land Use Code 912 (Drive-in Bank) trip generation average rates. [5] ITE Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing Low-Rise) trip generation average rates. [6] ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Detected Housing) trip generation average rates. [7] ITE Land Use Code 110 (Light Industrial) trip generation average rates. [8] ITE Land Use Code 492 (Health/Fitness Club) trip generation average rates. [9] Source: "Village Walk Shopping Center TIS", prepared by LLG Engineers, dated February 2018. [10] Source: "Beverly Boulevard Warehouse VMT Assessment", prepared by Michael Baker International, dated November 2020. [11] Source: "Baybar Distribution Building", prepared by E P D Solutions, Inc., dated June 2020. [12] Source: "301 Jacmar Drive Project Trip Generation & Site Access/Circulation Study", prepared by Ganddini Group, dated September 2020.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-33-
-34-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the cumulative projects were calculated using rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, or they were obtained from other recently approved transportation impact studies. The cumulative projects’ respective traffic generation for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis for a typical weekday, is summarized in Table 3-

3. The cumulative projects traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the street system based on their locations in relation to the study intersections, their proximity to major traffic corridors, proposed land uses, nearby population and employment centers, etc. The distribution of the cumulative projects traffic volumes to the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively.

3.5.2 Ambient Traffic Growth
Horizon year background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown future projects in the study area as well as account for typical growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. Ambient traffic growth in the Downey area (i.e., included in Regional Statistical Area 22 [RSA 22] that includes Pico Rivera), which is presented in the 2010 Congestion Management Program13, indicates existing traffic volumes are expected to increase at an annual rate of approximately 0.24 percent (0.24%) per year between years 2020 and 2025. An annual growth rate of one percent (1.0%) until the year 2024 (i.e., the anticipated project build-out year) was selected for this analysis in consultation with City staff. Therefore, application of this one percent (1.0%) ambient growth factor in addition to the forecast traffic generated by the known cumulative projects allows for a conservative forecast of future traffic volumes in the project study area as incorporation of both (i.e., an ambient traffic growth rate and a detailed list of cumulative development projects) is expected to overstate potential future traffic volumes. The cumulative development projects should already be incorporated as part of the growth rate projection per the adopted, local and regional planning documents (i.e., which account for the future population, housing, and employment [socio-economic data] projections). 13 2010 Congestion Management Program, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, October 2010. -35-
-36-
-37-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

4.0 CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued proposed updates to the CEQA guidelines in November 2017 and an accompanying technical advisory guidance finalized in December 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory) that amends the Appendix G question for transportation impacts to delete reference to vehicle delay and level of service and instead refer to Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines asking if the project will result in a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines in December of 2018, and as of July 1, 2020 the provisions of the new section are in effect statewide. Concurrently, OPR developed the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), which provides nonbinding recommendations on the implementation of VMT methodology which has significantly informed the way VMT analyses are conducted in the State. Accordingly, for the purpose of environmental review under CEQA, the City of Pico Rivera has established criteria for transportation impacts based on VMT for land use projects and plans which is generally consistent with the recommendations provided by OPR in the Technical Advisory.

4.1.1 Screening Criteria
Traditionally, public agencies have set certain thresholds to determine whether a project requires detailed transportation analysis or if it could be assumed to have less than significant environmental impacts without additional study. Consistent with the OPR’s Technical Advisory, the City of Pico Rivera has determined the following screening criteria for certain land development projects that may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact:
• Projects that result in a net increase of 110 or less daily vehicle trips • Projects located in a High-Quality Transit Area (i.e., within half-mile distance of an existing rail transit station or located within half-mile of two or more existing bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during morning and evening peak hours) • Project is locally serving retail (less than 50,000 square feet), including gas stations, banks, restaurants, shopping center.
• Local-serving community colleges, K-12 schools, local parks, daycare centers, etc. • Residential projects with 100 percent affordable housing • Community institutions project (public library, fire station, local government) • Local-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels)
• Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) -38-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Public parking garages and parking lots
• Assisted living or senior housing projects
• Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing projects Proposed projects are not required to satisfy all of the screening criteria in order to screen out of further VMT analysis; satisfaction of one criterion is sufficient for screening purposes. Although the commercial (retail/restaurant) portion of the project screens out since it is less than 50,000 square feet and therefore locally-serving, a VMT analysis is still required for the proposed residential component of the project.

4.1.2 Impact Criteria and Methodology
A project that does not meet the screening criteria requires preparation of a detailed VMT analysis to determine whether the project would result in a significant transportation impact. The recommended threshold for residential projects presented in the Technical Advisory is as follows: “A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita.” Therefore, a proposed project’s VMT per capita must be 85% or less of the existing VMT per capita.

The most readily available Southern California Association of Governments Regional Travel Demand Model (SCAG RTDM) at the time of study preparation has been utilized to determine the residential VMT per capita for the City of Pico Rivera. The baseline residential VMT per capita utilizing SCAG RTDM for the City of Pico Rivera is provided below:
• City of Pico Rivera residential VMT: 14.39 residential VMT per capita • Residential significance threshold: 12.23 VMT per capita (i.e., 15% below the existing baseline residential VMT per capita)
As the commercial (retail/restaurant) portion of the project screens out, since it is less than 50,000 square feet and therefore locally-serving, the residential VMT per capita associated with the project is then compared to the City of Pico Rivera baseline residential VMT per capita in order to determine whether or not the project would be expected to result in a significant impact.

4.1.3 Project VMT Analysis
Project-specific regional travel demand modeling was conducted using the most readily available SCAG RTDM at the time of study preparation. The Project is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 21804400. The Project development totals were converted into socio-economic data, which describes both demographic and economic characteristics of the region by TAZ, and were then coded into the SCAG RTDM. The VMT analysis results for the project using the SACG RTDM are provided below:
-39-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• The estimated residential VMT per capita for the proposed project is estimated at 14.13 residential VMT per capita.

4.1.4 CAPCOA Guidance and Project Design Features
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity14 (“2021 Handbook”) provides a comprehensive set of guidelines for assessing and quantifying reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions reduction measures are grouped by emission sector into nine categories, including transportation, energy, water, and other related areas. Transportation emissions can be reduced by improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet, or by reducing VMT. Reductions in VMT are achieved when any of the following occurs: 1) vehicle ownership declines, 2) vehicle trips are reduced, 3) vehicle trip lengths are reduced, or 4) any combination of the first three variables. The 2021 Handbook lists 30 quantified measures covering a total of six transportation subsectors, including land use, trip reduction programs, parking or road pricing/management, neighborhood design, transit, and clean vehicles and fuels. The majority of the measures quantified in the 2021 Handbook aim to reduce VMT, although two strategies are aimed at improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet and thus do not result in quantified VMT reductions. The VMT reducing strategies are broadly referred to as transportation demand management (TDM) strategies due to the focus on reducing the amount of automobile travel generated by a project.

The following TDM strategies have been determined to be applicable as project design features (PDF):
• T-1. Increase Residential Density (9.79%)
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of dwelling units (DU) compared to the average residential density in the country. When reductions are being calculated from a baseline derived from a travel demand model, the residential density of the relevant TAZ is used for the comparison instead.

Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in VMT.

The project-generated VMT is derived from the SCAG travel demand model data. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential VMT reduction is determined by comparing the residential density in TAZ 21804400 without and with the residential development. The residential density of the TAZ was determined based on parcel-level data obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, which reports the type of residential development (e.g., single family, duplex, multi-family), the number of units, and the acreage of each parcel. 14 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Final Draft, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021, adopted December 15, 2021.
-40-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing (1.43%) This measure requires inclusion of below market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to job centers and achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. Increasing affordable housing creates the opportunity for a greater diversity of people to be closer to their desired destinations and the resources they may need to access. Close proximity to destinations allows for more opportunities to use active transportation and transit and to be less reliant on private vehicles. • T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply (3.84%)
This measure will reduce the total parking supply available at a residential project or site.

Limiting the amount of parking available creates scarcity and adds additional time and inconvenience to trips made by private auto, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel. Reducing the convenience of driving results in a shift to other modes and decreased VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. This strategy changes the on-site parking supply to provide less than the amount of vehicle parking required by Code. Based on published literature and other site-specific parking surveys of other mixed-use projects’ actual peak parking demands, lower than Code-required parking supplies have been determined to be sufficient. Through the Specific Plan, lower parking requirements and types of supply within the project site are being incorporated to encourage smart growth development and alternative transportation choices by project residents and employees. The proposed residential on-site parking supply (i.e., a total of 390 spaces) is planned to be less than the amount of vehicle parking that would have otherwise been required for the residential portion of the project through strict application of the City’s Code (i.e., a residential Code requirement of 542 spaces). Parking restrictions will be implemented and enforced at the existing Pico Marketplace to prohibit tenants from parking in the center overnight. The signage will also include verbiage that notes that any violations of the parking restriction are subject to towing.

The combination of the TDM measures discussed above results in a 14.49 percent (14.49%) reduction in VMT. The residential VMT per capita for the proposed project would subsequently be reduced to 12.08 residential VMT per capita, which is below the calculated City significance threshold of 12.23 residential VMT per capita. Therefore, the TDM measures which have been incorporated into the project design are expected to reduce the project’s VMT to a less than significant level.

4.1.5 Summary of Cumulative VMT Analysis
As stated in the County’s TIA Guidelines (refer to page 13), analyses should consider both shortterm and long-term project effects on VMT. Short-term effects are evaluated in the detailed projectlevel VMT analysis summarized above. Long-term, or cumulative, effects are determined through a consistency check with the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS is the regional plan that demonstrates compliance with air quality conformity requirements and greenhouse gas -41-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
(GHG) reduction targets. As such, projects that are consistent with this plan in terms of development, location, density, and intensity, are part of the regional solution for meeting air pollution and GHG reduction goals. Projects that are deemed to be consistent would have a less than significant cumulative impact on VMT. Development in a location where the RTP/SCS does not specify any development may indicate a significant impact on transportation. However, as noted in the County’s TIA Guidelines, for projects that do not demonstrate a project impact by applying an efficiency-based impact threshold (i.e., VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population) in the impact analysis, a less than significant project impact conclusion is sufficient in demonstrating there is no cumulative VMT impact. Projects that fall under the County’s efficiencybased impact thresholds are already shown to align with the long-term VMT and GHG reduction goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The County’s TIA Guidelines also note that projects which demonstrate VMT impacts through application of efficiency-based thresholds, and which are deemed inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, could contribute toward a significant cumulative impact on VMT. Since the expected significant residential VMT per capita project-related impact can be reduced to a less than significant level, it is also concluded that the project would also result in a less than significant cumulative impact on VMT.

4.2 Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis
Pursuant to current CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact may also occur “if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities”. The following section provides a brief review of the City’s adopted policies, plans, and programs pertaining to active transportation and public transit analysis.

4.2.1 Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs
The City’s current Circulation Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies pertaining to complete streets, transit and public transportation, and bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities, safety, among other things. Relevant adopted policies include:
• Policy 5.1-1 Multimodal Options. Make transportation mode shifts possible by designing, operating, and maintaining streets to enable safe and convenient access and travel for all users—pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all ages and abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers—and to foster a sense of place in the public realm. • Policy 5.1-2 Serve All Users. Provide a safe, efficient, and accessible transportation network that meets the needs of all users in the community, including seniors, youth, and the disabled, and contributes to the community’s quality of life.
• Policy 5.1-3 Complete Streets. Accommodate other modes of travel such as bicycling and walking when implementing roadway improvements, where feasible. • Policy 5.4-1 Continuous Network. Provide a safe and continuous bicycle and pedestrian network that links neighborhoods, parks, schools, libraries, commercial development, major -42-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
employers, and other frequently visited destinations as a means of improving health in the city.
• Policy 5.4-3 Bicycle Network. Design and implement a functional bicycle network by expanding bicycle routes, striping bicycle lanes where feasible, providing signage for bicycle routes, and providing adequate bicycle parking at City facilities. • Policy 5.4-4 Bicycle Support Facilities. Require bicycle parking and support facilities at new industrial, commercial, institutional developments, and transit facilities, as appropriate. • Policy 5.4-6 Pedestrian Network. Improve the pedestrian network by incorporating streetscape improvements such as shade trees, plantings, lighting, and street furniture. • Policy 5.4-7 Sidewalk Deficiencies. Improve areas with sidewalk deficiencies to increase walking in Pico Rivera.
• Policy 5.4-8 ADA. Incorporate American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to create an accessible pedestrian system that can serve all users.

4.2.2 Qualitative Impact Conclusions
The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on active transportation or public transit in the vicinity of the project site. As described in Section 3.1.1 herein, the project site is planned to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access via exclusive walkways which connect the proposed project to the public sidewalks. The walkways minimize the extent of pedestrian and bicycle interaction with vehicles at the site and provide a comfortable, convenient, and safe environment which in turn can encourage use of active transportation modes. The project site is further planned to provide bicycle parking facilities for use by residents, retail employees and the public. The proposed project is therefore found to be in alignment with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element goals to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and provide appropriate and supportive active transportation infrastructure.

The proposed project is located along Washington Boulevard, which is currently served by public bus transit service provided by Montebello Bus Line 50. As noted in Section 3.1, the project site is within easy walking distance from existing bus stops located along Washington Boulevard. The proposed project is not expected to affect access or safety at the existing bus stops, nor is it expected to hinder public transit service along Washington Boulevard. Further, the proposed project is not expected to preclude the City from constructing bicycle facilities or pursuing bicycle network improvements along local roadways within the study area. Development of the proposed project will not prevent the City from completing any proposed transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Since the proposed project is not found to result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs, nor is it expected to negatively affect the performance or safety of existing or planned pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities, it is determined that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on active transportation and public transit in the vicinity of the project site. -43-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

5.0 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
In order to estimate the proposed project’s effect on intersection operations (non-CEQA), a multistep process has been utilized. The first step is trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic volumes on a peak hour and daily basis. The second step of the forecasting process is trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic volumes. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/anticipated travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. The proposed project’s forecast trip generation, distribution, and assignment is presented in Section 2.5 herein. With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the effect of the proposed project is isolated by comparing operational conditions at the selected study intersections and site driveways using existing and expected future traffic volumes without and with forecast project traffic.

5.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis

5.1.1 Analysis Methodology
The study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of analysis which determines Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) ratios on a critical lane basis. The ICU method is intended for signalized intersection analysis and determines the v/c ratios on a critical lane basis (i.e., based on the individual v/c ratios for key conflicting traffic movements). The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time, and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. The overall intersection v/c ratio is subsequently assigned a Level of Service (LOS) value to describe intersection operations. Level of Service varies from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (jammed condition). A description of the ICU method and corresponding Level of Service is provided in Appendix F.

As noted in the City of Pico Rivera’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the ICU calculations are based on a lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes, and a dual turn-lane capacity of 2,880 vph. A clearance interval of 0.15 is also included in the ICU calculations.

5.1.2 Analysis Criteria and Thresholds
The relative effect of the added project traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of existing and future operating conditions at the study intersections, without and with the proposed project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to evaluate the future v/c relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. -44-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
The potential effect of project-generated traffic at the study intersections was identified using the criteria set forth in the City of Pico Rivera’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. According to the City’s guidelines, a detrimental effect is determined based on the threshold criteria presented in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1

CITY OF PICO RIVERA

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Level of Service Project Related Increase in v/c
C equal to or greater than 0.04
D equal to or greater than 0.02
E / F equal to or greater than 0.01
The City’s guidelines require improvement measures whenever traffic generated by the proposed development exceeds the criteria above.

