TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
BELLFLOWER CONVENIENCE CENTER PROJECT
City of Bellflower, California
March 4, 2026
Prepared for:
DGSG Investment Properties, LLC
3940 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, #139
Studio City, California 91604
LLG Ref. 1-24-4672-1
Prepared By: Under the Supervision of: Prepared By:
Chin S. Taing, PTP, RSP1 Alfred C. Ying, P.E., PTP Francesca S. Bravo Senior Transportation Planner Senior Transportation Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Study Methodology ........................................................................................................3
2.0 Project Description ...............................................................................................................4
2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................4
2.2 Proposed Project Description .........................................................................................4
2.3 Project Site Access .........................................................................................................6
2.3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access ...........................................................................8
2.4 Project Trip Generation and Distribution ......................................................................8
2.4.1 Project Trip Generation Forecast .......................................................................8
2.4.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .........................................................9
2.4.3 Project Service-Window Queuing ...................................................................11
3.0 Project Site Context ............................................................................................................17
3.1 Active Transportation Network ...................................................................................17
3.1.1 Pedestrian System ............................................................................................17
3.1.2 Bicycle System .................................................................................................18
3.2 Transit Network ...........................................................................................................18
3.3 Vehicle Network ..........................................................................................................23
3.3.1 Roadway Classifications ..................................................................................23
3.3.2 Regional Highway Access ...............................................................................23
3.3.3 Roadway Descriptions .....................................................................................24
3.4 Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Count Data ..............................................................24
3.4.1 Cumulative Development Projects ..................................................................27
3.4.2 Ambient Growth Factor ...................................................................................35
4.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) CEQA Transportation Analysis ...................................36
4.1 Screening Criteria ........................................................................................................36
4.1.1 Non-Retail Project Trip Generation Screening Criteria ...................................36
4.1.2 Retail Project Screening Criteria .....................................................................36
4.1.3 Proximity to Transit Screening Criteria ...........................................................37
4.1.4 Residential Project Screening Criteria .............................................................38
4.1.5 Summary of Screening Conclusions ................................................................38
5.0 Non-CEQA Local Transportation Analysis .....................................................................39
5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................39
5.2 Analysis Criteria ..........................................................................................................41
5.3 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................43
5.4 Future (Opening Year 2026) Conditions .....................................................................43
5.4.1 Future Cumulative Without Project Traffic Conditions ..................................43
5.4.2 Future Cumulative With Project Traffic Conditions .......................................43
6.0 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................49
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
2-1 Project Trip Generation Forecast ......................................................................................... 10 3-1 Existing Transit Routes ........................................................................................................ 22 3-2 Existing Roadway Descriptions ........................................................................................... 26 3-3 Existing Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................... 28 3-4 Related Projects List and Trip Generation ........................................................................... 31 5-1 Level of Service Criteria and Delay Characteristics ............................................................ 40 5-2 Summary of Intersection Delays and Levels of Service ...................................................... 42
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. Empirical Drive-Through Service Lane Queuing Data
B. Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Count Data
C. HCM Descriptions and Levels of Service Explanation
LOS/Delay Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
1-1 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 2 2-1 Aerial Photograph of Existing Project Site ............................................................................ 5 2-2 Conceptual Site Plan .............................................................................................................. 7 2-3 Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................... 12 2-4 Total Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ................................................. 13 2-5 Total Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................................. 14 3-1 Existing and Proposed Bikeways ......................................................................................... 19 3-2 Bellflower Bike Trail ........................................................................................................... 20 3-3 Existing Public Transit Routes ............................................................................................ 21 3-4 Existing and Future Lane Configurations ............................................................................ 25 3-5 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ........................................................ 29 3-6 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ......................................................... 30 3-7 Location of Related Projects ................................................................................................ 32 3-8 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ........................................... 33 3-9 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ............................................ 34 5-1 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ................................ 44 5-2 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................. 45 5-3 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ...................................... 47 5-4 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ...................................... 48
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION MEANING
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AWSC All-Way Stop Control
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CMP Congestion Management Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LCI Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
LD-IGR Local Development and Intergovernmental Review
LOS Level of Service
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PRC Public Resources Code
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SGVCOG San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TISG Transportation Impact Study Guide
TWSC Two-Way Stop Control
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
BELLFLOWER CONVENIENCE CENTER PROJECT
City of Bellflower, California
March 4, 2026
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This transportation impact study has been conducted to identify and evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the proposed Bellflower Convenience Center project (“Project”). The proposed Project site is located at the southwest corner of the Bellflower Boulevard and Ramona Street intersection in the City of Bellflower, California and is currently unoccupied vacant land. The Project site location and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1.
The transportation impact analysis follows the analysis recommendations set forth by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA 1 (“Technical Advisory”). Specifically, in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7, this transportation impact analysis utilizes Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) for the purpose of analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. In addition, the City of Bellflower requires additional site access studies in order to identify a proposed project’s effect on local transportation infrastructure. The site access studies prepared for the proposed Project evaluate potential project- related effects on intersection operations and Level of Service (“LOS”) at six (6) key intersections and five (5) driveway intersections in the vicinity of the Project site. The study intersections were determined in consultation with City of Bellflower staff.
In summary, this report (i) presents the Project’s existing transportation network context, (ii) presents existing traffic volumes, (iii) forecasts cumulative baseline conditions, (iv) forecasts Project-generated traffic, (v) assesses the potential for Project-related transportation impacts consistent with the CEQA based and non-CEQA based metrics, and (vi) recommends transportation network improvement measures, where necessary. 1 “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA”, State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.
- 1 -
- 2 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
3 1.1 Study Methodology
The CEQA and non-CEQA analysis criteria for this transportation impact report were identified in consultation with City of Bellflower staff. The analysis criteria were determined based on the Technical Advisory, the proposed Project description and location, and the characteristics of the surrounding transportation system. As the Lead Agency, the City of Bellflower confirmed the appropriateness of the analysis criteria when it approved the transportation impact analysis Scope of Work memorandum.
