Bellflower council continues McDonald’s drive‑through appeal to May 12 for more traffic, access analysis

The Bellflower City Council on April 28 continued to May 12 a public hearing on an appeal by Design UA Inc. of the Planning Commission’s denial of a proposed McDonald’s restaurant with a drive‑through at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard.

Associate Planner Catherine Brunton told the council the project would demolish an existing commercial building and replace it with a 3,786‑square‑foot restaurant with a two‑lane drive‑through that merges into a single lane for service windows, about 24 parking spaces and roughly 35% landscaping. “The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission’s action to deny a conditional use permit to allow a drive through business and a development review for a new 3,786 square foot restaurant building for a proposed McDonald’s,” Brunton said during the staff presentation.

The Planning Commission denied the proposal, and the commission’s findings—repeated to the council—focused on several concerns: the site is identified in Bellflower’s housing element as a housing opportunity area and the commission said redevelopment should prioritize housing; lack of a reciprocal access agreement with adjacent properties; potential conflicts with a busy bicycle and pedestrian trail near the site; delivery truck access and queuing; and the effect of a planned Metro Southeast Gateway at‑grade light‑rail crossing near Bellflower Boulevard.

Brunton summarized the traffic and queuing work submitted by the applicant: the queuing analysis reported an average queue of about five vehicles during peak lunch hour and a peak queue of 10–13 vehicles, while the site design provides on‑site queuing capacity for about 10 vehicles. The applicant’s traffic study concluded the restaurant would mainly serve motorists already traveling on Bellflower Boulevard and would not add trips, the staff report said.

Troy Stevenson, the applicant’s representative, told the council the developer was asking for a continuance so the team could evaluate options to add a left‑turn treatment. “There is the possibility of the ability to make a dedicated left turn lane for the subject property, and that would actually change the traffic conditions for the site,” Stevenson said. He also confirmed the applicant has a meeting scheduled with the city’s traffic engineer and staff to discuss options.

Several council members pressed staff and the applicant on mitigation ideas discussed at the Planning Commission and in staff review, including center median delineators on Bellflower Boulevard to prevent left turns, a possible dedicated left‑turn pocket that could require removing some on‑site parking, and whether delivery trucks (the commission mentioned 40‑foot trucks) could access the site without blocking the street. Staff said the city had made multiple attempts to negotiate reciprocal access with the property to the north (Aldi/Blink Fitness) but the property owner declined.

Members of the public who spoke were split. James Taylor Jr., a nearby business owner, noted longstanding parking shortages at the corner and said he supported the McDonald’s proposal “as long as they’re considerate of the Bellflower people.” Other neighbors urged the council to ensure any changes do not push traffic or parking problems onto surrounding small businesses.

After discussion, Councilmember Victor Sanchez moved and Councilmember Dan Coops seconded a motion to continue the public hearing and related appeal to the council’s May 12 meeting so staff and the applicant could pursue additional traffic and access analysis. The motion passed on a voice/roll call vote with councilmembers Victor Sanchez, Mayor Pro Tem Sonny Santinez, Dan Coops and Mayor Dutton recorded as voting aye. The public hearing remains open; members of the public who spoke were told they may testify again at the May 12 hearing if they cannot return for the continued date.

Next steps identified by staff and council: the applicant and the city will meet with traffic engineers to evaluate dedicated left‑turn alternatives and other mitigations; staff will continue outreach to adjacent property owners about reciprocal access; and the council will consider the additional technical analyses and any revised project plans at the May 12 continuation.

Why it matters: the council’s decision affects vehicle and pedestrian circulation on a busy section of Bellflower Boulevard near a planned Metro at‑grade crossing and a bicycle/pedestrian trail, and it raises questions about balancing commercial redevelopment with the city’s housing‑site priorities.