5.1.3 Transportation Analysis Scenarios
Pursuant to the City’s guidelines, LOS calculations have been prepared for the following scenarios:
[a] Existing conditions.
[b] Existing with project conditions.
[c] Condition [b] with implementation of improvement measures, where necessary. [d] Condition [a] plus 1.0 percent (1.0%) annual ambient traffic growth through year 2024 and with completion and occupancy of the cumulative projects (i.e., future without project conditions).
[e] Condition [d] with completion and occupancy of the proposed project. [f] Condition [e] with implementation of improvement measures, where necessary.

The traffic volumes for each new condition were added to the volumes in the prior condition to determine the change in capacity utilization at the study intersections.

The transportation analysis prepared for the study intersections using the ICU methodology is summarized in Table 5-2. The ICU data worksheets for the analyzed intersections are contained in Appendix F.
-45-
Table 5-2

SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS

AND LEVELS OF SERVICE

WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
[1] [2] [4] [5]
YEAR 2021 YEAR 2024 YEAR 2024
YEAR 2021 EXISTING W/ CHANGE FUTURE FUTURE W/ CHANGE
EXISTING PROJECT V/C or SIGNIF. PRE-PROJECT PROJECT V/C or SIGNIF.

PEAK V/C or LOS V/C or LOS DELAY IMPACT V/C or LOS V/C or LOS DELAY IMPACT NO. INTERSECTION HOUR DELAY [a] Delay [a] [(2)-(1)] [b] DELAY [a] DELAY [a] [(5)-(4)] [b] 1 Paramount Boulevard/ AM 0.736 C 0.743 C 0.007 No 0.762 C 0.769 C 0.007 No Washington Boulevard PM 0.987 E 0.994 E 0.007 No 1.021 F 1.028 F 0.007 No 2 Crossway Drive/ AM 0.471 A 0.477 A 0.006 No 0.483 A 0.489 A 0.006 No Washington Boulevard PM 0.712 C 0.719 C 0.007 No 0.731 C 0.739 C 0.008 No 3 Rosemead Boulevard/ AM 0.495 A 0.497 A 0.002 No 0.507 A 0.509 A 0.002 No Coffman & Pico Road PM 0.607 B 0.609 B 0.002 No 0.627 B 0.630 B 0.003 No 4 Rosemead Boulevard/ AM 0.649 B 0.657 B 0.008 No 0.669 B 0.677 B 0.008 No Washington Boulevard PM 0.786 C 0.801 D 0.015 No 0.812 D 0.826 D 0.014 No [a] Level of Service (LOS) is based on the reported ICU value for signalized intersections and the delay value for unsignalized intersections. [b] According to the City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, July 2020, an impact is considered significant if the project-related increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) equals or exceeds the thresholds shown the following table:

Final v/c LOS Project Related Increase in v/c
> 0.710 - 0.800 C equal to or greater than 0.04
> 0.810 - 0.900 D equal to or greater than 0.02
> 0.910 E,F equal to or greater than 0.01
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-46-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

5.1.4 Existing Conditions
As indicated in column [1] of Table 5–2, three of the four study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The following study intersection is expected to operate at LOS E during the peak hour shown below:
• Int. No. 1: Paramount Boulevard/Washington Boulevard: Weekday PM Peak Hour The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 3–5 and 3–6, respectively.

5.1.5 Existing With Project Conditions
As shown in column [2] of Table 5–2, the project-related effects in the v/c ratios at the study intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s threshold criteria. Therefore, based on the results of the operation evaluation, no project-specific intersection improvements are required or proposed at the study intersections. The existing with project traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 5–1 and 5–2, respectively.

5.1.6 Future Without Project Conditions
The future cumulative baseline conditions were forecast based on the addition of traffic generated by the completion and occupancy of the cumulative projects, as well as the growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of existing developments and other factors (i.e., ambient growth). The v/c ratios at all of the study intersections are incrementally increased with the addition of ambient traffic and traffic generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 3–3. As presented in column [3] of Table 5–2, three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of growth in ambient traffic and cumulative projects traffic under the future without project conditions. The following study intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the peak hour shown below with the addition of growth in ambient traffic and cumulative projects traffic under the future without project conditions:
• Int. No. 1: Paramount Boulevard/Washington Boulevard: Weekday PM Peak Hour The future without project (existing, ambient growth and cumulative projects) traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Figures 5–3 and 5– 4, respectively.

5.1.7 Future With Project Conditions
As shown in column [4] of Table 5–2, the project-related effects in the v/c ratios at the study intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s threshold criteria. Therefore, based on the results of the operation evaluation, no project-specific intersection improvements are required or proposed.

The future with project (existing, ambient growth, cumulative projects and project) traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 5–5 and 5–6, respectively.
-47-
-48-
-49-
-50-
-51-
-52-
-53-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

5.2 Access and Circulation Review
The access and circulation have been evaluated for the project. The analysis of site driveways was prepared based on the Highway Capacity Manual15 (HCM) operational analysis methodology. The driveway analyses were prepared utilizing the Synchro 11 software package, which implements the Highway Capacity Manual operational methods. A Synchro network was created based on existing conditions field reviews at the site driveways. In addition, specifics such as traffic volume data, lane configurations, available vehicle storage lengths, crosswalk locations, posted speed limits, traffic signal timing and phasing for signalized locations, etc., were coded to complete the roadway network. Traffic volume data were obtained from manual counts conducted at the site driveways during the weekday morning and afternoon commute periods and are contained in Appendix D.

The operational analysis of vehicle queuing at the site driveways was prepared for the following conditions:
[a] Existing conditions.
[b] Condition [a] plus 1.0 percent (1.0%) annual ambient traffic growth through year 2024 (i.e., project build-out) and with completion and occupancy of the related projects (i.e., future without project conditions).
[c] Condition [b] with completion and occupancy of the proposed project (i.e., future with project conditions).

The HCM methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections was utilized to calculate vehicle queuing. The operational analysis reports the 95th percentile queues (in feet) for all approaches for the signalized intersections and the minor street approaches for the unsignalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The HCM 6th Edition methodology worksheets report queues in number of vehicles. As such, an average vehicle length of 25 feet, which includes the length of the vehicle and spacing between vehicles, was assumed for analysis purposes. The reported queues therefore represent the calculated maximum back of queue in feet. The summary of the operational analysis of the site driveways is provided in Table 5-3. As presented in Table 5-3, it is concluded the proposed project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes will not cause or substantially extend vehicle queuing at the site driveways. The HCM methodology worksheets for the site driveways are contained in Appendix G.
15 Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of SciencesEngineering-Medicine, 2016. -54-
Table 5-3
SUMMARY OF VEHICLE QUEUING [1]

WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
YEAR 2024 YEAR 2024

TRAFFIC PEAK FUTURE W/O FUTURE W/ CHANGE
NO. DRIVEWAY CONTROL MOVEMENT HOUR EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT IN QUEUE [3] 1 Project Driveway/ Unsignalized EB Left AM 25 28 40 15 Washington Boulevard PM 43 48 80 37
WB Right AM 0 0 0 0
PM 0 0 0 0
2 Rosemead Boulevard/ Signalized NB Left AM 3 3 3 0
The Marketplace PM 8 8 8 0
SB Right AM 113 120 145 32
PM 238 255 270 32
[1] Pursuant to LA County Public Works' Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, July 2020, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for intersections was utilized to calculate vehicle queuing. [2] The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The HCM 6th Edition methodology worksheets report queues in number of vehicles per lane, however an average vehicle length of 25 feet was assumed for analysis purposes. The reported queues therefore represent the calculated maximum back of queue in feet per lane.
[3] Represents the change in calculated maximum back of queue (in feet per lane) due to the addition of project-related traffic. 95th PERCENTILE QUEUES (FEET PER LANE) [2]
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-55-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

6.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PHASE ANALYSIS
The project construction evaluation addresses activity associated with project construction and major in-street construction of infrastructure projects. The analysis addresses the effect of a project’s construction activity on existing pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicular circulation in the vicinity.

Factors which are to be considered include the location of the project site, functional classification of the adjacent streets, availability of alternate routes or additional capacity, temporary loss of bicycle parking, temporary loss of bus stops or rerouting of transit lines, duration of temporary loss of access, affected land uses, and magnitude of the temporary construction activities.

While detailed construction plans have not yet been developed, the project applicant has provided preliminary information regarding the overall construction activities in order to identify the potential construction traffic generation. The following general construction details are provided based on information provided by the project applicant team:

Construction of the project is expected to occur within 24 months, beginning in 2022 with an estimated completion and project occupancy by 2024. Construction activities would be permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday. No construction would occur on Saturday or Sunday. Earthwork activities necessary for construction would require an estimated 27,400 cubic yards of export. All earthwork volumes have been adjusted to account for swelling and shrinking. Exported soil materials likely would be disposed of at the Azusa Landfill.

Based on the modeling data provided by the project team, the construction vehicles that are planned to be utilized for import and export activities will have a capacity of 14 cubic yards per truck. A total of 3,196 truck trips would be required for complete export of material associated with the project.

During peak grading activities (20-32 workdays), up to 143 truck trips per day and 30 workers can be expected. Following the completion of the site grading, building construction would occur during the following 20 months, requiring 60 workers per day. Asphalt paving and architectural coating would occur during the final two months of construction, requiring 12-15 workers per day.

It is assumed that the equipment staging area during construction would occur on/within the project site. Construction worker parking also could occur on-site. Based on the above construction hours it is assumed that workers would generally arrive at the site by 7:00 AM and depart the site by 4:30 PM (i.e., after a nine-hour workday including a lunch break), except when overtime is necessary to maintain the schedule. At this time, it is not known if temporary travel lane closures will be necessary during the course of project construction. However, any such travel lane closures would be expected to occur outside the weekday AM and PM commute hours so as to maintain roadway capacity when the street system is typically most heavily constrained. In addition, access to the existing Pico Rivera Marketplace will not be impeded as the other existing access points along Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard for the center will remain open during construction.
-56-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
Based on a review of the construction phasing, it is determined that the overall highest construction peak hour traffic generation is expected to occur during grading activities. Other phases such as demolition, building construction, asphalt paving and architectural coating are expected to be less intensive in terms of overall construction traffic generation during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. In addition, with implementation of a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP), as discussed further below, it is anticipated that most haul truck activity to and from the project site could occur outside of the morning and afternoon peak hours. Accordingly, construction traffic associated with the other phases are not expected to result in any construction traffic impacts given implementation of the CSTMP.

6.1 Screening Criteria
In order to determine the appropriateness and applicability of construction phase analysis for land use development projects, the County’s Guidelines provide the following questions for consideration, with discussion of the proposed project’s expected construction activities provided below:
• For projects that require construction activities to take place within the right-of-way of a highway or arterial, would it be necessary to close any temporary lanes, alleys, or streets for more than one day (including day and evening hours, and overnight closures if on a residential street)?
o No. The project is not expected to require construction activities for more than one day within the right-of-way of Washington Boulevard, which is designated as a major arterial in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. • For projects that require construction activities to take place within the right-of-way of a Local Street, would it be necessary to temporarily close any lanes, alleys, or streets for more than seven days (including day and evening hours, and including overnight closures if on a residential street)?
o No. The project is not expected to require construction activities within the right-ofway of any Local Street as designated in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. • Would in-street construction activities result in the loss of any vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian access, including loss of existing bicycle parking to an existing land use for more than one day, including day and evening hours and overnight closures if access is lost to residential units?
o No. The project is not expected to result in the loss of vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian access to any adjacent existing land uses. The majority of construction activity is expected to take place internal to the project site.
• Would in-street construction activities result in the loss of any ADA access to an existing transit station, stop, or facility (e.g., layover zone)? o No. The project is not expected to result in the loss of ADA access to an existing transit station, stop, or facility.
-57-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Would in-street construction activities restrict access to any bus stops for more than one day, or necessitate any rerouting of a bus route?
o No. The project is not expected to restrict access to any bus stops for more than one day, or necessitate any rerouting of a bus route.
• Would construction of a project interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility to adjoining areas?
o No. The project is not expected to interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility to adjoining areas.

As the answer is no to all of the screening criteria above, further analysis of project construction is not required. While it is concluded that the proposed project would not result in the closure of travel lanes, alleys, or streets for more than one day, would not relocate existing bus transit stops or routes, and would not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility during construction, it is recommended that a construction work site traffic control plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction activity. The construction work site traffic control plan is required to identify the location of any temporary roadway lane and/or sidewalk closures needed during project construction, including the construction of the new (replacement) project driveway and handicap accessible ramp, and installation of new curb and gutter near the driveway that is planned for closure. As the new driveway will be designed to meet City standards, no hazards with respect to driveway design and/or safety are expected.

Section 6.0 above notes that the project applicant would be required to prepare a detailed CSTMP, which would include any applicable street/lane/sidewalk closure information, a detour plan, haul route(s), and a staging plan. The plan would be based on the nature and timing of the Project’s specific construction activities and would consider other projects under construction in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site, if any. The CSTMP also would include features such as notification to adjacent project owners and occupants of upcoming construction activities, advance notification regarding any temporary transit stop relocations, and limitation of any potential roadway lane closure(s) to off-peak travel periods, to the extent feasible.

Specifically, the CSTMP will include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
• Advance notification of adjacent property owners and occupants of upcoming construction activities, including durations and daily hours of operation. • Temporary traffic control during all construction activities adjacent to public rights-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person/s). • Scheduling of construction activities to reduce the effect on traffic flow on surrounding arterial streets.
• Potential sequencing of construction activity for the Project to reduce the amount of construction-related traffic on arterial streets.
-58-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Containment of construction activity within the Project Site boundaries, per the Worksite Traffic Control Plan.
• Prohibition on construction-related vehicles/equipment parking on surrounding public streets. • Coordination with transit service provider/s to address any potential conflicts with existing transit service.
• Safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers shall be implemented as appropriate. • Schedule delivery of construction materials and hauling/transport of oversize loads to nonpeak travel periods, to the extent possible. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, Sundays, or federal holidays unless required by the City and/or Caltrans. • Installation of appropriate traffic signs around the project site to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety, as may be necessary.
• Installation of truck crossing signs within 300 feet of the exit of the Project Site in each direction.
• Securing of loads by trimming and watering or covering to prevent the spilling or blowing of the earth material.
• Cleaning of trucks and loads at the export site to prevent blowing dirt and spilling of loose earth.
• Identification of a construction manager and provision of a telephone number for any inquiries or complaints from residents regarding construction activities. The telephone number shall be posted at the site readily visible to any interested party during site preparation, grading, and construction.
• Obtain a Caltrans transportation permit for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities, if needed.
-59-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• Project Description – The project site is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard (APN: 6370- 027-018) situated along the north side of Washington Boulevard, west of Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera. The existing 2.85-acre project site is currently vacant, formerly occupied by a commercial building that operated as a nightclub until March 2015 and was subsequently demolished in 2020. The project applicant, Mercury Bowl, LLC: Green Rivera, LLC, is seeking approval from the City of Pico Rivera for implementation of the Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Specific Plan that reflects the proposed development of a mixed-use building with subterranean parking, ground-floor retail, and residential uses. If the Specific Plan is approved by the City, it would allow for the development of 255 residential dwelling units including 13 affordable units, 5,730 square feet of commercial/retail space; 1,750 square feet of ground-floor lobby/leasing space; and 13,500 square feet of recreational amenities for future residential tenants. The proposed residential unit mix consists of 35 studio units, 159 onebedroom units, 57 two-bedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units. Amenities for the proposed mixed-use development include a swimming pool, jacuzzi, poolside cabanas, clubhouse, gym, barbecue area, and garden/green areas. Construction and occupancy of the proposed project is expected to occur by the end of year 2024.
• Project Site Access – Vehicular access to the project site is planned to be accommodated by a total of two (2) driveways: one (1) existing driveway on Washington Boulevard and one (1) existing driveway on Rosemead Boulevard. The curb cut for the existing westerly site driveway on Washington Boulevard will remain and will be used solely for emergency/fire access but not for vehicular access. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site is planned to be accommodated via exclusive walkways which would connect to the public right-of-way. • Project Trip Generation – The proposed project is expected to generate 111 vehicle trips (40 inbound trips and 71 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 134 net new vehicle trips (80 inbound trips and 54 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 1,594 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (797 inbound trips and 797 outbound trips).
• Transportation Demand Management Measures – Transportation demand management (TDM) measures are proposed to be incorporated as project design features. • VMT Analysis: It is concluded that development of the project is not expected to result in a significant residential (household) VMT impact based on the City’s significance thresholds contained herein. Further, based on the project-related VMT analysis and the conclusions reported in Section 4.1.5 (i.e., which conclude that the proposed project aligns with the long-term VMT and GHG reduction goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS), no cumulative VMT impacts are anticipated.
-60-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• CEQA Active Transportation and Public Transit Assessment –The proposed project is found to be in alignment with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element goals to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and provide appropriate and supportive active transportation infrastructure.