On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (“SB”) 743 (Steinberg, 2013).
Among other things, SB 743 initiated a change in the methodology to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA (Public Resources Code [“PRC”] Section 21000 and following). Through PRC Section 21099, which states in part that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment,” SB 743 directed the former California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) to identify a new metric for evaluating transportation impacts.
OPR identified vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) as the most appropriate metric, and developed the Technical Advisory, which provides non-binding recommendations on the implementation of VMT analysis methodology that has significantly informed the way VMT analyses are conducted in the State. State-wide implementation of the new metric was required by July 1, 2020. Effective July 1, 2024, OPR was renamed to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (“LCI”) with a renewed focus on land use, climate change, housing opportunities, and community empowerment.
Pursuant to current statutes, the City of Bellflower utilizes VMT as the metric for determining environmental impacts in compliance with SB 743. It is noted that the City of Bellflower adopted the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (County’s Guidelines); thus, the VMT assessment has been prepared in compliance with the methodology outlined in the County’s Guidelines.
The County’s Guidelines further note that the passage of SB 743 and the resulting implementation of VMT does not prevent agencies from continuing to analyze delay or LOS outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact fee programs, corridor studies, congestion reduction, or ongoing network monitoring). The City of Bellflower therefore also requires additional studies of the local transportation network.
Specifically, the City of Bellflower requires an operational analysis of intersections in the vicinity of a proposed project in order to evaluate site access and circulation constraints that may be caused or worsened by project-generated traffic. For purposes of this analysis, a total of six (6) study intersections and five (5) driveway study intersections were selected in coordination with City of Bellflower staff. The study intersections are illustrated in Figure 1-1. This non-CEQA local assessment utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to evaluate Level of Service (LOS) operations for the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions at the unsignalized and signalized study intersections.
- 3 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The proposed Project site is located at the southwest corner of the Bellflower Boulevard and Ramona Street intersection in the City of Bellflower, California. The Project site is generally bounded by Ramona Street to the north, Cedar Street to the south, Bellflower Boulevard to the east, and multi- family residential and automobile care uses to the west. The Project site location and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1.
The Project site is currently vacant and will consist of a merger of eight existing parcels into five numbered parcels totaling approximately 3.63 acres (158,192 square feet), and dedication of three lots totaling approximately 0.35 acres (15,035 square feet). The existing Project site contains five driveways, including four driveways on Ramona Street and one driveway on Cedar Street. An aerial photograph of the existing Project site is presented in Figure 2-1.
2.2 Proposed Project Description
The proposed Project consists of the development of four (4) separate buildings of restaurants with and without drive-through services, a retail/convenience store with a gas station, and an electric vehicle charging lot. The Project consists of the following components as described for each parcel:
- Parcel 1 includes an approximate 1,025 square-foot coffee shop with a Y-configuration drive-through service. The potential tenant for Pad 1 could be Dutch Bros. - Parcel 2 includes an approximate 2,568 square-foot fast-food restaurant with a single lane drive-through service. The potential tenant for Pad 2 could be Habit Burger & Grill. - Parcel 3 includes a multi-tenant building totaling 5,728 square feet. Tenant A includes a 2,407 square foot fast-food restaurant with a single lane drive-through service. Tenants B, C, and D include fast-food restaurant space without drive-through service totaling 3,321 square feet. No potential tenants have been identified yet for Pad 3. - Parcel 4 includes an approximate 3,062 square-foot retail convenience store building with gasoline station that provides eight (8) fueling positions. - Parcel 5 is designed as an electric vehicle charging facility capable of accommodating 24 direct-current fast charger stalls that will be open to the general public/community.
- 4 -
- 5 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
6 The proposed project is also planned to provide a total of 143 parking spaces distributed throughout the site. Vehicular access to the Project site will be accommodated by five (5) new driveways (i.e., one on Ramona Street, three on Bellflower Boulevard, and one on Cedar Street). Further discussion of the proposed Project site access is provided in Section 2.3 below. Construction and occupancy of the Project is proposed to be completed by the year 2026. The conceptual site plan for the Project is illustrated in Figure 2-2.
2.3 Project Site Access
Direct vehicular access to the Project site will be accommodated by a total of five (5) new driveways, including one on Ramona Street, three on Bellflower Boulevard, and one on Cedar Street. The Project driveways and vehicular access scheme are described in detail below and shown in Figure 2-2:
• Ramona Street Driveway:
The Ramona Street driveway is located on the south side of Ramona Street, along the northerly property frontage. This new 35-foot-wide driveway will provide direct access to the main north-south drive aisle and surface parking areas throughout the Project site. The Ramona Street driveway will provide full access (i.e., right-turn and left-turn ingress and egress movements) to the Project site, with immediate access to the electric vehicle charging lot in Parcel 5.
• Bellflower Boulevard Northerly Driveway:
The Bellflower Boulevard northerly driveway is located on the west side of Bellflower Boulevard, along the easterly site boundary. Due to the presence of the existing raised median island along Bellflower Boulevard which extends along this portion of the project frontage, the Bellflower Boulevard northerly driveway will be limited to right-turn ingress and right-turn egress turning movements only. This new 35-foot-wide driveway will provide immediate access to the proposed gas station and convenience market in Parcel 4 and the fast-food restaurants in Parcel 3.
• Bellflower Boulevard Middle Driveway:
The Bellflower Boulevard middle driveway is also located on the west side of Bellflower Boulevard, along the easterly site boundary. The existing raised median island along Bellflower Boulevard which extends along the project frontage has an opening at this location such that the Bellflower Boulevard middle driveway will be limited to left-turn and right-turn ingress and right-turn egress turning movements only. This new 30-foot- wide driveway will provide immediate access to the fast-food restaurant with drive-through service in Parcel 2.
