Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bellflower council upholds planning commission, denies McDonald’s development appeal
Summary
After a prolonged public hearing with neighbors and traffic experts, the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the planning commission’s decision, leaving the McDonald’s proposal for 16211 Bellflower Blvd. denied.
The Bellflower City Council upheld the planning commission and denied an appeal May 12 against a denial of a proposed McDonald’s restaurant at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard.
Representatives for McDonald’s described the project as a standard restaurant with drive-through, outdoor seating and expanded pedestrian features. Franchisee Patty Yoon said the company plans local hiring and community programs, and described operational practices including frequent litter patrols and 15‑minute “travel path” checks for cleanliness. “We maintain strong communication with local law enforcement,” Yoon said.
The project drew sustained public comment focusing on traffic and queuing on Bellflower Boulevard, the effects of future Metro light-rail operations, and concerns from adjacent businesses about access and parking. A licensed traffic engineer, Robert Vu, told the council his team used conservative trip-generation assumptions and concluded the corridor would continue to operate within the city’s level-of-service standards; he said his analysis included projected traffic for nearby developments and planned transit.
Council discussion repeatedly returned to left-turn movements and the potential for vehicles to queue and delay traffic on an already-congested corridor. Several nearby business owners and residents said they already experience noise, alarms and congestion. Dennis Klein, who works at a business adjacent to the site, said the proposed driveway orientation and loss of street parking would affect customer access to existing storefronts.
Mayor Pro Tem Sonny Santanaines moved to adopt Resolution 25-15 to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission’s denial of the development review and conditional-use permit. The motion was seconded and passed by roll call. City Attorney clarified for the record that an "aye" vote meant the appeal was denied and the planning commission decision upheld. The roll-call record showed council members voting to deny the appeal.