Further, development of the proposed project will not prevent the City from completing any proposed transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. It is therefore determined that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on active transportation and public transit in the vicinity of the project site.
• Intersection Level of Service Analysis – – A total of four (4) study intersections were selected for analysis in consultation with City staff in order to determine potential effects related to the proposed project. The study locations were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. It is concluded that the project-related effects in the v/c ratios at the study intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s threshold criteria under either the Existing With Project or Future With Project conditions. Therefore, based on the results of the operation evaluation, no project-specific intersection improvements are required or proposed. • Project Access and Circulation Review – A review of the project site driveways was conducted.

It is concluded that the proposed project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes will not cause or substantially extend vehicle queuing at the site driveways. • Project Construction Phase Analysis – While it is concluded the proposed project would not result in the closure of through travel lanes, alleys, or streets, would not relocate existing bus transit stops or routes, and would not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility during construction, it is recommended that a construction work site traffic control plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction activity should any travel lane closure/s be proposed. The project applicant would also prepare a detailed Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan, which includes any applicable street/lane/sidewalk closure information, a detour plan, haul route(s), and a staging plan. No hazards or other safety concerns are expected at the project driveways and the new Washington Boulevard driveway will be designed in accordance with City standards and be in very close proximity to the existing driveway which is planned for closure. -61-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project

APPENDIX A

SCOPE OF STUDY FORM
The City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Page 18 of 20 July 27, 2020
Scope of Study Form-Part A
To be completed by the preparer of a traffic study and approved by the City’s Public Works Department prior to start of a traffic study
Project Name: Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use
Project Address: 8825 Washington Boulevard
Project Description:
255 Apartments (13 affordable), 5,500 SF retail/restaurant, 27,000 SF Self-Storage
Developer’s Name: Mercury Bowl, LLC, Green Rivera, LLC
Address: 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone No. 586-419-0927 Fax Number:

Email Address: [email protected]
Trip Generation Rates From: ITE Ed. Other: ITE 10th Edition, LADOT TAG Trip Generation For: Refer to attached Table 2-1
Land Use (1) Land Use (2)
ITE Land Use Code ITE Land Use Code
Daily Trips Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips AM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
PM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
(Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
Pass-by Trips (%), if applicable: %
Trip Credits, if applicable for any existing use: None
Land Use (1) Land Use (2)
ITE Land Use Code ITE Land Use Code
Daily Trips Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips AM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
PM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:

Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
Project Opening Year: 2024 Build-out Year: 2024
Study Intersections: 1 Paramount Blvd/Washington Blvd 6 2 Crossway Drive/Washington Blvd 7
3 Rosemead Blvd/Coffman-Pico 8
4 Rosemead Blvd/Washington Blvd 9
5 10
(Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
The City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Page 19 of 20 July 27, 2020
Part B- VMT Analysis

1. Project Screening
The project does not meet screening criteria.

2. Project Generated VMT Methodology
To Be Determined

3. VMT Methodology Benchmarks
To Be Determined
Ambient Growth Rate: 0.24 % Source: LA County CMP, RSA 22 Trip Distribution: East 25 % West 25 % North 25 % South 25 % Include exhibit showing trip distribution/ assignment and a map showing the project's trips at the study intersections and project driveways
Comments Trip distribution/assignment will be provided after study intersections have been confirmed and intersection manual traffic counts are conducted and reviewed (Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
Preparer’s Name: Francesca Bravo, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Address: 600 South Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone No. (626) 796-2322 ext. 223 Fax Number: (626) 792-0941 Email Address: [email protected]
Signature: Date: March 1, 2021
Scope of Study form(continued)
Study Segments: Washington Bl, btwn Rosemead Bl & Paramount 6 2 Rosemead Bl, btwn Washington Bl & Whittier Bl 7
3 8
4 9
5 10
(Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
The City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Page 20 of 20 July 27, 2020
Specific issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guideline) (To be filled out by City Staff)
________________________________________________________________________________ Scoping Agreement Submitted on _March 1, 2021______
Revised on ____________, ____________, _____________,___________ Approved Scoping Agreement:

Approved By (Department of Public Works):

Signature: Date:

Name: Title:

Table 2-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1]

DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2]

LAND USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Apartment [3] 242 DU 1,316 23 64 87 65 41 106
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (197) (3) (10) (13) (10) (6) (16) Affordable Housing [5] 13 DU 54 3 4 7 3 2 5
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (8) 0 (1) (1) 0 0 0 Retail [6] 2,750 GLSF 104 2 1 3 5 5 10
Restaurant [7] 2,750 GSF 308 15 12 27 17 10 27
Self-Storage [8] 27,000 GSF 41 2 1 3 2 3 5
TOTAL 1,618 42 71 113 82 55 137
[1] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 10th Edition, 2017 and Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG), City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), July 2020.
[2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multi-Family [Mid-Rise]) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 5.44 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.36 trips/dwelling units; 26% inbound/74% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.44 trips/dwelling units; 61% inbound/39% outbound [4] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Handbook", 3rd Edition, 2017 and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 - "Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments", 2011. Internal capture and Captive markets trips are trips made to and from other components of the project and other uses in the immediate vicinity of the site. A 15% internal capture/captive market reduction factor has been applied to reflect the internal trip making between the project land uses and other uses in the area. [5] LADOT trip generation average rates for Family Affordable Housing. - Daily Trip Rate: 4.16 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips/dwelling unit; 38% inbound/62% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.38 trips/dwelling unit; 55% inbound/45% outbound [6] ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 37.75 trips/1,000 SF; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.94 trips/1,000 SF; 62% inbound/38% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.81 trips/1,000 SF; 48% inbound/52% outbound [7] ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-Down] Restaurant) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 112.18 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.94 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 55% inbound/45% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.77 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 62% inbound/38% outbound [8] ITE Land Use Code 151 (Mini-Warehouse) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 1.51 trips/1,000 SF; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.10 trips/1,000 SF; 60% inbound/40% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.17 trips/1,000 SF; 47% inbound/53% outbound LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project

APPENDIX B

EMPIRICAL PARKING DEMAND DATA
Appendix Table B-1
SUMMARY OF PARKING DEMAND RATIOS AT COMPARABLE SITES [1] EXISTING ON-SITE [3] EXISTING OBSERVED [4] AT FULL OCCUPANCY [5]

ON-SITE PARKING PEAK PEAK PARKING PEAK PEAK PARKING

PARKING SUPPLY RATIO PARKING DEMAND RATIO PARKING DEMAND RATIO

SITES SUPPLY (SPACES/UNIT) DEMAND (SPACES/UNIT) DEMAND (SPACES/UNIT)

1. Paragon at Old Town 163 95.7% 404 2.48 231 1.42 241 1.48

2. Trio Apartments 304 94.0% 480 1.58 348 1.14 370 1.22

3. Main Street Village 481 93.8% 1,020 2.12 639 1.33 681 1.42 948 94.5% 1,904 2.01 1,218 1.28 1,292 1.36
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Peak parking demand was forecasted at full (100%) occupancy for each site. The peak parking demand ratios at full occupancy were derived by dividing the peak parking demand by the total number of dwelling units.

UNIT

OCCUPANCY
LEVELS [2]
TOTAL NO.

DWELLING
UNITS [2]
TOTALS (1 + 2 + 3)
The parking demand ratios were developed based on the number of dwelling units and parking spaces provided at each observation site, as well as the results of the parking accumulation surveys conducted for each site (on-site and on-street as applicable) in September 2012 (refer to Appendix A for a summary of the parking surveys for each site).

The site characteristics, including number of residential units and the site occupancy levels at the time of the parking accumulation surveys were provided by Lincoln Property Company representatives.

The parking supply was inventoried by LLG Engineers in September 2012. The parking supply includes all marked parking spaces provided on-site (i.e., regular, handicap, visitor, etc.) for residents, guests, vendors.

The existing supply parking ratios are based on the number of spaces provided on-site divided by the total number of dwelling units.

The existing peak parking demand was observed to occur at 11:00 PM for the Paragon at Old Town and at 12:00 AM midnight for the Trio Apartments and Main Street Village. The existing peak parking demand for the Paragon at Old Town and Trio Apartments included on-site and on-street observed parking demand associated with residents/guests for the sites. The weekday parking demand ratios are based on the parking demand observed for each site divided by the total number of dwelling units.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project

APPENDIX C

LADOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRIP GENERATION STUDY
Transportation
Assessment Guidelines
July 2020
i City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines This document and excerpts of this document may be reprinted or reproduced without permission, provided attribution to the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT).

For comments or questions regarding the transportation study review policies and practice of the City of Los Angeles, please contact:

City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
Bureau of Planning & Development Services
Eddie Guerrero, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Metro and West Los Angeles Office David Somers, Transportation Planning and Policy
This document may be reprinted and excerpts may be extracted without permission by LADOT. Changes to these policies may be revised or updated periodically and will be posted on the LADOT web site at:
www.ladot.lacity.org
3-8 City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines calibration of the simulation model.

Land Use Development Projects
Project Trip Generation
A land use project’s daily vehicle trips and trip generation may be estimated using the VMT Calculator tool or information from the most recent edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. However, if the project is in a Transportation Specific Plan (TSP) area, then the procedures and trip rates identified in the TSP should be applied. If other rates are proposed, then these rates must first be submitted with the appropriate background survey data for approval by LADOT. A table presenting the estimated number of daily trips and AM and PM peak-hour trips generated by the proposed project entering and exiting the site must be included.

The following adjustments may apply to some projects (any trip generation rate adjustments must be approved by LADOT during the scoping process):
• ITE 10th Edition – The 10th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual, released in September 2017 introduces trip generation rates for select land uses categorized by area type: Rural, General Urban/Suburban, Dense Multi-Use Urban, and City Core. The manual provides descriptions of the area types and guidance on how these rates should be applied. As part of the MOU process, LADOT should be consulted to confirm the appropriate ITE area type for the project location. If Dense Multi-Use Urban or City Core rates are to be used, care should be taken to ensure that the sample size within the ITE database is appropriate, in accordance with guidance in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook.

In addition, locally available trip generation rates developed from counts conducted at market-rate residential properties in the City of Los Angeles are higher than the ITE 10th Edition rates for mid-rise and high-rise multifamily uses in dense multi-use urban areas. The empirical rates presented in Table 3.3-1 should be used for these uses.

Table 3.3-1: Local Trip Generation Rates for Multifamily Mid-Rise and High-Rise Residential Land Uses in Dense Multi-Use Urban Areas

LAND USE AM PEAK HOUR
(trips per DU)

PM PEAK HOUR
(trips per DU)
Multifamily Mid-Rise 0.31 0.30
Multifamily High-Rise 0.23 0.30
• Unique Developments – Unique types of development may require trip generation studies of similar facilities in order to establish a trip rate for use in the analysis. These developments may include land uses for which trip generation rates are not available in the ITE Trip Generation manual, or land uses for which the rates in the ITE Trip Generation manual are based on a small sample of surveyed sites. The procedures and the results of the trip generation studies must be approved by LADOT.
• Existing or Qualified Terminated Use – When estimating the Project’s net new trips either when evaluating a land use project’s deficiencies toward access and circulation, or for screening a project from VMT analysis, any claim for trip credits for an existing or terminated land use generally requires that the use of land must have been active for at least 6 consecutive months during the past 2 years from the time of the base year vehicle trip counts. To fully ensure that trip credit claims are validated by LADOT, appropriate supporting documentation must be submitted, such as copies of any building permit, certificate of occupancy, business license, lease agreement, affidavits, utility bills, or photographs, as well as documentation as to when the previous land use City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines 3-9 was terminated, if applicable. Documentation of any previous environmental review should be included in this submittal. The absence of documentation of previous environmental review may result in denial of the claim for trip credits. Note that some TSP ordinances allow different time frames for the determination of existing use trip credits and of any applicable trip fees.
• Mixed-Use Internalization – Internal trip credits are a reduction to the trip generation estimates for individual land uses within a mixed-use development to account for trips internal to the site. Methods for determining internalization are provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, Transportation Research Board (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684:

Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Mixed-Use Trip Generation Tool (MXD). • Pass-by Trips39 – Any claim for “pass-by” trip generation adjustments must use the trip rates summarized in Attachment H titled “Pass-By Trip Rates,” which are based on rates published by ITE. However, these rates may be superseded by additional guidelines provided in specific plans. For the purpose of analyzing project driveways, the pass-by trip adjustment does not apply to the project driveway trips. • Transit-friendly Projects – LADOT encourages project applicants to design and construct transit-friendly Projects that create safe and walkable site design and facilities that connect Project patrons to and from transit stations and stops. Consistent with City policy goals to promote the use of transit and walking, LADOT, at its discretion, may allow up to a 25% transit/walk trip generation reduction, subject to the following guidelines, on a case by case basis:
• Developments above or adjacent to a Metro Rail, Metrolink, or Orange Line station, or to a similar dedicated transit line station with convenient pedestrian access to the station may qualify for a maximum 25% trip generation adjustment. The actual adjustment provided should be determined by an analysis of the transit service frequency and density at the specified transit station. • Developments within a 1/4-mile walking distance of a transit station, or of a Rapid Bus stop, may qualify for up to a 15% trip generation adjustment. The actual adjustment provided will be determined by an analysis of the transit service frequency and density at the specified transit station or Rapid Bus stop.
• If the development project is not within ¼-mile walking distance of a transit station or a Rapid Bus stop but is within a ¼-mile walking distance of other public bus stops, the project may still qualify for up to 10% trip generation adjustment. The actual adjustment provided will be determined by an analysis of the transit service frequency and density at the nearby bus stop(s).

Transit trip adjustment will not be automatically granted to development projects located in an area with infrequent transit service. However, all reasonable efforts by the developer to promote the use of public transit or walking will be considered for transit adjustments on a case-by-case basis. Refer to Section 2.2 of these Guidelines for transit-related mitigation measures.