- 6 -
Figure 2-2
Conceptual Site Plan
Bellflower Convenience Center Project
N
Not to Scale
SOURCE: MMA ARCHITECTURE
- 7 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
8 • Bellflower Boulevard Southerly Driveway:
The Bellflower Boulevard southerly driveway is located on the west side of Bellflower Boulevard, along the easterly site boundary. Due to the presence of the existing raised median island along Bellflower Boulevard which extends along this portion of the project frontage, the Bellflower Boulevard southerly driveway will be limited to right-turn ingress and right-turn egress turning movements only. This new 30-foot-wide driveway will provide immediate access to the proposed coffee shop with drive-through service in Parcel
1. • Cedar Street Driveway:
The Cedar Street driveway is located on the north side of Cedar Street at the southern portion of the site. This Project driveway provides direct access to the main north-south drive aisle that connects to each of the parcels. The proposed 26-foot-wide project driveway will provide full access (i.e., right-turn and left-turn ingress and egress movements) to the Project site.
The site access and circulation may be accommodated via inter-parcel connections through reciprocal access and parking agreements between the site’s parcel representative/s. Within the Project site, vehicle circulation will be accommodated by drive-aisles which provide access to the surface parking areas and the drive-through service queue storage lanes. All of the individual drive-through service lanes are designed to wrap counterclockwise around each of the respective coffee shop/fast-food restaurant buildings.
2.3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
The Project site is planned to provide pedestrian and bicycle access as well. The Project will provide sidewalks, curb, and gutter along all of its internal private roadways in order to accommodate pedestrian access between each parcel. The internal sidewalks will connect to the existing public sidewalks provided along Ramona Street, Bellflower Boulevard, and Cedar Street adjacent to the Project site. Thus, the Project will provide a comfortable, convenient, and safe environment for pedestrians to access the Project site to/from the public right-of-way. Bicycle access to and from the Project site will also be provided via Bellflower Boulevard and will be accommodated by the Project’s internal roadway network.
2.4 Project Trip Generation and Distribution
2.4.1 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. The traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the Project were forecast for the typical weekday AM and PM peak commute hours as well as over a 24-hour period (i.e., daily). Trip generation rate information provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition 2 and site-specific studies
2 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, Washington D.C., 2025. - 8 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
9 for electric vehicle charging lots were utilized to prepare the project trip generation forecast.
Specifically, trip generation average rates for the following ITE Land Use Codes were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the Project:
• Land Use 933: Fast-food restaurant without drive-through window • Land Use 934: Fast-food restaurant with drive-through window • Land Use 937: Coffee/Donut shop with drive-through window • Land Use 945: Convenience store/gas station
The trip generation rates for the proposed electric vehicle charging lots were obtained from site- specific studies contained in Trip Generation Assessment for 7001-7003 Santa Monica Boulevard, prepared by LLG, June 17, 2022, and City of Los Angeles Inter-Departmental Correspondence from Los Angeles Department of Transportation to Department of City Planning, Access and Circulation Assessment for the Tesla Santa Monica Project at 7001 West Santa Monica Boulevard, September 19, 2022.
In addition to the trip generation forecasts for the Project (which are essentially an estimate of the number of vehicles that could be expected to enter and exit the Project site access points), a forecast was also made of likely pass-by trips that could be anticipated at the site for the proposed Project.
Pass-by trips are intermediate stops made on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the site. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition 3 presents the national database of pass-by trip rates for 25 land uses, including the proposed Project land use types. Pursuant to the data presented in the Handbook, pass-by trip adjustments ranging between 50% to 81% have been applied to the weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation forecasts, as well as to the daily vehicle trip generation forecast for the various Project components.
The trip generation forecast for the Project is summarized in Table 2-1. As presented in Table 2- 1, the Project is expected to generate 241 net new vehicle trips (117 inbound trips and 124 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the Project is expected to generate 227 net new vehicle trips (113 inbound trips and 114 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the Project is forecast to generate 3,080 net new daily vehicle trips (1,540 inbound trips and 1,540 outbound trips) on a typical weekday.
2.4.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the Project 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., Bellflower Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, etc.);
3 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Washington, D.C., revised 2017. - 9 -
Table 2-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
TRIP GENERATION RATES
WEEKDAY WEEKDAY
LAND USE WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
LAND USE CATEGORY CODE VARIABLE DAILY IN (%)OUT (%)TOTAL IN (%)OUT (%)TOTAL 933 Per 1,000 SF 413.41 45%55%39.55 48%52%36.73
934 Per 1,000 SF 448.12 51%49%33.24 52%48%31.60
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window 937 Per 1,000 SF 600.50 51%49%85.41 50%50%39.00 Convenience Store/Gas Station 945 Per Vehicle Fueling
Position 211.05 50%50%13.65 50%50%15.85
EV Charging Station [2]Per Standard Vehicle
Charging Stall 17.50 45%55%1.25 45%55%1.06
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
LAND USE TRIP ENDS [3]VOLUMES [3]VOLUMES [3]
LAND USE CODE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Proposed Project
Parcel 1:
Coffee Shop with Drive-Through Window 937 1,025 GSF 616 45 43 88 20 20 40 - Less Pass-by (81%) [4],[5](499)(36)(35)(71)(16)(16)(32) Parcel 2:
Fast-food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 934 2,568 GSF 1,151 43 42 85 42 39 81 - Less Pass-by (50%) [4],[6](576)(22)(21)(43)(21)(20)(41) Parcel 3:
Fast-food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 934 2,407 GSF 1,079 41 39 80 40 36 76 - Less Pass-by (50%) [4],[6](540)(21)(20)(41)(20)(18)(38) Fast-food Restaurant without Drive-Through Window 933 3,321 GSF 1,373 59 72 131 59 63 122 - Less Pass-by (50%) [4],[7](687)(30)(36)(66)(30)(32)(62) Parcel 4:
Gas Station with Convenience Market 945 8 VFP 1,688 55 54 109 64 63 127 - Less Pass-by (56%) [4],[8](945)(31)(30)(61)(36)(35)(71) Parcel 5:
Electric Vehicle Charging Station [2]24 Stalls 420 14 16 30 11 14 25 TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS (with Pass-by Adjustments)3,080 117 124 241 113 114 227 TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS (without Pass-by Adjustments)6,327 257 266 523 236 235 471 [1]Source: ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 12th Edition, 2025. [2]Trip Generation Assessment for 7001-7003 Santa Monica Boulevard , prepared by LLG, June 17, 2022 and City of Los Angeles Inter-Departmental Correspondence from LADOT to Department of City Planning, Access and Circulation Assessment for the Tesla Santa Monica Project at 7001 West Santa Monica Boulevard , September 19, 2022.
[3]Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [4]Sources: ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 12th Edition, 2025 and ITE "Trip Generation Handbook", 3rd Edition, September 2017. Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary destination without a route diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the site.
[5]A pass-by adjustment of 81% has been applied to the daily, AM, and PM peak hour trip generation forecasts, based on information provided for ITE Land Use 937 (Coffee Shop with Drive-Through Window).
[6]A pass-by adjustment of 50% has been applied to the daily, AM, and PM peak hour trip generation forecasts, based on information provided for ITE Land Use 934 (Fast-food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window).
[7]No pass-by adjustments provided for ITE Land Use Code 933. Thus, a pass-by adjustment of 50% has been applied to the daily, AM, and PM peak hour trip generation forecasts, based on information provided for ITE Land Use 934 (Fast-food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window). [8]A pass-by adjustment of 56% has been applied to the daily, AM, and PM peak hour trip generation forecasts, based on information provided for ITE Land Use 945 (Convenience Store/Gas Station).
Fast-food Restaurant without Drive-Through Window
Fast-food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
- 10 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
11 • Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent roadway channelization and presence of traffic signals;
• Existing intersection traffic volumes;
• Ingress/egress availability at the Project site assuming the site access and circulation scheme described in Section 2.3;
• Nearby population and employment centers; and
• Input from City of Bellflower staff.
The general, directional traffic distribution pattern for the Project is presented in Figure 2-3. The forecast weekday AM and PM peak hour net new Project traffic volumes at the study intersections are presented in Figures 2-4 and 2-5, respectively. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 2-4 and 2-5 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 2-3 and the Project trip generation forecast presented in Table 2-1. No pass-by trip adjustments were applied for the site adjacent study intersections (i.e., Intersection No. 5: Bellflower Boulevard/Ramona Street, Intersection No. 6: Bellflower Boulevard/Cedar Street) and the driveway study intersections (i.e., Intersection No. 7: Project Driveway/Ramona Street, Intersection No. 8: Bellflower Boulevard/Northerly Project Driveway, Intersection No. 9: Bellflower Boulevard/Middle Project Driveway; Intersection No. 10: Bellflower Boulevard/Southerly Project Driveway, Intersection No. 11: Project Driveway/Cedar Street).
2.4.3 Project Service-Window Queuing
A review of the expected drive-through service-window vehicle queue lengths was conducted to determine the adequacy of each of the proposed drive-through service lane queue storage areas. A queuing analysis for the proposed drive-through service lanes is provided below.
In recognition of the vehicle queuing characteristics of drive-through coffee shops/restaurants, vehicle queuing at an existing comparable drive-through location in the Southern California region was reviewed in order to more appropriately forecast the expected vehicle queue at the Project site.
As part of this review, the historical drive-through service vehicle queuing data 4 previously collected for an existing Dutch Bros site located at 9067 Warner Avenue in Fountain Valley was utilized. The drive-through service queuing survey was conducted for a 24-hour weekday period in September 2024 as included in Appendix A. The 95th percentile observed queue at the Fountain Valley Dutch Bros site was 11 vehicles. The study also noted that this drive-through vehicle queuing data was collected within the store’s opening month, which typically experiences heightened demand within the first year of operation.
4 On-Site Circulation and Queuing Assessment for Dutch Bros at 20377 Avalon Boulevard in Carson, Appendix B, prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., June 9, 2025. - 11 -
- 12 -
- 13 -
- 14 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
15 For the Habit Burger & Grill casual restaurant, a drive-through queuing demand study 5 was conducted based on arrival and service times data that was collected from their on-site traffic monitoring systems in August/October 2024 for four (4) sites in California and one (1) site in Arizona. The drive-through service queuing survey data is also contained in Appendix A. As determined from the queuing study, the 95th percentile queue at the five sites during the average peak hour was concluded to be nine (9) vehicles.
As shown in the Project site plan illustrated in Figure 2-2, the queuing storage capacity and configuration for each of the drive-through service areas are summarized as follows:
• Parcel 1: Y-configuration drive-through storage area for up to 17 vehicles (Dutch Bros) • Parcel 2: Single lane drive-through storage area for up to 8 vehicles (Habit Burger & Grill) • Parcel 3: Single lane drive-through storage area for up to 11 vehicles (Fast-Food Restaurant) Based on the proposed configuration of the drive-through service lanes, each of the drive-through service areas is expected to accommodate between eight (8) to 17 vehicles. The vehicle queuing storage capacities mentioned previously are measured from the pick-up window to the entry of the drive-through service lanes, with additional storage for another one to two vehicles if patrons are instructed to pull forward from the pick-up window to the end of the drive-through lane. Parcels 1 and 2 of the Project are not expected to experience atypical queue management or high demand from a unique source, therefore the observed 95th percentile vehicle queues (i.e., 11 vehicles of the existing Dutch Bros and nine vehicles of the existing Habit Burger & Grill) represent a conservative estimate. The remaining fast-food restaurant with drive-through service for Parcel 3 is expected to experience lesser drive-through demands than that of typical coffee shops with drive- through operations such as the Dutch Bros site. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed individual drive-through vehicle queue storage areas will adequately accommodate the forecast vehicle queues within each parcel and the overall Project site.