Since the Dense Multi-Use Urban and City Core trip generation rates discussed previously were derived from data collected in dense urban areas with convenient and frequent transit service and the ability to walk to complementary land uses, etc., these effects are inherent in the rates. If Dense Multi-Use Urban or City Core rates are being used for land uses in a project, care should therefore be taken to avoid overestimating these 39 Pass-by trips are defined as patrons already traveling from an origin to a primary trip destination who make an intermediate stop at the project site without a route diversion.
3-10 City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines effects by taking additional transit or walk credits.
• TDM Trip Reduction – Features and amenities that may qualify a project for this adjustment include the TDM measures to achieve the minimum point value in the TDM Program Description and TDM measures in the VMT Calculator (see Attachment G).
• Affordable Housing Projects – Residential or mixed-use developments that include Affordable Housing Units [as defined in LAMC 12.22-A.25(b)] are eligible to use the locally-collected trip generation rates presented in Table 3.3-2, which are based on the total number and type of dwelling units reserved as affordable. These trip generation rates are based on vehicle trip count data collected at affordable housing sites in the City of Los Angeles in 2016.

Table 3.3-2: Trip Generation Rates for Affordable Housing Projects

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPES
DAILY
RATE
(Trips per
DU)

AM PEAK

HOUR RATE
(Trips per
DU)
% AM

TRIPS IN
% AM

TRIPS OUT

PM PEAK

HOUR RATE
(Trips per DU)
% PM

TRIPS IN
% PM

TRIPS OUT
Average
Family 4.16 0.52 38% 62% 0.38 55% 45%
Seniors 1.72 0.12 38% 62% 0.15 52% 48%
Special Needs 1.49 0.17 43% 57% 0.11 54% 46%
Permanent Supportive 1.23 0.08 67% 33% 0.13 53% 47%
Inside
TPA
Area
Family 4.16 0.49 37% 63% 0.35 56% 44%
Seniors 1.31 0.13 38% 62% 0.13 47% 53%
Special Needs 1.00 0.10 30% 70% 0.05 67% 33%
Permanent Supportive 0.87 0.08 62% 38% 0.09 59% 41%
Outside
TPA
Area
Family 4.15 0.55 40% 60% 0.43 55% 45%
Seniors 1.97 0.11 38% 62% 0.17 55% 45%
Special Needs 1.98 0.24 54% 46% 0.16 44% 56%
Permanent Supportive 1.50 0.09 71% 29% 0.16 49% 51%
Family affordable housing offers affordable dwelling units designed for lower income households with children, or lower income households with single or multiple adults without children. Senior affordable housing provides affordable dwelling units designed for mature residents. The category of special needs housing includes facilities serving a variety of populations, including foster youth, disabled, mentally ill, and HIV/AIDs. Permanent supportive housing provides long-term housing with supportive services designed to enable homeless persons and individuals/families at risk of homelessness to ensure that they remain housed and live as independently as possible.

Project Trip Distribution
The estimation of distribution patterns for project trips should consider a number of factors including, but not limited to, the following: the characteristics of the street system serving the project site; the level of accessibility of routes to and from the proposed project site; locations of employment and commercial centers to which residents of a residential project would be drawn; and residential areas from which the commercial patrons, employees, or school students would be drawn. The distribution analysis can be supported by data from the City of Los Angeles TDF model, ATTACHMENT F: VMT Calculator Documentation A-24
VMT CALCULATOR DOCUMENTATION:
https://ladot.lacity.org/sites/default/files/documents/vmt_calculator_documentation-2020.05.18.pdf City of Los Angeles VMT Calculator
Documentation
Version 1.3
Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and
Los Angeles Department of City Planning (DCP)
May 2020

APPENDIX B

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRIP GENERATION STUDY
600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-3050 www.fehrandpeers.com

MEMORANDUM
Date: April 20, 2017
To: Claire Bowin & David Somers, Los Angeles Department of City Planning Cc: Tom Carranza, Los Angeles Department of Transportation From: Tom Gaul & Cary Bearn, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Infill and Complete Streets Study
Task 2.1A Local Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study Ref: LA15-2755
This memo serves as a summary of Task 2.1A, Local Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study, as part of the City of Los Angeles’ Infill and Complete Streets: Capturing VMT Impacts & Benefits Pursuant to CEQA study. As part of Task 2.1A, vehicle trip generation and parking utilization surveys were conducted at numerous affordable housing locations throughout the City of Los Angeles in order to provide an improved understanding of vehicle trip generation and parking demand characteristics of affordable housing uses in Los Angeles.

The empirical trip generation data collected through this effort will be used to customize and calibrate the MXD model for Los Angeles to be integrated into the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) VMT Calculator to be developed for the City as part of later tasks in the study.

METHODOLOGY
Twenty-four hour driveway vehicle counts were conducted at the various survey sites using video cameras. Manual overnight parking utilization sweeps were also conducted.

Criteria for selection of the survey sites included:
 Sample Size – The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommends that at least three and preferably five independent survey sites be used to establish a local trip generation rate for a particular land use. This recommendation was exceeded for all land use types included in this study, including for each of the subcategories of affordable housing sites.
 100% Affordable – The affordable housing site must be 100% affordable (other than the manager’s unit). This was to ensure that the counts reflect the trip generation behavior solely of affordable units.
 Isolatable Use – The sites must be standalone and not part of a mixed-use development.

Claire Bowin & David Somers
April 20, 2017

Page 2 ends

 Countable Driveway(s) – Driveways must be serving parking lots for the use of the site and not also serving parking lots for other land uses in the surrounding area.  Successful Development – The development should be mature, be located in a mature environment, and appear to be economically healthy.
 Permission of Property Owners/Managers – Permission was obtained in order to survey a site.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING
Data Collection
Twenty-four hour driveway counts and overnight parking sweeps were conducted at a total of 42 affordable housing sites within the City of Los Angeles (35 sites counted in May-June 2016 and seven additional sites counted in November 2016). The affordable housing study locations were identified in consultation with the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning and the City of Los Angeles Housing+Community Investment Department. The sites were categorized according to two criteria considered to influence the level of vehicle ownership and tripmaking but also considered to be available and applicable to future projects (i.e., measureable and able to be determined using a readily available data source): proximity to transit and affordable housing type:
 Proximity to Transit – The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has defined “Transit Priority Areas” (TPAs) as the area within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, and defines a major transit stop as either a rail station or an intersection of 2 or more major bus routes with peak service frequencies of 15 minutes or less. The transit priority area defined by SCAG applies a ½ mile radial from the station or intersection. For this study, a ½ mile walkshed along the transportation network was used in lieu of the ½ mile radius.

Additionally, stations for the Metro Orange Line and Silver Line Busways were not included in the SCAG definition but were added as part of the rail stations. These busways provide peak hour service less than 15 minutes and operate in dedicated rights-of-way. Study locations were defined as either inside or outside a transit priority area. Twenty of the study locations were within a TPA and 22 were outside of a TPA.  Housing Type – Affordable housing type was categorized as serving families, seniors, special needs, or permanent supportive. Family affordable housing offers affordable dwelling units designed for households with children. Senior affordable housing provides affordable dwelling units designed for mature residents. The category of special needs housing includes facilities serving a variety of populations, including foster youth, disabled, mentally ill, and HIV/AIDs. Permanent supportive housing provides long-term housing with supportive services designed to enable homeless persons and individuals/families at risk of homelessness to ensure that they remain housed and live as independently as possible.

Fourteen of the study sites were designated as family housing, thirteen were senior, eight were special needs, and seven were permanent supportive. Each of these categories were divided roughly equally between sites within a TPA and sites outside of a TPA.

Claire Bowin & David Somers
April 20, 2017

Page 3 ends

Retail job density was also considered as a possible variable influencing tripmaking but, based on exploratory data analysis and discussions with LADOT, the final trip generation analysis was disaggregated based on proximity to transit and housing type only.

Table 1 presents the list of properties included in the analysis. Table 2 shows the aggregated vehicle trip generation results based on proximity to transit and housing type. Table 2 also shows relevant trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation, 9th Edition, for comparison. Table 3 shows the aggregated parking demand and utilization results based on proximity to transit and housing type.

For comparison, Table 3 also shows relevant parking requirements from the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC).

Property managers for 36 of the 42 surveyed sites provided information regarding selected characteristics of the sites. All of the respondents stated that they provide parking but do not charge residents for parking on-site. None of the respondents provide partially or fully-subsidized transit passes to residents, none provide car-share services, and one provides a shuttle to grocery stores.

Results
Reviewing Table 2, the following observations can be made:
 The empirical vehicle trip generation rates across the affordable housing survey sites are higher for the affordable family units relative to the senior, special needs, and permanent supportive affordable units.
 The empirical trip generation rates are generally lower for units located within a TPA than for units located outside of a TPA.
 The empirical trip generation rates averaged across all 42 of the affordable housing survey sites are lower than the ITE trip rates for standard apartments for all three time periods (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour). This holds true as well for almost all of the disaggregated subcategories (the sole exception being affordable family units outside of a TPA during the AM peak hour).
 Affordable family units both inside and outside of a TPA are the only categories with empirical rates higher than the ITE high-rise apartment rates (an ITE category which primarily consists of buildings within urban areas).
 The empirical rates for senior, special needs, and permanent supportive affordable housing are far lower than both the ITE apartment and ITE high-rise apartment rates.  The empirical rates for the senior affordable housing are lower than ITE rates for senior adult housing.

Reviewing Table 3, the following observations can be made:
 The empirical parking demand ratios are higher for the affordable family units relative to the senior, special needs, and permanent supportive units.

Claire Bowin & David Somers
April 20, 2017

Page 4 ends

 The empirical parking demand ratios for each of the subcategorizations of the affordable housing survey sites (by affordable housing type and by transit proximity) are lower than the LAMC parking requirement for apartments.
 The empirical parking demand ratios for family affordable housing range from 0.82 to 0.85 spaces per unit and are lower than the parking requirements under the LAMC Affordable Housing Density Bonus Option 2 (LAMC 12.22A.25(d)(2)) for restricted affordable units (1 space per unit).
 The empirical parking demand ratios for senior, special needs, and permanent supportive affordable housing range from 0.20 to 0.48 spaces per unit and are lower than the parking requirements under the LAMC Affordable Housing Density Bonus Option 2 (LAMC

12.22A.25(d)(2)) for units restricted to low or very low income senior citizen or disabled (0.5 spaces per unit).
 The empirical parking demand ratios are lower for units located within a TPA than for units located outside of a TPA for the senior, special need, and permanent supportive units but not for the family units.

SOURCES
Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.

Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2014.

Los Angeles Municipal Code.

TABLE 1
Affordable Housing Trip Generation and Parking Utilization Survey Locations Count Name Address Transit Priority Area Housing Type
1 Barnsdall Court 1632 N Normandie Ave, Hollywood, CA 90027 Inside Family 2 Parkside Apartments 900 S Grand Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Inside Family 3 El Dorado Family Apts 12129 N El Dorado Ave, Los Angeles, CA 91342 Inside Family 4 Union Point 420 Union Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Inside Family 5 Coronita Family 204 S Lucas Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90026 Inside Family 6 New Venice 1A 535 Santa Clara Ave, Venice, CA 90291 Inside Family 7 New Venice 2C 1002 5th Ave, Venice, CA 90291 Inside Family 8 Sichel Family Apts 1805 Sichel St, Los Angeles, CA 90031 Inside Family 9 Bonnie Brae Village 208 S Bonnie Brae St, Los Angeles, CA 90057 Inside Permanent Supportive 10 Gower Street Apts 1140 N Gower St, Los Angeles, CA 90038 Inside Permanent Supportive 11 The Villas At Gower 1726 N Gower St, Hollywood, CA 90028 Inside Permanent Supportive 12 NoHo Seniors Villa 5525 Klump Ave, North Hollywood, CA 91601 Inside Seniors 13 Morgan Place Senior Apts 7301 S Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90043 Inside Seniors 14 Figueroa Senior Housing 7621 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90044 Inside Seniors 15 Hollenbeck Terrace 610 S Saint Louis St, Los Angeles, CA 90023 Inside Seniors 16 Ward Villas 1177 W Adams Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Inside Seniors 17 Vermont Manzanita 1225 S Vermont Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90006 Inside Special Needs 18 New Carver 1624 S Hope St, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Inside Special Needs 19 Charles Cobb Apts 521 S San Pedro St, Los Angeles, CA 90013 Inside Special Needs 20 New Genesis 452 S Main St, Los Angeles, CA 90013 Inside Special Needs 21 Rio Vista Apts 3000 N Verdugo Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90065 Outside Family 22 New Venice 4B 915 7th Ave, Venice, CA 90291 Outside Family 23 Cuatro Vientos 5331 E Huntington Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90032 Outside Family 24 Lorena Terrace 611 South Lorena St, Los Angeles, CA 90023 Outside Family 25 Laurel Village 9700 Laurel Canyon Blvd, Pacoima, CA 91331 Outside Family 26 New Venice 2D 919 5th Ave, Venice, CA 90291 Outside Family 27 Cornerstone Apts 14128 Calvert St, Van Nuys, CA 91401 Outside Permanent Supportive 28 Willis Avenue Apts 14731 W Rayen St, Los Angeles, CA 91402 Outside Permanent Supportive 29 PATH Villas At Del Rey 11734 Courtleigh Dr, CA 90066 Outside Permanent Supportive 30 Winnetka Senior Apts 20750 Sherman Way, Los Angeles CA 91306 Outside Permanent Supportive 31 TELACU Pointe 3100 Fletcher Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90065 Outside Seniors 32 Asturias Senior Apts 9628 Van Nuys Blvd, Panorama City, CA 91402 Outside Seniors 33 Cantabria Senior Apts 9640 N Van Nuys Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 91402 Outside Seniors 34 TELACU Vista 4900 N Via Marisol, Highland Park, CA 90032 Outside Seniors 35 Andalucia Senior Apts 15305 W Lanark St, Los Angeles, CA 91406 Outside Seniors 36 TELACU Las Flores 12793 Mercer St, Pacoima, CA 91331 Outside Seniors 37 Buckingham Sr. Housing 4020 S Buckingham Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90008 Outside Seniors 38 Villa Valley 15950 Sherman Way, Los Angeles, CA 91406 Outside Seniors 39 Allesandro Street Apts 1934 Allesandro St, Los Angeles, CA 90039 Outside Special Needs 40 Innes Heights, Lp 1245 Innes Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90026 Outside Special Needs 41 Woodland Terrace 15532 W Nordhoff St, North Hills, CA 91343 Outside Special Needs 42 Guy Gabaldon Apts 3553 Beswick St, Los Angeles, CA 90023 Outside Special Needs TABLE 2
Vehicle Trip Rates for Affordable Housing Sites in Los Angeles (By Transit Priority Area and Affordable Housing Type)
Counts conducted May, June, and November 2016
TPA Area Affordable Housing Type Bin Sample Size Daily Rate (Trips per DU)
Average AM Peak
Hour Rate
(Trips per DU)
AM Percent
In
AM Percent
Out
Average PM Peak
Hour Rate
(Trips per DU)
PM Percent
In
PM Percent
Out
Inside - 20 2.32 0.26 40% 60% 0.20 56% 44%
Outside - 22 2.48 0.25 46% 54% 0.24 52% 48%
- Family 14 4.16 0.52 38% 62% 0.38 55% 45%
- Seniors 13 1.72 0.12 38% 62% 0.15 52% 48%
- Special Needs 8 1.49 0.17 43% 57% 0.11 54% 46%
- Permanent Supportive 7 1.23 0.08 67% 33% 0.13 53% 47% Inside Family Inside, Family 8 4.16 0.49 37% 63% 0.35 56% 44% Inside Seniors Inside, Seniors 5 1.31 0.13 38% 62% 0.13 47% 53% Inside Special Needs Inside, Special Needs 4 1.00 0.10 30% 70% 0.05 67% 33% Inside Permanent Supportive Inside, Permanent Supportive 3 0.87 0.08 62% 38% 0.09 59% 41% Outside Family Outside, Family 6 4.15 0.55 40% 60% 0.43 55% 45% Outside Seniors Outside, Seniors 8 1.97 0.11 38% 62% 0.17 55% 45% Outside Special Needs Outside, Special Needs 4 1.98 0.24 54% 46% 0.16 44% 56% Outside Permanent Supportive Outside, Permanent Supportive 4 1.50 0.09 71% 29% 0.16 49% 51% ITE for Comparison
ITE Record Number Description Sample Size Daily Rate
(Trips per DU)
Average AM Peak
Hour Rate
(Trips per DU)
AM Percent
In
AM Percent
Out
Average PM Peak
Hour Rate
(Trips per DU)
PM Percent
In
PM Percent
Out
ITE 220 Apartment 78-90 6.65 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35%
ITE 222 High-Rise Apartment 9-17 4.20 0.30 25% 75% 0.35 61% 39% ITE 252 Senior Adult Housing-Attached 5-10 3.44 0.20 34% 66% 0.25 54% 46% ITE 253 Congregate Care Facility 2-3 2.02 0.06 59% 41% 0.17 55% 45% ITE 255 Continuing Care Retirement Community 4-6 2.40 0.14 65% 35% 0.16 39% 61% TABLE 3
Parking Demand Rates for Affordable Housing Sites in Los Angeles (By Transit Priority Area and Affordable Housing Type)
Surveys conducted May, June, and November 2016
TPA Area Affordable Housing Type Sample Size Parking Demand Per Dwelling Unit Parking Utilization
Inside - 20 0.53 64%
Outside - 22 0.56 63%
- Family 14 0.84 72%
- Seniors 13 0.46 71%
- Special Needs 8 0.32 43%
- Permanent Supportive 7 0.37 56%
Inside Family 8 0.85 74%
Inside Seniors 5 0.44 73%
Inside Special Needs 4 0.20 34%
Inside Permanent Supportive 3 0.29 64%
Outside Family 6 0.82 70%
Outside Seniors 8 0.48 69%
Outside Special Needs 4 0.44 52%
Outside Permanent Supportive 4 0.43 50%
LAMC for Comparison
Parking Requirement per
Unit
Apartments (LAMC 12.21A.4(a))
<3 habitable rooms 1
3 habitable rooms 1.5
>3 habitable rooms 2
Projects with Affordable Housing Density Bonus - Option 1 (applies to all units, not just restricted units) (LAMC 12.22A.25(d)(1)) 0-1 bedroom 1
2-3 bedrooms 2
4 or more bedrooms 2.5
Projects with Affordable Housing Density Bonus - Option 2 (applies to restricted units only) (LAMC 12.22A.25(d)(2)) restricted affordable units 1
restricted to low or very low income senior citizen or disabled 0.5 restricted affordable units in residential hotel 0.25
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project

APPENDIX D

COUNT DATA
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Passenger
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 20 82 35 19 144 4 37 49 10 10 111 32 553
07:15 AM 19 100 49 27 198 9 29 54 8 15 111 43 662
07:30 AM 12 117 54 25 219 7 40 67 8 14 109 31 703
07:45 AM 16 111 34 32 199 6 52 67 12 21 143 73 766
Total 67 410 172 103 760 26 158 237 38 60 474 179 2684
08:00 AM 18 100 24 19 137 6 45 75 15 19 116 42 616
08:15 AM 17 92 31 22 138 8 36 65 17 10 106 42 584
08:30 AM 15 77 24 21 129 12 41 58 8 18 107 30 540
08:45 AM 19 70 28 13 140 8 52 76 9 15 103 30 563
Total 69 339 107 75 544 34 174 274 49 62 432 144 2303
04:00 PM 42 118 27 21 125 32 74 149 27 47 277 63 1002
04:15 PM 33 130 34 27 157 29 67 161 20 50 322 50 1080
04:30 PM 40 119 26 18 165 20 88 165 24 43 320 52 1080
04:45 PM 46 154 29 24 159 19 72 181 37 39 360 59 1179
Total 161 521 116 90 606 100 301 656 108 179 1279 224 4341 05:00 PM 31 136 26 18 151 31 81 173 32 36 326 57 1098
05:15 PM 52 134 39 23 155 22 71 157 27 43 400 59 1182
05:30 PM 48 131 24 30 157 35 75 163 31 50 415 54 1213
05:45 PM 53 141 18 23 135 32 69 130 28 45 370 58 1102
Total 184 542 107 94 598 120 296 623 118 174 1511 228 4595 Grand Total 481 1812 502 362 2508 280 929 1790 313 475 3696 775 13923 Apprch % 17.2 64.8 18 11.5 79.6 8.9 30.6 59 10.3 9.6 74.7 15.7 Total % 3.5 13 3.6 2.6 18 2 6.7 12.9 2.2 3.4 26.5 5.6

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 19 100 49 168 27 198 9 234 29 54 8 91 15 111 43 169 662 07:30 AM 12 117 54 183 25 219 7 251 40 67 8 115 14 109 31 154 703 07:45 AM 16 111 34 161 32 199 6 237 52 67 12 131 21 143 73 237 766 08:00 AM 18 100 24 142 19 137 6 162 45 75 15 135 19 116 42 177 616 Total Volume 65 428 161 654 103 753 28 884 166 263 43 472 69 479 189 737 2747 % App. Total 9.9 65.4 24.6 11.7 85.2 3.2 35.2 55.7 9.1 9.4 65 25.6 PHF .855 .915 .745 .893 .805 .860 .778 .880 .798 .877 .717 .874 .821 .837 .647 .777 .897 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
161
Thru
428
Left
65 Out In Total
360 654 1014
Right
28 Thru
753
Left
103
Out Total In
587 884 1471
Left
166
Thru
263
Right
43 Out In Total
720 472 1192
Left
69 Thru
479
Right
189
Total Out In
1080 737 1817
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 46 154 29 229 24 159 19 202 72 181 37 290 39 360 59 458 1179 05:00 PM 31 136 26 193 18 151 31 200 81 173 32 286 36 326 57 419 1098 05:15 PM 52 134 39 225 23 155 22 200 71 157 27 255 43 400 59 502 1182 05:30 PM 48 131 24 203 30 157 35 222 75 163 31 269 50 415 54 519 1213 Total Volume 177 555 118 850 95 622 107 824 299 674 127 1100 168 1501 229 1898 4672 % App. Total 20.8 65.3 13.9 11.5 75.5 13 27.2 61.3 11.5 8.9 79.1 12.1 PHF .851 .901 .756 .928 .792 .978 .764 .928 .923 .931 .858 .948 .840 .904 .970 .914 .963 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
118
Thru
555
Left
177
Out In Total
949 850 1799
Right
107
Thru
622
Left
95 Out Total In
1805 824 2629
Left
299
Thru
674
Right
127
Out In Total
879 1100 1979
Left
168 1501
Thru Right
229
Total Out In
1039 1898 2937
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Buses
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
07:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Total 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 9
08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
08:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
Total 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 9
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
04:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
Total 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 6
Grand Total 0 3 2 0 10 0 0 3 1 1 10 0 30
Apprch % 0 60 40 0 100 0 0 75 25 9.1 90.9 0
Total % 0 10 6.7 0 33.3 0 0 10 3.3 3.3 33.3 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3
07:30 AM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2
08:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 3
Total Volume 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 5 10
% App. Total 0 33.3 66.7 0 100 0 0 100 0 20 80 0
PHF .000 .250 .250 .375 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 .500 .000 .625 .833 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
2 Thru
1 Left
0 Out In Total
2 3 5
Right
0 Thru
1 Left
0 Out Total In
4 1 5
Left
0 Thru
1 Right
0 Out In Total
1 1 2
Left
1 Thru
4 Right
0 Total Out In
3 5 8
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total Volume 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 7
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .500 .000 .500 .583 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
0 Thru
1 Left
0 Out In Total
1 1 2
Right
0 Thru
3 Left
0 Out Total In
2 3 5
Left
0 Thru
1 Right
0 Out In Total
1 1 2
Left
0 Thru
2 Right
0 Total Out In
3 2 5
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Motorcycles
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
07:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
07:30 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 9
07:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 0 2 1 4 0 0 7 2 0 0 1 0 17
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
08:15 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 6
08:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4
08:45 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5
Total 0 3 1 4 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 17
04:00 PM 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 7
04:15 PM 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 7
04:30 PM 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 8
04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 4
Total 3 2 1 3 0 0 9 3 1 1 2 1 26
05:00 PM 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 8
05:15 PM 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 9
05:30 PM 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 9
05:45 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 6
Total 1 4 1 6 0 0 14 0 2 0 3 1 32
Grand Total 4 11 4 17 0 0 36 7 4 1 6 2 92
Apprch % 21.1 57.9 21.1 100 0 0 76.6 14.9 8.5 11.1 66.7 22.2 Total % 4.3 12 4.3 18.5 0 0 39.1 7.6 4.3 1.1 6.5 2.2

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 3 2 0 5 0 1 0 1 9
07:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
08:15 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 6
Total Volume 0 2 1 3 4 0 0 4 9 3 0 12 0 1 0 1 20
% App. Total 0 66.7 33.3 100 0 0 75 25 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .500 .250 .750 .500 .000 .000 .500 .750 .375 .000 .600 .000 .250 .000 .250 .556 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
1 Thru
2 Left
0 Out In Total
3 3 6
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
4 Out Total In
1 4 5
Left
9 Thru
3 Right
0 Out In Total
6 12 18
Left
0 Thru
1 Right
0 Total Out In
10 1 11
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 8
05:15 PM 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 9
05:30 PM 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 9
05:45 PM 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 6
Total Volume 1 4 1 6 6 0 0 6 14 0 2 16 0 3 1 4 32
% App. Total 16.7 66.7 16.7 100 0 0 87.5 0 12.5 0 75 25 PHF .250 .500 .250 .750 .500 .000 .000 .500 .700 .000 .500 .800 .000 .750 .250 .500 .889 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
1 Thru
4 Left
1 Out In Total
0 6 6
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
6 Out Total In
6 6 12
Left
14 Thru
0 Right
2 Out In Total
11 16 27
Left
0 Thru
3 Right
1 Total Out In
15 4 19
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 2 Axle
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washingon Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 1 6 2 1 3 0 3 2 2 2 3 2 27
07:15 AM 5 6 2 2 5 0 2 2 1 2 7 0 34
07:30 AM 2 4 2 0 10 0 0 5 2 0 6 1 32
07:45 AM 1 5 1 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 28
Total 9 21 7 4 25 1 6 13 6 5 18 6 121
08:00 AM 1 4 2 0 5 1 3 3 4 0 9 3 35
08:15 AM 1 3 1 0 6 2 4 2 3 1 6 2 31
08:30 AM 3 1 0 1 6 0 4 2 2 1 15 4 39
08:45 AM 0 4 0 2 5 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 24
Total 5 12 3 3 22 5 12 9 11 3 32 12 129
04:00 PM 0 5 0 0 5 0 1 2 2 0 3 4 22
04:15 PM 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 7 0 3 7 2 27
04:30 PM 0 4 0 0 6 1 0 4 1 0 7 1 24
04:45 PM 1 5 1 3 3 0 3 0 1 0 4 2 23
Total 1 16 2 4 17 2 4 13 4 3 21 9 96
05:00 PM 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 2 0 4 0 14
05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 3 5 14
05:30 PM 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 3 0 1 11 1 25
05:45 PM 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 10
Total 3 2 4 0 9 1 4 5 5 3 20 7 63
Grand Total 18 51 16 11 73 9 26 40 26 14 91 34 409
Apprch % 21.2 60 18.8 11.8 78.5 9.7 28.3 43.5 28.3 10.1 65.5 24.5 Total % 4.4 12.5 3.9 2.7 17.8 2.2 6.4 9.8 6.4 3.4 22.2 8.3

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washingon Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 1 5 1 7 1 7 1 9 1 4 1 6 1 2 3 6 28
08:00 AM 1 4 2 7 0 5 1 6 3 3 4 10 0 9 3 12 35
08:15 AM 1 3 1 5 0 6 2 8 4 2 3 9 1 6 2 9 31
08:30 AM 3 1 0 4 1 6 0 7 4 2 2 8 1 15 4 20 39
Total Volume 6 13 4 23 2 24 4 30 12 11 10 33 3 32 12 47 133 % App. Total 26.1 56.5 17.4 6.7 80 13.3 36.4 33.3 30.3 6.4 68.1 25.5 PHF .500 .650 .500 .821 .500 .857 .500 .833 .750 .688 .625 .825 .750 .533 .750 .588 .853 Rosemead Blvd
Washingon Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
4 Thru
13 Left
6 Out In Total
18 23 41
Right
4 Thru
24 Left
2 Out Total In
48 30 78
Left
12 Thru
11 Right
10 Out In Total
27 33 60
Left
3 Thru
32 Right
12 Total Out In
40 47 87
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washingon Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 2 2 5 0 3 4 7 22
04:15 PM 0 2 1 3 1 3 1 5 0 7 0 7 3 7 2 12 27
04:30 PM 0 4 0 4 0 6 1 7 0 4 1 5 0 7 1 8 24
04:45 PM 1 5 1 7 3 3 0 6 3 0 1 4 0 4 2 6 23
Total Volume 1 16 2 19 4 17 2 23 4 13 4 21 3 21 9 33 96 % App. Total 5.3 84.2 10.5 17.4 73.9 8.7 19 61.9 19 9.1 63.6 27.3 PHF .250 .800 .500 .679 .333 .708 .500 .821 .333 .464 .500 .750 .250 .750 .563 .688 .889 Rosemead Blvd
Washingon Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
2 Thru
16 Left
1 Out In Total
18 19 37
Right
2 Thru
17 Left
4 Out Total In
26 23 49
Left
4 Thru
13 Right
4 Out In Total
29 21 50
Left
3 Thru
21 Right
9 Total Out In
23 33 56
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 3 Axle
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 8
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
07:30 AM 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 11
07:45 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 5 2 15
Total 0 3 2 1 7 0 2 4 1 1 12 4 37
08:00 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 1 5 0 13
08:15 AM 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 5 5 1 18
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 11
08:45 AM 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9
Total 0 5 3 1 10 0 0 6 0 6 19 1 51
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 2 5 0 14
04:15 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 9
04:30 PM 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 8
04:45 PM 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 8
Total 0 3 2 0 13 1 2 3 1 2 12 0 39
05:00 PM 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 12
05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 6
05:30 PM 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
05:45 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8
Total 2 2 5 2 11 1 0 2 0 5 4 0 34
Grand Total 2 13 12 4 41 2 4 15 2 14 47 5 161
Apprch % 7.4 48.1 44.4 8.5 87.2 4.3 19 71.4 9.5 21.2 71.2 7.6 Total % 1.2 8.1 7.5 2.5 25.5 1.2 2.5 9.3 1.2 8.7 29.2 3.1