It should also be noted that the City of Bellflower Zoning Code (Section 17.48.140) specifies that the drive-through aisles for commercial establishments shall provide sufficient queuing area behind the pick-up window to accommodate a minimum of six (6) vehicles. As mentioned previously, all of the proposed drive-through service areas are planned to provide more than the minimum Code queuing area requirements and are expected to accommodate the vehicle queue lengths based on the forecast demand. It is recommended that clear signage directing vehicles to each of the drive-through windows be installed on the Project site to minimize unnecessary circulation within the site.
Even though it is anticipated that the proposed drive-through service lanes will adequately accommodate vehicle queuing at the Project site, it is recommended that each site manager implement the following program on an as-needed basis during peak operating times in order to
5 Habit Burger & Grill Drive-Through Queuing Demand Analysis, Attachment A, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., October 7, 2025.
- 15 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
16 minimize the occurrence/duration of any overflow queuing. The recommended program consists of the following items, including but not limited to:
• Assign a partner (staff member) to monitor the queue in the drive-through lanes, particularly to determine circumstances where the queue may extend into the internal drive aisle for entry to the drive-through lanes.
• Deploy employees/order takers during peak hours, if necessary, to conduct remote ordering with tablets in order to expedite drive-through operations. • All employees/order takers will be provided training such that staff/order takers are aware of the peak time periods and instructed to move vehicles forward in an orderly fashion so as to minimize pockets of unused queuing storage space when receiving orders from patrons.
• Team members will control the drive-through area after the pick-up window, ensuring that only one vehicle will depart at a time after they receive their order, and also to pull forward if needed to provide additional queuing area. Appropriate safety signage and protocols should be placed throughout the drive-through area.
Additionally, during the initial opening period for each of the drive-through restaurant operations, the City reserves the right to monitor, adjust and moderate operations to accommodate traffic flow if needed.
- 16 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
17 3.0 PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
The Project site is located within a well-established multi-modal transportation network maintained by the City of Bellflower. The following sections will provide an overview of the transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site, including infrastructure which supports both motorized and non-motorized transportation modes.
3.1 Active Transportation Network
Active 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 infrastructures provided in the vicinity of the Project site is provided below.
3.1.1 Pedestrian System
Pedestrian infrastructure consists of facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, curb access ramps, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) compliant tactile warning strips, and curb extensions, among other things. These facilities are generally provided within the study area.
Public sidewalks are provided along the Project frontages, as well as along most roadways within the vicinity of the Project site, including Ramona Street, Bellflower Boulevard, Cedar Street, and Artesia Boulevard. The Project will ensure that sidewalks, curb, and gutter along its frontages are in compliance with the City of Bellflower standards.
Traditional parallel bar or high visibility pedestrian crosswalks with pedestrian signals are provided at the signalized intersections in the vicinity of the Project site. Blue high visibility pedestrian crosswalks are provided for all legs of the Bellflower Boulevard/Artesia Boulevard and Bellflower Boulevard/Ramona Street intersections and across the east and west legs of the Bellflower Boulevard/Cedar Street intersection. In addition, curb extensions/bulb-outs are installed at the Bellflower Boulevard/Cedar Street intersection and Bellflower Boulevard/Rose Street intersection.
Additionally, ADA curb ramps with tactile warning strips consisting of blue or yellow truncated dome pads are provided at most major intersections on Bellflower Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project site, although truncated dome pads are not provided for the existing ADA ramps at the Ardmore Avenue/Ramona Street and Ardmore Avenue/Cedar Street intersections. - 17 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
18 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 four primary bikeway facilities: Bicycle Paths (Class I), Bicycle Lanes (Class II), Bicycle Routes (Class III), and Separated Bikeways (Class IV). 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. Separated Bikeways (Class IV) are similar to Bicycle Lanes (Class II), but also provide physical separation between vehicle lanes and bicycle lanes.
The City of Bellflower General Plan Circulation Element 6 (1997), which provided the existing and planned citywide bicycle network identified Woodruff Avenue (between Foster Road and Rose Street) as a Class III bike route. The City of Bellflower General Plan existing and proposed bikeways network is illustrated in Figure 3-1. More recently as part of the Bellflower Boulevard Median Project, northbound and southbound bike lanes are installed on Bellflower Boulevard between Artesia Boulevard and Rose Avenue.
The City Parks and Recreation Master Plan 7 also includes the Bellflower Bike Trail, a 2.3-mile pedestrian and bike trail that traverses the City from east to west, beginning at Caruthers Park and ending at Lakewood Boulevard at Paseo Street. The Bellflower Bike Trail includes two five-foot wide striped bike lanes and a four-foot wide pedestrian lane. Other trails within the City include the Riverview Park Trail, a one-half mile long Class I multi-use path that connects to the San Gabriel River Trail. The Bellflower Bike Trail and other park planned improvements in the City are illustrated in Figure 3-2.