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 4 11
07:45 AM 0 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 5 2 8 15
08:00 AM 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 1 5 0 6 13
08:15 AM 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 5 5 1 11 18
Total Volume 0 6 3 9 2 7 0 9 1 8 1 10 7 19 3 29 57
% App. Total 0 66.7 33.3 22.2 77.8 0 10 80 10 24.1 65.5 10.3 PHF .000 .750 .750 .750 .500 .875 .000 .750 .250 .667 .250 .833 .350 .950 .375 .659 .792 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
3 Thru
6 Left
0 Out In Total
15 9 24
Right
0 Thru
7 Left
2 Out Total In
20 9 29
Left
1 Thru
8 Right
1 Out In Total
11 10 21
Left
7 Thru
19 Right
3 Total Out In
11 29 40
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 1 0 0 1 2 5 0 7 14
04:15 PM 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 3 0 2 0 2 9
04:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 8
04:45 PM 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 8
Total Volume 0 3 2 5 0 13 1 14 2 3 1 6 2 12 0 14 39
% App. Total 0 60 40 0 92.9 7.1 33.3 50 16.7 14.3 85.7 0 PHF .000 .375 .500 .625 .000 .650 .250 .583 .500 .375 .250 .500 .250 .600 .000 .500 .696 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
2 Thru
3 Left
0 Out In Total
6 5 11
Right
1 Thru
13 Left
0 Out Total In
13 14 27
Left
2 Thru
3 Right
1 Out In Total
3 6 9
Left
2 Thru
12 Right
0 Total Out In
17 14 31
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 4+ Axles
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 3 3 2 12 0 1 0 6 1 9 4 41
07:15 AM 1 1 1 0 13 0 0 2 5 1 16 1 41
07:30 AM 1 2 5 1 7 1 0 1 2 0 10 2 32
07:45 AM 1 2 3 2 14 0 3 0 1 1 14 1 42
Total 3 8 12 5 46 1 4 3 14 3 49 8 156
08:00 AM 0 0 1 2 9 0 2 4 2 0 9 1 30
08:15 AM 1 1 3 0 8 1 3 4 3 0 10 2 36
08:30 AM 1 0 0 1 11 0 0 5 3 2 11 1 35
08:45 AM 3 3 3 1 8 2 2 3 1 5 10 0 41
Total 5 4 7 4 36 3 7 16 9 7 40 4 142
04:00 PM 0 2 1 0 7 0 1 1 2 1 3 2 20
04:15 PM 0 1 2 3 5 0 1 1 1 0 8 0 22
04:30 PM 0 1 1 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 9 2 26
04:45 PM 0 2 2 1 8 0 1 4 0 0 9 1 28
Total 0 6 6 5 26 0 6 7 4 2 29 5 96
05:00 PM 0 1 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 27
05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 7 5 23
05:30 PM 0 2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 17
05:45 PM 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 12
Total 0 3 5 1 28 1 1 4 1 4 23 8 79
Grand Total 8 21 30 15 136 5 18 30 28 16 141 25 473
Apprch % 13.6 35.6 50.8 9.6 87.2 3.2 23.7 39.5 36.8 8.8 77.5 13.7 Total % 1.7 4.4 6.3 3.2 28.8 1.1 3.8 6.3 5.9 3.4 29.8 5.3

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 3 3 6 2 12 0 14 1 0 6 7 1 9 4 14 41
07:15 AM 1 1 1 3 0 13 0 13 0 2 5 7 1 16 1 18 41
07:30 AM 1 2 5 8 1 7 1 9 0 1 2 3 0 10 2 12 32
07:45 AM 1 2 3 6 2 14 0 16 3 0 1 4 1 14 1 16 42
Total Volume 3 8 12 23 5 46 1 52 4 3 14 21 3 49 8 60 156 % App. Total 13 34.8 52.2 9.6 88.5 1.9 19 14.3 66.7 5 81.7 13.3 PHF .750 .667 .600 .719 .625 .821 .250 .813 .333 .375 .583 .750 .750 .766 .500 .833 .929 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
12 Thru
8 Left
3 Out In Total
7 23 30
Right
1 Thru
46 Left
5 Out Total In
66 52 118
Left
4 Thru
3 Right
14 Out In Total
21 21 42
Left
3 Thru
49 Right
8 Total Out In
62 60 122
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 1 1 2 1 6 0 7 3 1 1 5 1 9 2 12 26
04:45 PM 0 2 2 4 1 8 0 9 1 4 0 5 0 9 1 10 28
05:00 PM 0 1 2 3 1 8 1 10 1 1 1 3 1 7 3 11 27
05:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0 8 0 8 0 2 0 2 0 7 5 12 23
Total Volume 0 4 6 10 3 30 1 34 5 8 2 15 2 32 11 45 104 % App. Total 0 40 60 8.8 88.2 2.9 33.3 53.3 13.3 4.4 71.1 24.4 PHF .000 .500 .750 .625 .750 .938 .250 .850 .417 .500 .500 .750 .500 .889 .550 .938 .929 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Right
6 Thru
4 Left
0 Out In Total
11 10 21
Right
1 Thru
30 Left
3 Out Total In
34 34 68
Left
5 Thru
8 Right
2 Out In Total
18 15 33
Left
2 Thru
32 Right
11 Total Out In
41 45 86
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Bikes & Peds
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:15 AM 0 0 0 2 0 7 1 0 10
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 0 0 1 2 1 8 1 1 14
08:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3
08:15 AM 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 2 11
08:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
08:45 AM 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
Total 0 6 0 3 0 8 0 4 21
04:00 PM 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 9
04:15 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 5
04:30 PM 0 3 0 8 1 1 0 0 13
04:45 PM 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4
Total 3 6 1 10 3 5 1 2 31
05:00 PM 1 1 0 2 0 8 0 3 15
05:15 PM 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 7
05:30 PM 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
05:45 PM 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 8
Total 5 6 1 4 1 11 0 5 33
Grand Total 8 18 3 19 5 32 2 12 99
Apprch % 30.8 69.2 13.6 86.4 13.5 86.5 14.3 85.7
Total % 8.1 18.2 3 19.2 5.1 32.3 2 12.1

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 3
08:15 AM 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 4 4 0 2 2 11
08:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3
08:45 AM 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4
Total Volume 0 6 6 0 3 3 0 8 8 0 4 4 21
% App. Total 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100
PHF .000 .500 .500 .000 .375 .375 .000 .500 .500 .000 .500 .500 .477 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Thru
0 Peds
6 Out In Total
0 6 6
Thru
0 Peds
3 Out Total In
0 3 3
Thru
0 Peds
8 Out In Total
0 8 8
Thru
0 Peds
4 Total Out In
0 4 4
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Paramount_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Paramount Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Paramount Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App.

Total Bikes Peds App.Total Bikes Peds App.Total Bikes Peds App.Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 3 3 0 8 8 1 1 2 0 0 0 13
04:45 PM 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 4
05:00 PM 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 8 8 0 3 3 15
05:15 PM 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 7
Total Volume 4 7 11 0 10 10 2 11 13 0 5 5 39
% App. Total 36.4 63.6 0 100 15.4 84.6 0 100
PHF .500 .583 .688 .000 .313 .313 .500 .344 .406 .000 .417 .417 .650 Paramount Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Thru
4 Peds
7 Out In Total
2 11 13
Thru
0 Peds
10 Out Total In
0 10 10
Thru
2 Peds
11 Out In Total
4 13 17
Thru
0 Peds
5 Total Out In
0 5 5
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Passenger
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 11 2 5 14 167 2 11 1 6 0 146 1 366
07:15 AM 17 2 2 14 235 1 12 2 6 1 102 8 402
07:30 AM 7 2 1 22 270 3 7 0 16 4 137 2 471
07:45 AM 15 1 6 24 217 2 9 2 11 3 149 7 446
Total 50 7 14 74 889 8 39 5 39 8 534 18 1685
08:00 AM 12 2 3 11 176 4 7 1 15 3 137 4 375
08:15 AM 11 2 1 18 176 8 6 2 5 2 121 4 356
08:30 AM 7 3 4 16 157 8 9 1 9 2 127 5 348
08:45 AM 6 5 4 18 173 8 1 1 15 4 116 6 357
Total 36 12 12 63 682 28 23 5 44 11 501 19 1436
04:00 PM 7 3 2 44 170 11 32 8 36 34 280 12 639
04:15 PM 14 5 5 41 194 11 40 11 33 31 290 15 690
04:30 PM 13 7 4 40 206 13 31 10 39 36 300 19 718
04:45 PM 12 2 2 43 181 12 40 10 32 21 326 18 699
Total 46 17 13 168 751 47 143 39 140 122 1196 64 2746
05:00 PM 18 5 4 33 194 13 36 10 35 24 303 14 689
05:15 PM 22 2 6 45 179 9 30 7 27 24 339 10 700
05:30 PM 18 5 2 33 175 18 36 8 33 15 359 15 717
05:45 PM 20 4 7 38 143 12 49 5 30 16 313 18 655
Total 78 16 19 149 691 52 151 30 125 79 1314 57 2761
Grand Total 210 52 58 454 3013 135 356 79 348 220 3545 158 8628 Apprch % 65.6 16.2 18.1 12.6 83.6 3.7 45.5 10.1 44.4 5.6 90.4 4 Total % 2.4 0.6 0.7 5.3 34.9 1.6 4.1 0.9 4 2.5 41.1 1.8

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 17 2 2 21 14 235 1 250 12 2 6 20 1 102 8 111 402 07:30 AM 7 2 1 10 22 270 3 295 7 0 16 23 4 137 2 143 471 07:45 AM 15 1 6 22 24 217 2 243 9 2 11 22 3 149 7 159 446 08:00 AM 12 2 3 17 11 176 4 191 7 1 15 23 3 137 4 144 375 Total Volume 51 7 12 70 71 898 10 979 35 5 48 88 11 525 21 557 1694 % App. Total 72.9 10 17.1 7.3 91.7 1 39.8 5.7 54.5 2 94.3 3.8 PHF .750 .875 .500 .795 .740 .831 .625 .830 .729 .625 .750 .957 .688 .881 .656 .876 .899 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Right
12 Thru
7 Left
51 Out In Total
26 70 96
Right
10 Thru
898
Left
71 Out Total In
624 979 1603
Left
35 Thru
5 Right
48 Out In Total
99 88 187
Left
11 Thru
525
Right
21 Total Out In
945 557 1502
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 13 7 4 24 40 206 13 259 31 10 39 80 36 300 19 355 718 04:45 PM 12 2 2 16 43 181 12 236 40 10 32 82 21 326 18 365 699 05:00 PM 18 5 4 27 33 194 13 240 36 10 35 81 24 303 14 341 689 05:15 PM 22 2 6 30 45 179 9 233 30 7 27 64 24 339 10 373 700 Total Volume 65 16 16 97 161 760 47 968 137 37 133 307 105 1268 61 1434 2806 % App. Total 67 16.5 16.5 16.6 78.5 4.9 44.6 12.1 43.3 7.3 88.4 4.3 PHF .739 .571 .667 .808 .894 .922 .904 .934 .856 .925 .853 .936 .729 .935 .803 .961 .977 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Right
16 Thru
16 Left
65 Out In Total
189 97 286
Right
47 Thru
760
Left
161
Out Total In
1466 968 2434
Left
137
Thru
37 Right
133
Out In Total
238 307 545
Left
105 1268
Thru Right
61 Total Out In
913 1434 2347
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Buses
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 8
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
05:30 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Total 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8
Grand Total 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 25
Apprch % 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 0
Total % 8 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 4 0 48 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 5 8
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .625 .000 .625 .667 Crossway Drive
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Drive
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
2 Left
0 Out Total In
6 2 8
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
1 Out In Total
0 1 1
Left
0 Thru
5 Right
0 Total Out In
2 5 7
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
05:30 PM 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
Total Volume 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 8
% App. Total 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .750 .667 Crossway Drive
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Drive
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
2 Out In Total
0 2 2
Right
0 Thru
3 Left
0 Out Total In
5 3 8
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
3 Right
0 Total Out In
3 3 6
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Motorcycles
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 9
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 7
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 19
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 84.6 15.4 0
Total % 0 0 0 0 31.6 0 0 0 0 57.9 10.5 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .000 .250 .750 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
1 0 1
Right
0 Thru
2 Left
0 Out Total In
0 2 2
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
1 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
2 1 3
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 9
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 66.7 33.3 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 .000 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .500 .000 .750 .750 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
4 0 4
Right
0 Thru
3 Left
0 Out Total In
2 3 5
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
4 Thru
2 Right
0 Total Out In
3 6 9
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 2 Axle
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 8
07:15 AM 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 18
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 17
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 16
Total 1 0 0 0 25 0 2 0 2 0 28 1 59
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 12
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 20
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 23
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 14
Total 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 69
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 12
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 12
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 12
Total 0 0 0 0 19 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 45
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 12
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0 8
05:45 PM 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 7
Total 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 1 1 0 21 0 32
Grand Total 1 0 0 1 79 1 3 1 3 0 114 2 205
Apprch % 100 0 0 1.2 97.5 1.2 42.9 14.3 42.9 0 98.3 1.7 Total % 0.5 0 0 0.5 38.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0 55.6 1

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 5 16
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 12
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 10 20
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 23
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 1 0 0 1 0 39 1 40 71
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 97.5 2.5
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .750 .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .574 .250 .588 .772 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
30 Left
0 Out Total In
39 30 69
Left
1 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
1 1 2
Left
0 Thru
39 Right
1 Total Out In
31 40 71
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 12
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 8 0 8 12
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 12
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 12
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 1 0 0 1 0 30 0 30 48
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .607 .000 .607 .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .833 .000 .833 1.00 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
17 Left
0 Out Total In
30 17 47
Left
1 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 1 1
Left
0 Thru
30 Right
0 Total Out In
18 30 48
Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 3 Axle
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6
Total 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 21
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 9
08:15 AM 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 10
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5
Total 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 1 17 0 31
04:00 PM 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 11
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8
Total 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 29
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8
Total 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 21
Grand Total 1 0 0 1 48 0 0 0 1 1 50 0 102
Apprch % 100 0 0 2 98 0 0 0 100 2 98 0
Total % 1 0 0 1 47.1 0 0 0 1 1 49 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 6
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 8 9
08:15 AM 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 7
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 10
Total Volume 1 0 0 1 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 32
% App. Total 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 4.8 95.2 0
PHF .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .714 .000 .656 .800 Crossway Drive
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Drive
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
1 Out In Total
1 1 2
Right
0 Thru
10 Left
0 Out Total In
21 10 31
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
1 Thru
20 Right
0 Total Out In
10 21 31
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 11
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 7
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 8
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 29
% App. Total 0 0 0 5.6 94.4 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .708 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .550 .000 .550 .659 Crossway Drive
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Drive
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
17 Left
1 Out Total In
11 18 29
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
1 0 1
Left
0 Thru
11 Right
0 Total Out In
17 11 28
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 4+ Axles
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 29
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 33
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 25
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 31
Total 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 118
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 22
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 24
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 15 1 28
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 13 1 25
Total 0 0 0 0 41 0 1 0 2 0 53 2 99
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 16
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 17
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 14
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 18
Total 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 65
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 15
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 15
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13
Total 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 53
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 153 0 1 0 2 0 177 2 335
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 100 0 33.3 0 66.7 0 98.9 1.1
Total % 0 0 0 0 45.7 0 0.3 0 0.6 0 52.8 0.6

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 29
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 33
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 25
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 31
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 65 118
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .946 .000 .946 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .813 .000 .813 .894 Crossway Drive
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Drive
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
53 Left
0 Out Total In
65 53 118
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
65 Right
0 Total Out In
53 65 118
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Crossway Drive
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Drive
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 16
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 17
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 14
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 18
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 65
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .875 .000 .875 .903 Crossway Drive
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Drive
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
30 Left
0 Out Total In
35 30 65
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
35 Right
0 Total Out In
30 35 65
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Bikes & Peds
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 2 10
07:15 AM 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 7
07:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 2 1 6 0 6 0 3 18
08:00 AM 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 5
08:15 AM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
08:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3
08:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3
Total 1 1 0 6 0 3 0 2 13
04:00 PM 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9
04:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3
04:30 PM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
04:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 8
Total 1 0 0 13 1 2 1 5 23
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 6
05:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3
05:30 PM 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 8
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 9
Total 1 0 1 3 4 2 5 10 26
Grand Total 3 3 2 28 5 13 6 20 80
Apprch % 50 50 6.7 93.3 27.8 72.2 23.1 76.9
Total % 3.8 3.8 2.5 35 6.2 16.2 7.5 25

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 5 5 0 2 2 10
07:15 AM 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 7
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 2 2 1 6 7 0 6 6 0 3 3 18
% App. Total 0 100 14.3 85.7 0 100 0 100
PHF .000 .250 .250 .250 .500 .583 .000 .300 .300 .000 .375 .375 .450 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Thru
0 Peds
2 Out In Total
0 2 2
Thru
1 Peds
6 Out Total In
0 7 7
Thru
0 Peds
6 Out In Total
0 6 6
Thru
0 Peds
3 Total Out In
1 3 4
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Crossway_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Crossway Dr
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Towne Center Dr
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App.

Total Bikes Peds App.Total Bikes Peds App.Total Bikes Peds App.Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 4 6
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
05:30 PM 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 3 8
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 6 7 9
Total Volume 1 0 1 1 3 4 4 2 6 5 10 15 26
% App. Total 100 0 25 75 66.7 33.3 33.3 66.7
PHF .250 .000 .250 .250 .375 .500 .500 .250 .750 .625 .417 .536 .722 Crossway Dr
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Towne Center Dr
Thru
1 Peds
0 Out In Total
4 1 5
Thru
1 Peds
3 Out Total In
5 4 9
Thru
4 Peds
2 Out In Total
1 6 7
Thru
5 Peds
10 Total Out In
1 15 16
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Passenger
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 1 150 3 0 0 2 1 81 0 4 0 4 246
07:15 AM 1 162 2 1 0 2 5 89 0 4 0 7 273
07:30 AM 1 176 0 2 0 1 3 92 0 5 0 5 285
07:45 AM 4 153 5 2 0 2 2 107 0 1 0 9 285
Total 7 641 10 5 0 7 11 369 0 14 0 25 1089
08:00 AM 4 158 7 1 0 3 2 72 0 3 0 12 262
08:15 AM 2 126 5 1 0 5 5 97 0 6 0 13 260
08:30 AM 1 137 1 2 0 2 4 92 0 0 0 5 244
08:45 AM 3 126 4 1 0 2 5 91 2 2 0 8 244
Total 10 547 17 5 0 12 16 352 2 11 0 38 1010
04:00 PM 9 218 6 3 0 2 7 264 0 10 0 4 523
04:15 PM 9 175 3 2 0 2 7 243 2 8 0 9 460
04:30 PM 2 206 8 1 0 3 8 246 0 15 0 6 495
04:45 PM 4 225 7 3 0 4 7 229 2 12 1 3 497
Total 24 824 24 9 0 11 29 982 4 45 1 22 1975
05:00 PM 5 207 6 1 0 5 3 237 1 13 0 9 487
05:15 PM 7 217 4 2 0 2 5 276 4 10 2 5 534
05:30 PM 5 223 3 1 0 3 7 211 0 8 0 13 474
05:45 PM 10 238 0 1 0 2 9 223 2 12 1 8 506
Total 27 885 13 5 0 12 24 947 7 43 3 35 2001
Grand Total 68 2897 64 24 0 42 80 2650 13 113 4 120 6075 Apprch % 2.2 95.6 2.1 36.4 0 63.6 2.9 96.6 0.5 47.7 1.7 50.6 Total % 1.1 47.7 1.1 0.4 0 0.7 1.3 43.6 0.2 1.9 0.1 2

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 1 162 2 165 1 0 2 3 5 89 0 94 4 0 7 11 273
07:30 AM 1 176 0 177 2 0 1 3 3 92 0 95 5 0 5 10 285
07:45 AM 4 153 5 162 2 0 2 4 2 107 0 109 1 0 9 10 285
08:00 AM 4 158 7 169 1 0 3 4 2 72 0 74 3 0 12 15 262
Total Volume 10 649 14 673 6 0 8 14 12 360 0 372 13 0 33 46 1105 % App. Total 1.5 96.4 2.1 42.9 0 57.1 3.2 96.8 0 28.3 0 71.7 PHF .625 .922 .500 .951 .750 .000 .667 .875 .600 .841 .000 .853 .650 .000 .688 .767 .969 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
14 Thru
649
Left
10 Out In Total
381 673 1054
Right
8 Thru
0 Left
6 Out Total In
10 14 24
Left
12 Thru
360
Right
0 Out In Total
688 372 1060
Left
13 Thru
0 Right
33 Total Out In
26 46 72
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 2 206 8 216 1 0 3 4 8 246 0 254 15 0 6 21 495
04:45 PM 4 225 7 236 3 0 4 7 7 229 2 238 12 1 3 16 497
05:00 PM 5 207 6 218 1 0 5 6 3 237 1 241 13 0 9 22 487
05:15 PM 7 217 4 228 2 0 2 4 5 276 4 285 10 2 5 17 534
Total Volume 18 855 25 898 7 0 14 21 23 988 7 1018 50 3 23 76 2013 % App. Total 2 95.2 2.8 33.3 0 66.7 2.3 97.1 0.7 65.8 3.9 30.3 PHF .643 .950 .781 .951 .583 .000 .700 .750 .719 .895 .438 .893 .833 .375 .639 .864 .942 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
25 Thru
855
Left
18 Out In Total
1052 898 1950
Right
14 Thru
0 Left
7 Out Total In
28 21 49
Left
23 Thru
988
Right
7 Out In Total
885 1018 1903
Left
50 Thru
3 Right
23 Total Out In
48 76 124
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Buses
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
07:15 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
07:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 11
08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
08:15 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
08:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
04:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
04:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
04:30 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
04:45 PM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
Total 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 16
05:00 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
05:15 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
05:30 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
05:45 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Total 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 17
Grand Total 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 51
Apprch % 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Total % 0 64.7 0 0 0 0 0 35.3 0 0 0 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
07:15 AM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
07:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total Volume 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 11
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .417 .000 .417 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .550 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
5 Left
0 Out In Total
6 5 11
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
6 Right
0 Out In Total
5 6 11
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
04:30 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
04:45 PM 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
05:00 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Total Volume 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 19
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .600 .000 .600 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .875 .000 .875 .000 .000 .000 .000 .679 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
12 Left
0 Out In Total
7 12 19
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
7 Right
0 Out In Total
12 7 19
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Motorcycles
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
08:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
05:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 5
Grand Total 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 13
Apprch % 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 33.3 0 66.7
Total % 0 38.5 0 0 0 0 0 38.5 0 7.7 0 15.4

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:00 AM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total Volume 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
4 Left
0 Out In Total
0 4 4
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
4 0 4
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
05:45 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total Volume 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 1 5
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100
PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 .000 .375 .000 .000 .250 .250 .625 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
1 Left
0 Out In Total
3 1 4
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
3 Right
0 Out In Total
2 3 5
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
1 Total Out In
0 1 1
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 2 Axle
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 12
07:15 AM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9
07:30 AM 0 13 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 21
07:45 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 10
Total 0 30 1 0 0 0 1 19 0 0 0 1 52
08:00 AM 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 15
08:15 AM 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 1 22
08:30 AM 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 1 0 1 21
08:45 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 3 19
Total 0 36 0 0 0 0 2 31 0 2 0 6 77
04:00 PM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8
04:15 PM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10
04:30 PM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 10
04:45 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Total 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 33
05:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9
05:15 PM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 13
05:30 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 9
05:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
Total 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 36
Grand Total 0 102 1 0 0 0 3 82 0 2 1 7 198
Apprch % 0 99 1 0 0 0 3.5 96.5 0 20 10 70
Total % 0 51.5 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 41.4 0 1 0.5 3.5

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 1 15
08:15 AM 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 9 0 0 1 1 22
08:30 AM 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 11 1 0 1 2 21
08:45 AM 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 1 0 3 4 19
Total Volume 0 36 0 36 0 0 0 0 2 31 0 33 2 0 6 8 77
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 6.1 93.9 0 25 0 75
PHF .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .775 .000 .750 .500 .000 .500 .500 .875 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
36 Left
0 Out In Total
33 36 69
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
2 Thru
31 Right
0 Out In Total
42 33 75
Left
2 Thru
0 Right
6 Total Out In
2 8 10
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 10
04:45 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
05:00 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 9
05:15 PM 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 13
Total Volume 0 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 37
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .679 .000 .679 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .712 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
19 Left
0 Out In Total
18 19 37
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
18 Right
0 Out In Total
19 18 37
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 3 Axle
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
07:15 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
07:30 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
07:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
Total 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 14
08:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
08:15 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
08:30 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6
08:45 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Total 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 21
04:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
04:15 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
04:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
Total 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 17
05:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
Grand Total 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 57
Apprch % 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Total % 0 56.1 0 0 0 0 0 43.9 0 0 0 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
08:15 AM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
08:30 AM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 6
08:45 AM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Total Volume 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 21
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .833 .000 .833 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .917 .000 .917 .000 .000 .000 .000 .875 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
10 Left
0 Out In Total
11 10 21
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
11 Right
0 Out In Total
10 11 21
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
04:15 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
04:45 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
Total Volume 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 17
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .563 .000 .563 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .667 .000 .667 .000 .000 .000 .000 .708 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
9 Left
0 Out In Total
8 9 17
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
8 Right
0 Out In Total
9 8 17
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 4+ Axles
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
07:15 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 8
07:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
07:45 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8
Total 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 25
08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4
08:30 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 8
08:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4
Total 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 17
04:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
04:15 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
04:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5
04:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 15
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
05:15 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
05:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
05:45 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
Total 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 16
Grand Total 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 73
Apprch % 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Total % 0 49.3 0 0 0 0 0 50.7 0 0 0 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
07:15 AM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 8
07:30 AM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
07:45 AM 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 8
Total Volume 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 25
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .700 .000 .700 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .688 .000 .688 .000 .000 .000 .000 .781 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
14 Left
0 Out In Total
11 14 25
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
11 Right
0 Out In Total
14 11 25
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage
Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
05:15 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
05:30 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
05:45 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
Total Volume 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 16
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .438 .000 .438 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .563 .000 .563 .000 .000 .000 .000 .667 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
7 Left
0 Out In Total
9 7 16
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
9 Right
0 Out In Total
7 9 16
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
0 0 0
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Bikes & Peds
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds Bikes Right Peds Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
07:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Total 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 3 3 13
08:15 AM 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 6
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3
Total 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 4 10
04:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 5
04:15 PM 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 10
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Total 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 3 6 21
05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 4
05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Total 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 8
Grand Total 0 13 4 0 15 0 1 6 13 52
Apprch % 0 100 21.1 0 78.9 0 100 31.6 68.4
Total % 0 25 7.7 0 28.8 0 1.9 11.5 25

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Right Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 5
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3
07:30 AM 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total Volume 0 3 3 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 3 3 6 13
% App. Total 0 100 25 0 75 0 0 50 50
PHF .000 .375 .375 .250 .000 .375 .500 .000 .000 .000 .375 .750 .500 .650 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Thru
0 Peds
3 Out In Total
0 3 3
Right
0 Thru
1 Peds
3 Out Total In
3 4 7
Thru
0 Peds
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Thru
3 Peds
3 Total Out In
1 6 7
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Coffman-Pico_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Coffman-Pico Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Right Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 5
04:15 PM 0 7 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 10
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2
Total Volume 0 8 8 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 3 6 9 21
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 33.3 66.7
PHF .000 .286 .286 .000 .000 .500 .500 .000 .000 .000 .375 .500 .750 .525 Rosemead Blvd
Coffman-Pico Rd
Rosemead Blvd (Frontage Rd)
Rosemead Blvd
Thru
0 Peds
8 Out In Total
0 8 8
Right
0 Thru
0 Peds
4 Out Total In
3 4 7
Thru
0 Peds
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Thru
3 Peds
6 Total Out In
0 9 9
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Passenger
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 29 107 17 30 182 15 22 48 9 13 106 8 586
07:15 AM 29 112 24 34 193 10 13 42 6 14 85 15 577
07:30 AM 36 132 28 47 247 18 12 69 5 15 125 13 747
07:45 AM 26 126 26 45 189 15 19 73 16 22 112 27 696
Total 120 477 95 156 811 58 66 232 36 64 428 63 2606
08:00 AM 34 112 17 38 161 8 21 45 14 14 136 21 621
08:15 AM 26 106 21 34 158 16 20 68 13 16 88 15 581
08:30 AM 34 98 20 31 159 20 15 45 9 25 87 22 565
08:45 AM 31 100 24 33 148 19 19 63 23 26 102 24 612
Total 125 416 82 136 626 63 75 221 59 81 413 82 2379
04:00 PM 23 141 26 43 141 23 19 166 41 45 192 29 889
04:15 PM 28 126 33 38 159 32 28 154 29 59 203 25 914
04:30 PM 31 145 26 41 154 28 39 160 41 50 242 38 995
04:45 PM 23 144 30 46 173 34 27 149 38 49 230 41 984
Total 105 556 115 168 627 117 113 629 149 203 867 133 3782 05:00 PM 33 149 34 44 156 48 20 128 41 63 230 49 995
05:15 PM 26 186 29 34 154 50 22 149 28 74 201 48 1001
05:30 PM 40 154 18 56 150 44 27 125 33 53 246 58 1004
05:45 PM 41 188 14 40 127 39 34 104 25 76 196 61 945
Total 140 677 95 174 587 181 103 506 127 266 873 216 3945 Grand Total 490 2126 387 634 2651 419 357 1588 371 614 2581 494 12712 Apprch % 16.3 70.8 12.9 17.1 71.6 11.3 15.4 68.6 16 16.6 70 13.4 Total % 3.9 16.7 3 5 20.9 3.3 2.8 12.5 2.9 4.8 20.3 3.9

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 36 132 28 196 47 247 18 312 12 69 5 86 15 125 13 153 747 07:45 AM 26 126 26 178 45 189 15 249 19 73 16 108 22 112 27 161 696 08:00 AM 34 112 17 163 38 161 8 207 21 45 14 80 14 136 21 171 621 08:15 AM 26 106 21 153 34 158 16 208 20 68 13 101 16 88 15 119 581 Total Volume 122 476 92 690 164 755 57 976 72 255 48 375 67 461 76 604 2645 % App. Total 17.7 69 13.3 16.8 77.4 5.8 19.2 68 12.8 11.1 76.3 12.6 PHF .847 .902 .821 .880 .872 .764 .792 .782 .857 .873 .750 .868 .761 .847 .704 .883 .885 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
92 Thru
476
Left
122
Out In Total
379 690 1069
Right
57 Thru
755
Left
164
Out Total In
631 976 1607
Left
72 Thru
255
Right
48 Out In Total
716 375 1091
Left
67 Thru
461
Right
76 Total Out In
919 604 1523
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Passenger
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 23 144 30 197 46 173 34 253 27 149 38 214 49 230 41 320 984 05:00 PM 33 149 34 216 44 156 48 248 20 128 41 189 63 230 49 342 995 05:15 PM 26 186 29 241 34 154 50 238 22 149 28 199 74 201 48 323 1001 05:30 PM 40 154 18 212 56 150 44 250 27 125 33 185 53 246 58 357 1004 Total Volume 122 633 111 866 180 633 176 989 96 551 140 787 239 907 196 1342 3984 % App. Total 14.1 73.1 12.8 18.2 64 17.8 12.2 70 17.8 17.8 67.6 14.6 PHF .763 .851 .816 .898 .804 .915 .880 .977 .889 .924 .854 .919 .807 .922 .845 .940 .992 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
111
Thru
633
Left
122
Out In Total
966 866 1832
Right
176
Thru
633
Left
180
Out Total In
1169 989 2158
Left
96 Thru
551
Right
140
Out In Total
1009 787 1796
Left
239
Thru
907
Right
196
Total Out In
840 1342 2182
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Passenger
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Buses
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
07:15 AM 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 10
07:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 7
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
Total 0 6 0 0 2 1 0 6 2 0 6 0 23
08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
08:15 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5
08:30 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
08:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
Total 0 5 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 15
04:00 PM 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5
04:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
04:30 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5
04:45 PM 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 9
Total 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 22
05:00 PM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 8
05:15 PM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6
05:30 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
05:45 PM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 7
Total 0 13 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 25
Grand Total 0 34 0 2 10 1 0 18 2 0 17 1 85
Apprch % 0 100 0 15.4 76.9 7.7 0 90 10 0 94.4 5.6
Total % 0 40 0 2.4 11.8 1.2 0 21.2 2.4 0 20 1.2