3.2 Transit Network
Public transit services are provided within the Project study area by Long Beach Transit and the City of Bellflower Transit (Bellflower Bus). The existing public transit routes in the vicinity of the Project site are illustrated in Figure 3-3. A summary of the existing transit service within approximately one mile of the Project site, including the transit line number, corridor(s) served, and typical number of buses per hour is presented in Table 3-1. As summarized in Table 3-1, three public transit bus routes provide service along roadways in the vicinity of the Project site. Each line provides service approximately every 30 minutes during the morning and evening peak commute hours.
6 City of Bellflower Circulation Element Update Final Report, April 1997. 7 City of Bellflower Parks and Recreation Master Plan, November 12, 2024. - 18 -
- 19 -
- 20 -
- 21 -
ROADWAY(S)
ROUTE DESTINATIONS NEAR SITE DIR AM PM
Long Beach Transit 91 Bellflower to Long Beach via Lakewood, Signal Hill Bellflower Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Ramona Street,EB 2 2 Cedar Street WB 2 2
Long Beach Transit 141 Artestia Station to Artesia Boulevard Bellflower Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Ramona Street,NB 2 2 Cedar Street SB 2 2
Bellflower Bus South Route Belmont & Civic Center to Clark & Alondra Bellflower Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Ramona Street,One-Way 2 2 Clockwise
TOTAL 10 10
[1] Sources: Long Beach Transit and City of Bellflower websites, 2025.
DURING PEAK HOUR
Table 3-1
EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES [1]
NO. OF BUSES/TRAINS
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
- 22 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
23 Public bus transit services are provided on Artesia Boulevard north of the Project site and along Bellflower Boulevard adjacent to the Project site. No public transit bus lines currently provide service along Ardmore Avenue, Ramona Street or Cedar Street. The nearest public bus stop to the Project site is provided for Long Beach Transit Line 91. Northbound and southbound public bus stops for Long Beach Transit Line 91 are provided along the Project site’s easterly frontage just south of Ramona Street, where in addition to signage, a public trash receptacle is provided on the west side of Bellflower Boulevard, and a bus bench and public trash receptacle is provided on the east side of Bellflower Boulevard.
3.3 Vehicle Network
3.3.1 Roadway Classifications
The City of Bellflower utilizes the roadway categories recognized by regional, state and federal transportation agencies. There are four general 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 four to six travel lanes and their major intersections are signalized. This roadway type is divided into two categories: principal and secondary arterials. Principal arterials are typically four- or-more lane roadways and serve both local and regional through-traffic. Secondary arterials are typically two-to-four lane streets that service local and commute 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.
3.3.2 Regional Highway Access
Primary regional access is provided by the State Route 91 (SR-91) Freeway and the Interstate 605 (I-605) Freeway as shown in Figure 1-1. In the Project vicinity, four to five mixed-flow mainline lanes and one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane are provided in each direction on the SR-91 - 23 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
24 Freeway. SR-91 Freeway westbound and eastbound on-/off-ramps are provided at Bellflower Boulevard approximately one-quarter mile north of the Project site, and westbound off- and eastbound on-ramps are provided at Clark Avenue northwest of the Project site.
3.3.3 Roadway Descriptions
Immediate access to the Project site is provided via Bellflower Boulevard, Ramona Street and Cedar Street. The following study intersections were selected for analysis in consultation with the City of Bellflower staff:
1. Ardmore Avenue/Artesia Boulevard (signalized)
2. Ardmore Avenue/Ramona Street (unsignalized)
3. Ardmore Avenue/Cedar Street (unsignalized)
4. Bellflower Boulevard/Artesia Boulevard (signalized)
5. Bellflower Boulevard/Ramona Street (signalized)
6. Bellflower Boulevard/Cedar Street (signalized)
7. Project Driveway/Ramona Street (unsignalized)
8. Bellflower Boulevard/Northerly Project Driveway (unsignalized)
9. Bellflower Boulevard/Middle Project Driveway (unsignalized)
10. Bellflower Boulevard/Southerly Project Driveway (unsignalized)
11. Project Driveway/Cedar Street (unsignalized)
The existing and future lane configurations and traffic control measures at the study intersections are displayed in Figure 3-4. Descriptions of the roadways in the study area are provided in Table 3-2, including the roadway classification, number of lanes, median types, and speed limits designated by the City of Bellflower.
3.4 Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Count Data
Manual counts of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes were conducted at six (6) of the 11 study intersections during the weekday morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak periods to determine the peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic counts were not conducted at the five (5) driveway intersections (i.e., Intersection Nos. 7 through 11) as those are future intersections upon Project completion. The manual counts were conducted in September 2025 by an independent traffic count subconsultant (The Traffic Solution) at the study intersections on a typical weekday from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM to determine the AM and PM peak commute hours, respectively. It is noted that all traffic counts were conducted when local schools were in regular, in-person session.
- 24 -
- 25 -
Table 3-2
EXISTING ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS
TRAVEL LANES MEDIAN SPEED
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION [1]DIRECTION [2] NO. LANES [3] TYPES [4] LIMIT Ardmore Avenue Local Street NB-SB 2 N/A 25
Bellflower Boulevard
-North of Artesia Boulevard Secondary Arterial NB-SB 4 N/A 30 -North of Rose Street Secondary Arterial NB-SB 4 [5]RMI 35 -South of Rose Street Secondary Arterial NB-SB 4 2WLT 35 Artesia Boulevard
-East of Bellflower Boulevard Major Arterial EB-WB 4 2WLT 40 -West of Bellflower Boulevard Major Arterial EB-WB 4 RMI 40 Ramona Street Local Street EB-WB 2 N/A 25
Cedar Street Local Street EB-WB 2 N/A 25
Notes:
[1]Roadway classifications obtained from the City of Bellflower Circulation Element Updated Final Report , adopted 1997. [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] Class II Bike Lane.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
- 26 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
27 The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection vehicle traffic volumes by approach are summarized in Table 3-3. 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 of the study intersections are contained in Appendix B.
For each study intersection, the highest one-hour total traffic volumes (i.e., four consecutive 15- minute time intervals) traversing through the intersection during the 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM time periods were selected so as to determine the respective weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for each study intersection. For purposes of the transportation impact analysis, this common traffic engineering practice ensures that a more conservative (i.e., worst case) assessment of existing operating conditions be attained for each study intersection.
Therefore, the traffic volumes shown in Figures 3-5 and 3-6 for the study intersections do not necessarily reflect the same exact one-hour time period during the morning and/or afternoon peak commuter conditions (i.e., one intersection’s peak hour may have occurred between 7:30 and 8:30 AM, while another intersection’s peak hour may have occurred between 7:45 and 8:45 AM).
3.4.1 Cumulative Development Projects
A forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to the occupancy of the Project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (related projects) in the area (i.e., within an approximate 1.0-mile radius from the Project site). With this information, the potential impact of the Project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impacts of all ongoing development. The related projects research was based on information on file with the City of Bellflower Planning Department. The list of related projects in the Project study area is presented in Table 3-4. The location of the related projects is shown in Figure 3-7.
Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the related projects were calculated using rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The related 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 3-4. The related projects traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the street system based on the projects’ 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 related 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.
- 27 -
Table 3-3
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES [1]
WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
1 Ardmore Avenue/09/25/2025 NB 7:45 AM 110 4:30 PM 141
Artesia Boulevard SB 156 79
EB 721 759
WB 895 921
2 Ardmore Avenue/09/25/2025 NB 7:45 AM 65 4:15 PM 68
Ramona Street SB 177 103
EB 93 112
WB 109 116
3 Ardmore Avenue/09/25/2025 NB 7:45 AM 31 4:00 PM 37
Cedar Street SB 94 80
EB 130 103
WB 88 95
4 Bellflower Boulevard/09/25/2025 NB 7:45 AM 1,035 4:00 PM 981 Artesia Boulevard SB 1,310 974
EB 739 790
WB 958 1,072
5 Bellflower Boulevard/09/25/2025 NB 7:45 AM 1,065 4:00 PM 1,035 Ramona Street SB 1,130 807
EB 105 95
WB 146 97
6 Bellflower Boulevard/09/25/2025 NB 7:45 AM 965 4:00 PM 1,003 Cedar Street SB 1,099 827
EB 140 90
WB 163 100
[1] Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
- 28 -
- 29 -
- 30 -
Table 3-4
RELATED 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 1 Proposed 8825 Artesia Boulevard Warehouse 152,300 GSF [3]196 7 5 12 10 11 21 2 Proposed 17046 Bellflower Boulevard Multifamily Housing 145 DU [4]647 13 42 55 35 20 55 3 Proposed 9325 Rose Street Single-Family Residential 2 DU [5]18 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 Proposed 9741 – 9747 Walnut Street Multifamily Housing 12 DU [4]54 1 4 5 3 2 5 5 Proposed 17055 – 17057 Bellflower Boulevard Multifamily Housing 8 DU [6]50 1 2 3 2 2 4 6 Under Construction 17640 Bellflower Boulevard Commercial Center 16,597 GLSF [7]904 39 26 65 52 52 104 TOTAL 1,869 61 80 141 103 88 191
[1]Source: City of Bellflower Planning Department, except as noted below. The peak hour traffic volumes were forecast on trip data provided in the ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 12th Edition, 2025. [2]Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3]ITE Land Use Code 151 [Mini-Warehouse] trip generation average rates. [4]ITE Land Use Code 221 [Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit] trip generation average rates. [5]ITE Land Use Code 210 [Single-Family Detached Housing] trip generation average rates. [6]ITE Land Use Code 220 [Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit] trip generation average rates. [7]ITE Land Use Code 822 [Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)] trip generation average rates.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
- 31 -
- 32 -
- 33 -
- 34 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
35 3.4.2 Ambient Growth Factor
In order to account for area-wide regional growth beyond the listed related projects, the existing traffic volumes were increased at an annual compounding rate of one percent (1%) per year between the existing year 2025 and the future build-out year of 2026. The ambient growth factor was based on general traffic growth factors provided in the Los Angeles County 2010 Congestion Management Program (“CMP”) manual for the Project study area (i.e., RSA 22, which includes areas such as Bellflower, Paramount, Hawaiian Gardens, Pico Rivera, and La Habra Heights) and determined in consultation with City of Bellflower staff. Based on information provided by the CMP manual, existing traffic volumes are expected to increase at an annual compounding rate of
0.21% per year between the years 2025 and 2030 (i.e., 100 * [((1.139/1.127)^(1/5))-1] = 0.21%) per year. In order to forecast the future year 2026 traffic conditions, the more conservative growth rate of one percent per year was applied. Thus, application of this annual growth factor in addition to the forecast traffic generated by the related projects allows for a conservative forecast of future baseline year 2026 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).
- 35 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
36 4.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS As described in Section 1.1, the City of Bellflower has adopted the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT analyses. Therefore, the VMT assessment has been prepared in compliance with the screening criteria methodology recommended in the Technical Advisory. The County’s Guidelines set forth the VMT screening criteria, impact criteria, methodology, and mitigation measures applicable to proposed development projects. The following sections discuss the VMT screening criteria as applied to the proposed Project.
4.1 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 recommendations provided by OPR in the Technical Advisory, the County’s Guidelines recognize four screening criteria which may be applied to screen proposed projects out of detailed VMT analysis. These criteria are based on a proposed project’s number of daily vehicle trips, classification as a local-serving retail use, proximity to high-quality transit, and inclusion of affordable housing. 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 generally sufficient for screening purposes. Projects, or project components, which are screened out of detailed VMT assessment based on these criteria are presumed to have less than significant transportation impacts. Projects or project components which are not screened out would be required to conduct a formal Transportation Impact Analysis in order to determine the significance of project impacts.