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3
07:15 AM 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 10
07:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 7
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 3
Total Volume 0 6 0 6 0 2 1 3 0 6 2 8 0 6 0 6 23
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 75 25 0 100 0
PHF .000 .375 .000 .375 .000 .500 .250 .375 .000 .750 .250 .500 .000 .500 .000 .500 .575 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
6 Left
0 Out In Total
7 6 13
Right
1 Thru
2 Left
0 Out Total In
8 3 11
Left
0 Thru
6 Right
2 Out In Total
6 8 14
Left
0 Thru
6 Right
0 Total Out In
2 6 8
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Buses
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5
04:45 PM 0 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 9
05:00 PM 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 8
05:15 PM 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6
Total Volume 0 14 0 14 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 28
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .700 .000 .700 .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .625 .000 .625 .000 .750 .000 .750 .778 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
14 Left
0 Out In Total
5 14 19
Right
0 Thru
3 Left
0 Out Total In
6 3 9
Left
0 Thru
5 Right
0 Out In Total
14 5 19
Left
0 Thru
6 Right
0 Total Out In
3 6 9
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Buses
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Motorcycles
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
08:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 7
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
05:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
Grand Total 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 1 2 1 19
Apprch % 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 25 50 25
Total % 0 26.3 0 0 36.8 0 0 15.8 0 5.3 10.5 5.3

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:00 AM 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total Volume 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .375 .000 .375 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
3 Left
0 Out In Total
1 3 4
Right
0 Thru
2 Left
0 Out Total In
0 2 2
Left
0 Thru
1 Right
0 Out In Total
3 1 4
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Total Out In
2 0 2
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_Motorcycles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 7
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 25 50 25
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 .000 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .500 .250 .500 .438 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
1 0 1
Right
0 Thru
3 Left
0 Out Total In
2 3 5
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
1 0 1
Left
1 Thru
2 Right
1 Total Out In
3 4 7
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Motorcycles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 2 Axle
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 4 1 1 2 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 19
07:15 AM 3 4 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 7 2 22
07:30 AM 3 10 3 0 5 0 0 6 0 1 7 1 36
07:45 AM 1 2 2 0 8 1 1 4 1 0 4 0 24
Total 7 20 7 1 17 3 2 15 2 2 22 3 101
08:00 AM 2 7 2 1 2 1 0 2 2 0 6 0 25
08:15 AM 4 5 3 0 6 2 1 6 1 0 8 1 37
08:30 AM 2 5 2 3 3 1 1 6 2 5 9 0 39
08:45 AM 1 5 2 1 4 2 2 7 0 1 4 0 29
Total 9 22 9 5 15 6 4 21 5 6 27 1 130
04:00 PM 1 3 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 18
04:15 PM 2 4 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 3 1 23
04:30 PM 2 2 0 0 4 2 0 2 2 1 5 0 20
04:45 PM 0 2 0 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 16
Total 5 11 2 4 16 4 2 9 3 1 18 2 77
05:00 PM 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 6 0 17
05:15 PM 1 4 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 16
05:30 PM 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 15
05:45 PM 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 4 1 16
Total 2 12 2 5 7 0 1 13 3 4 13 2 64
Grand Total 23 65 20 15 55 13 9 58 13 13 80 8 372
Apprch % 21.3 60.2 18.5 18.1 66.3 15.7 11.2 72.5 16.2 12.9 79.2 7.9 Total % 6.2 17.5 5.4 4 14.8 3.5 2.4 15.6 3.5 3.5 21.5 2.2

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 2 7 2 11 1 2 1 4 0 2 2 4 0 6 0 6 25
08:15 AM 4 5 3 12 0 6 2 8 1 6 1 8 0 8 1 9 37
08:30 AM 2 5 2 9 3 3 1 7 1 6 2 9 5 9 0 14 39
08:45 AM 1 5 2 8 1 4 2 7 2 7 0 9 1 4 0 5 29
Total Volume 9 22 9 40 5 15 6 26 4 21 5 30 6 27 1 34 130 % App. Total 22.5 55 22.5 19.2 57.7 23.1 13.3 70 16.7 17.6 79.4 2.9 PHF .563 .786 .750 .833 .417 .625 .750 .813 .500 .750 .625 .833 .300 .750 .250 .607 .833 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
9 Thru
22 Left
9 Out In Total
33 40 73
Right
6 Thru
15 Left
5 Out Total In
41 26 67
Left
4 Thru
21 Right
5 Out In Total
28 30 58
Left
6 Thru
27 Right
1 Total Out In
28 34 62
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_2-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 1 3 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 5 1 6 18
04:15 PM 2 4 2 8 1 3 2 6 2 2 1 5 0 3 1 4 23
04:30 PM 2 2 0 4 0 4 2 6 0 2 2 4 1 5 0 6 20
04:45 PM 0 2 0 2 3 4 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 5 16
Total Volume 5 11 2 18 4 16 4 24 2 9 3 14 1 18 2 21 77
% App. Total 27.8 61.1 11.1 16.7 66.7 16.7 14.3 64.3 21.4 4.8 85.7 9.5 PHF .625 .688 .250 .563 .333 .800 .500 .857 .250 .750 .375 .700 .250 .900 .500 .875 .837 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
2 Thru
11 Left
5 Out In Total
14 18 32
Right
4 Thru
16 Left
4 Out Total In
26 24 50
Left
2 Thru
9 Right
3 Out In Total
17 14 31
Left
1 Thru
18 Right
2 Total Out In
20 21 41
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
2 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 3 Axle
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
07:15 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 7
07:30 AM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 8
07:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 10
Total 0 9 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 31
08:00 AM 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 10
08:15 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 10
08:30 AM 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 14
08:45 AM 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 11
Total 2 5 5 2 6 1 0 2 1 8 13 0 45
04:00 PM 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 11
04:15 PM 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7
04:30 PM 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 8
04:45 PM 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 10
Total 0 7 3 0 12 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 36
05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
05:30 PM 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
05:45 PM 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 9
Total 0 3 1 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 23
Grand Total 2 24 9 2 37 1 5 10 1 12 32 0 135
Apprch % 5.7 68.6 25.7 5 92.5 2.5 31.2 62.5 6.2 27.3 72.7 0 Total % 1.5 17.8 6.7 1.5 27.4 0.7 3.7 7.4 0.7 8.9 23.7 0

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 4 0 6 10
08:15 AM 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 10
08:30 AM 0 1 2 3 1 3 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 4 0 5 14
08:45 AM 1 2 2 5 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 11
Total Volume 2 5 5 12 2 6 1 9 0 2 1 3 8 13 0 21 45
% App. Total 16.7 41.7 41.7 22.2 66.7 11.1 0 66.7 33.3 38.1 61.9 0 PHF .500 .625 .625 .600 .500 .500 .250 .563 .000 .500 .250 .375 .500 .813 .000 .875 .804 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
5 Thru
5 Left
2 Out In Total
11 12 23
Right
1 Thru
6 Left
2 Out Total In
16 9 25
Left
0 Thru
2 Right
1 Out In Total
7 3 10
Left
8 Thru
13 Right
0 Total Out In
11 21 32
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_3-Axle
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 2 2 4 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 3 11
04:15 PM 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 7
04:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 8
04:45 PM 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 10
Total Volume 0 7 3 10 0 12 0 12 4 3 0 7 4 3 0 7 36
% App. Total 0 70 30 0 100 0 57.1 42.9 0 57.1 42.9 0
PHF .000 .583 .375 .625 .000 .600 .000 .600 .500 .375 .000 .583 .500 .750 .000 .583 .818 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
3 Thru
7 Left
0 Out In Total
7 10 17
Right
0 Thru
12 Left
0 Out Total In
3 12 15
Left
4 Thru
3 Right
0 Out In Total
7 7 14
Left
4 Thru
3 Right
0 Total Out In
19 7 26
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
3 Axle
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 4+ Axles
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 1 2 2 12 1 0 0 1 1 11 2 33
07:15 AM 2 1 1 1 11 3 0 0 0 1 17 0 37
07:30 AM 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 1 0 1 11 0 25
07:45 AM 0 3 2 0 12 1 0 1 1 1 18 1 40
Total 2 5 7 3 45 5 0 2 2 4 57 3 135
08:00 AM 0 0 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 20
08:15 AM 0 1 1 2 7 1 0 2 0 0 15 1 30
08:30 AM 0 2 2 2 7 2 0 3 1 0 17 0 36
08:45 AM 0 0 1 0 8 1 1 1 0 1 10 2 25
Total 0 3 5 5 32 4 1 6 1 1 49 4 111
04:00 PM 0 2 2 4 6 0 1 0 2 0 7 0 24
04:15 PM 0 1 2 2 7 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 22
04:30 PM 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 2 2 2 7 1 22
04:45 PM 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 19
Total 0 5 5 7 27 1 1 3 4 3 30 1 87
05:00 PM 0 0 1 1 8 1 0 2 0 1 5 0 19
05:15 PM 0 3 0 1 9 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 22
05:30 PM 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 13
05:45 PM 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 15
Total 0 4 5 4 24 1 1 6 1 5 17 1 69
Grand Total 2 17 22 19 128 11 3 17 8 13 153 9 402
Apprch % 4.9 41.5 53.7 12 81 7 10.7 60.7 28.6 7.4 87.4 5.1 Total % 0.5 4.2 5.5 4.7 31.8 2.7 0.7 4.2 2 3.2 38.1 2.2

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 1 2 3 2 12 1 15 0 0 1 1 1 11 2 14 33
07:15 AM 2 1 1 4 1 11 3 15 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 18 37
07:30 AM 0 0 2 2 0 10 0 10 0 1 0 1 1 11 0 12 25
07:45 AM 0 3 2 5 0 12 1 13 0 1 1 2 1 18 1 20 40
Total Volume 2 5 7 14 3 45 5 53 0 2 2 4 4 57 3 64 135
% App. Total 14.3 35.7 50 5.7 84.9 9.4 0 50 50 6.2 89.1 4.7 PHF .250 .417 .875 .700 .375 .938 .417 .883 .000 .500 .500 .500 1.00 .792 .375 .800 .844 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
7 Thru
5 Left
2 Out In Total
11 14 25
Right
5 Thru
45 Left
3 Out Total In
61 53 114
Left
0 Thru
2 Right
2 Out In Total
11 4 15
Left
4 Thru
57 Right
3 Total Out In
52 64 116
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_4+Axles
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 2 2 4 4 6 0 10 1 0 2 3 0 7 0 7 24
04:15 PM 0 1 2 3 2 7 0 9 0 1 0 1 1 8 0 9 22
04:30 PM 0 1 1 2 0 5 1 6 0 2 2 4 2 7 1 10 22
04:45 PM 0 1 0 1 1 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 19
Total Volume 0 5 5 10 7 27 1 35 1 3 4 8 3 30 1 34 87
% App. Total 0 50 50 20 77.1 2.9 12.5 37.5 50 8.8 88.2 2.9 PHF .000 .625 .625 .625 .438 .750 .250 .875 .250 .375 .500 .500 .375 .938 .250 .850 .906 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Right
5 Thru
5 Left
0 Out In Total
7 10 17
Right
1 Thru
27 Left
7 Out Total In
34 35 69
Left
1 Thru
3 Right
4 Out In Total
13 8 21
Left
3 Thru
30 Right
1 Total Out In
33 34 67
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
4+ Axles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Bikes & Peds
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Bikes Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 3 9
07:15 AM 1 1 0 3 0 1 2 3 11
07:30 AM 1 2 1 5 1 3 0 3 16
07:45 AM 0 5 0 4 0 5 0 2 16
Total 2 10 1 14 1 10 3 11 52
08:00 AM 0 4 0 3 1 3 0 2 13
08:15 AM 1 5 1 6 1 4 1 4 23
08:30 AM 0 2 0 6 0 5 0 2 15
08:45 AM 0 5 1 4 1 5 0 3 19
Total 1 16 2 19 3 17 1 11 70
04:00 PM 0 5 0 10 1 6 0 4 26
04:15 PM 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 3 20
04:30 PM 1 3 1 10 0 4 2 0 21
04:45 PM 0 5 0 12 1 5 1 3 27
Total 1 18 1 38 2 21 3 10 94
05:00 PM 1 13 0 15 1 8 0 4 42
05:15 PM 1 11 2 9 0 6 1 3 33
05:30 PM 1 7 0 7 1 7 1 3 27
05:45 PM 0 5 0 11 0 6 0 2 24
Total 3 36 2 42 2 27 2 12 126
Grand Total 7 80 6 113 8 75 9 44 342
Apprch % 8 92 5 95 9.6 90.4 17 83
Total % 2 23.4 1.8 33 2.3 21.9 2.6 12.9

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 2
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Bikes Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 0 4 4 0 3 3 1 3 4 0 2 2 13
08:15 AM 1 5 6 1 6 7 1 4 5 1 4 5 23
08:30 AM 0 2 2 0 6 6 0 5 5 0 2 2 15
08:45 AM 0 5 5 1 4 5 1 5 6 0 3 3 19
Total Volume 1 16 17 2 19 21 3 17 20 1 11 12 70
% App. Total 5.9 94.1 9.5 90.5 15 85 8.3 91.7
PHF .250 .800 .708 .500 .792 .750 .750 .850 .833 .250 .688 .600 .761 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Thru
1 Peds
16 Out In Total
3 17 20
Thru
2 Peds
19 Out Total In
1 21 22
Thru
3 Peds
17 Out In Total
1 20 21
Thru
1 Peds
11 Total Out In
2 12 14
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Rosemead_Washington_BP
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 3/9/2021
Page No : 3
Rosemead Blvd
Southbound
Washington Blvd
Westbound
Rosemead Blvd
Northbound
Washington Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Bikes Peds App.

Total Bikes Peds App.Total Bikes Peds App.Total Bikes Peds App.Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 0 5 5 0 12 12 1 5 6 1 3 4 27
05:00 PM 1 13 14 0 15 15 1 8 9 0 4 4 42
05:15 PM 1 11 12 2 9 11 0 6 6 1 3 4 33
05:30 PM 1 7 8 0 7 7 1 7 8 1 3 4 27
Total Volume 3 36 39 2 43 45 3 26 29 3 13 16 129
% App. Total 7.7 92.3 4.4 95.6 10.3 89.7 18.8 81.2
PHF .750 .692 .696 .250 .717 .750 .750 .813 .806 .750 .813 1.00 .768 Rosemead Blvd
Washington Blvd
Washington Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Thru
3 Peds
36 Out In Total
3 39 42
Thru
2 Peds
43 Out Total In
3 45 48
Thru
3 Peds
26 Out In Total
3 29 32
Thru
3 Peds
13 Total Out In
2 16 18
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Bikes & Peds
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
City Traffic Counters
www.ctcounters.com
Rosemead Blvd
Btwn Washington Blvd & Whittier Blvd

Page 1 ends

Pico Rivera City CouncilJanuary 24, 2023

Pico Rivera City Council
January 24, 2023