4.1.1 Non-Retail Project Trip Generation Screening Criteria Section 3.1.2.1 of the County Guidelines states that: “[i]f the answer is no to the question below, further analysis is not required, and a less than significant determination can be made. • Does the development project generate a net increase of 110 or more daily vehicle trips?” The County’s Guidelines further indicate that a proposed project’s daily vehicle trip generation should be estimated using the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, or through use of empirical trip generation data if the project’s land use is not listed in the Manual.
The proposed project is forecast to generate a total of 3,080 daily vehicle trips; thus, the answer to the screening question is “Yes.” Therefore, the non-retail project trip generation screening criteria is not satisfied.
4.1.2 Retail Project Screening Criteria
New local serving retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new ones. By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and improving retail destination proximity, local serving retail developments tend to shorten trips and reduce VMT, and may be - 36 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
37 presumed to cause less than significant impacts. Consistent with OPR’s guidance, the County assumes that retail projects of any type which are less than 50,000 square feet may be considered local serving retail.
Therefore, Section 3.1.2.2 of the Guidelines states: “[a] project that contains a local serving retail use is assumed to have less than significant VMT impacts for the retail portion of the project. If the answer to the following question is no, a less than significant determination can be made for the portion of the project that contains retail uses.
• Does the project contain retail uses that exceed 50,000 square feet of gross floor area?” The proposed Project includes three free-standing buildings which will provide a total of 9,321 square feet of restaurant/retail space and a gas station with a 3,062 square-foot convenience market, all of which does not exceed the threshold of 50,000 square feet. Therefore, this screening criterion applies for the Project and the Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.
The various Project land use components all provide local serving retail uses which will serve the local population, thereby shortening travel distances and reducing VMT. Thus, the proposed Project can be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on State guidance because it would reduce VMT by shortening trip lengths, typical of local-serving retail developments and local-serving projects.
4.1.3 Proximity to Transit Screening Criteria
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) states in part: “[g]enerally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” In keeping with the statutory presumption of less than significant impacts due to nearby high-quality transit, the County’s Guidelines include a screening criterion based on proximity to transit. Consistent with the recommendations provided by OPR, the County also notes certain project-specific or location- specific information which might indicate that the presumption is not appropriate.
Thus, Section 3.1.2.3 of the Guidelines states that: “[i]f the project is located near a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor, the following question should be considered:
• Is the project located within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop 8 or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor 9?
The proposed Project is not within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or an existing stop on a high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, the proximity to transit screening criteria is not satisfied.
8 Public Resources Code Section 21064.3: “Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
9 Public Resources Code Section 21155(b): “For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.” - 37 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
38 4.1.4 Residential Project Screening Criteria
In the Technical Advisory, OPR refers to research indicating that low-income housing in infill locations generally improves the jobs-housing match, shortening commutes and reducing VMT.
OPR asserts that evidence supports presuming less than significant transportation impacts for 100 percent affordable residential developments, and that a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for a lead agency to find a less than significant impact on VMT, thereby screening out of detailed VMT analysis.
Consistent with the recommendations provided by OPR, Section 3.1.2.4 of the County’s Guidelines indicate that certain projects which further the State’s affordable housing goals are presumed to have less than significant impacts on VMT. The Guidelines state: “[i]f the project requires discretionary action and the answer is yes to the question below, further analysis is not required, and a less than significant determination can be made. • Are 100% of the units, excluding manager’s units, set aside for lower income households?” Since the proposed Project does not plan to provide any housing, including 100% lower-income housing; therefore, this screening criterion does not apply.
4.1.5 Summary of Screening Conclusions
The proposed Project consists of the development of three free-standing buildings which will provide a total of 9,321 square feet of restaurant/retail space and a 3,062 square-foot convenience market and gas station. The proposed land use type is identified by the City of Bellflower as a local serving retail use and the size of the Project is well below 50,000 square feet. This screening criterion is based on the presumption that by adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and improving retail destination proximity, local serving retail developments tend to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies the criteria to be considered a local serving use and is screened out from further VMT analysis as it is presumed to cause less than significant transportation impacts.
- 38 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-25-4714-1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4714\Report\4714-Rpt2.docx
39 5.0 NON-CEQA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Pursuant to PRC Section 21099, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” As a result of SB 743 and the revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, LOS may no longer be used to identify transportation impacts in CEQA. However, the implementation of VMT does not prevent agencies from continuing to analyze delay or LOS outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes. As part of a project’s discretionary review and approval process, the City has the authority to require additional local transportation network analyses and site access studies. Specifically, the City of Bellflower requires an operational analysis of intersections in the vicinity of a proposed project in order to evaluate site access and circulation constraints that may be caused or worsened by project- generated traffic. The following section presents the operational (i.e., Level of Service) analysis prepared for the Project pursuant to this requirement.
5.1 Methodology
In order to estimate the proposed project’s effect on intersection operations, a multi-step 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 2.4 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 using existing and expected future traffic volumes without and with forecast project traffic.
Intersection analyses were prepared utilizing the Synchro 12 software package which implements the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational method to determine delay values and corresponding Levels of Service (LOS) for the study intersections. A Synchro network was created based on field reviews of existing conditions at the study intersections. In addition, specifics such as traffic volume data, lane configurations, available vehicle storage lengths, crosswalk locations, posted speed limits, traffic signal timing and phasing, etc., were coded to complete the existing network.
The HCM methodology determines the average control delay (expressed in seconds per vehicle) at the intersection. Average control delay for any particular movement is a function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The overall intersection delay represents the weighted average of delay for each intersection approach. The intersection delay is subsequently assigned - 39 -