11-A — Bellflower City Council, April 28, 2025

GZS`� OF BELLpLU1VE�
r fAN
staf 1 =Ai p rt
'G�UWITiG TOGE��
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
FROM: Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services Kathryn Brun, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to 1) conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal from Robert Preece (representing Design UA, Inc.) of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. PC 24-15; and 2) adopt Resolution No. 24-15 — A Resolution denying an appeal (AP-25-01) and upholding Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 24-15 denying Development Review (DR 3-24-15169) and Conditional Use Permit (CU-24-07) for the construction of a 3,786- square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard.

DATE: April 28, 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The appealed project proposes a new 3,786-square-foot McDonald's restaurant with a drive -through component (the "Project") on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard (the "Project Site").

On December 16, 2024, and February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the Project. The Planning Commission's concerns included, without limitation, consistency with the City's Housing Element, access to and from the Project Site, the proximity of the proposed drive -through use to the bicycle and pedestrian trail, and traffic from the Project Site related to the future Metro Light Rail Station and at -grade crossing.

After the public hearings, the Commission was unable to make the necessary findings and unanimously voted to deny the Project. A resolution incorporating the Planning Commission's findings for denial was adopted on March 3, 2025.

On March 11, 2025, Robert Preece ("Appellant") representing Design UA, Inc. appealed this decision. Pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC") § 17.112.060, after hearing the appeal, the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify in whole or in part, the decision of the Planning Commission.

Page 1 of 8 ends

-1-

Staff Report — Appeal Case No. AP 25-01
April 28, 2025

Page 2 of 8 ends

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Open the public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and

2. After considering the evidence from the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 25-15; or

3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no identifiable fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision, the project will be denied.

Overturning the Planning Commission's decision may result in the project being approved. Once operational, the project will be a source of increased sales tax revenue; the exact amount of such revenue is speculative.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Los Cerritos Community News newspaper on April 18, 2025. Public hearing notices were sent on April 16, 2025, to 176 property owners within a 300' radius of the Project Site and posted at City Hall, Bellflower Substation, Brakensiek Library, Thompson Park, Simms Park, Caruthers Park, and the City's website. Public hearing notices were also posted at the Project Site on April 18, 2025. As of the writing of this staff report, the City received no inquiries on the Project.

CEQA STATUS
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). CEQA Guideline § 15061(b)(4) exempts projects that are disapproved or rejected. Should the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's decision and deny the DR and CUP, no further environmental review is required.

If, however, the City Council opts to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and approve the project, it is still exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline § 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as the project is less than 10,000 square feet in floor area on a site zones for such use and not involving significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. -2-

Staff Report — Appeal Case No. AP 25-01
April 28, 2025

Page 3 of 8 ends

TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE; QUASI-JUDICIAL; OR ADVISORY) Quasi-judicial: The action before the City Council constitutes a de novo quasi-judicial action. Consequently, the City Council is considering the project applications anew, as if the original hearing before the Planning Commission did not take place. While doing so, the City Council acts like a court: it applies facts gathered during a public hearing to existing law. Just like a court, the City Council can only consider facts that are relevant to the case. A party appearing before the legislative body is entitled to:
• Notice of the proposed action;
• Reasons for the action;
• A copy of the evidence on which the action is based; and • The right to respond before a reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer.

If the City Council asks irrelevant questions and bases its decision -making on such questions, a court may overturn the City Council's decision and hold the City potentially liable for violating the Appellant's constitutionally protected due process rights.

Conditional use permits are reviewed based on the following findings. Approval requires the City Council to make all of the findings. A CUP must be denied if any of the findings are not established.

A. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the BMC; B. The land use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the district in which the proposed use is to be located;
C. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the land use, and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features that may be required in order to adjust said use to those existing or possible future uses of land in the neighborhood; and
D. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved so as to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use.

Pursuant to BMC § 17.112.060, the City Council, after hearing the appeal, may affirm, reverse or modify in whole or in part, the decision appealed from, or make and substitute such other additional decisions or determination as it may find warranted under the provisions of the BMC.
-3-

Staff Report — Appeal Case No. AP 25-01
April 28, 2025

Page 4 of 8 ends

PROJECT DATA
Property Owner:

Lee Young Suk Lee Family Trust
General Plan Land Use
Designation:

Mixed Use (MU)
Zoning Classification:

Plan Area 2 of TOD SP
Property Size:

0.99 acres 43,245 SF
Current Development:

Retail Commercial Building
Previous Entitlements/
Permit History:

Resolution No. PC 01-61: CUP Case No. CU 01-29 allowing a wireless communication facility.

Resolution No. PC 09-23: CUP Case No. CU 09-06 allowing the co -location of a wireless communication facility.

Surrounding Land
Uses and Zoning:

North
Grocery Store and Gym Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP
South
Locksmith Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP
West
Automobile Dealership Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP
East
Apartment Complex and Motel Plan Area 1 of the TOD SP

BACKGROUND
➢ Request
On March 11, 2025, the Appellant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the requested approval of a DR and a CUP for a new 3,786-square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component. The Appellant represented that "McDonald's" is their proposed tenant.
➢ Project Site Configuration
The Project involves construction of a proposed restaurant building with drive -through that will be situated near the southeastern portion of the triangular shaped property.

Access to the Project Site is via one driveway off Bellflower Boulevard. Twenty-four parking spaces are proposed for the Project. The Project Site will be separated from the adjacent properties by landscaping, concrete curb, and an existing CMU wall along the site perimeter. An existing wireless communication facility is located at the southwest corner of the property and is proposed to remain.
➢ Drive -Through Layout
The entrance to the drive -through area is located within the parking lot in the northwestern portion of the Project Site, opposite Bellflower Boulevard. The drive -through area starts with two lanes leading to two order points. After the two order points, the drive -through area curbs along the southern portion of the Project Site, where the two lanes merge into one lane leading to the first window (payment) and the second window (1 st pick-up) and third window (alternate pick-up). The drive -through lane ends at the eastern portion of the Project Site, adjacent to Bellflower Boulevard.
-4-

Staff Report — Appeal Case No. AP 25-01
April 28, 2025

Page 5 of 8 ends

➢ Drive -Through Layout— Continued
The two-lane portion of the drive -through has a queuing capacity of four vehicles and the single -lane portion of the drive -through has a queuing capacity of six vehicles. The combined queuing capacity of the drive -through is ten vehicles where each lane is 12 feet wide. A Drive -Through Queuing Analysis ("QA") was required for the Project and was included in the Traffic Analysis ("TA"). The QA found that the observed peak queue at three referenced McDonald's in Brea, La Palma, and South Gate were ten to 13 vehicles.

The proposed drive -through area, according to the QA has adequate queuing capacity.

Also, there is additional drive-thru capacity for two vehicles located on the east side of the proposed building (i.e., pull forward area). Therefore, the QA finds that the Project Site was designed to allow potential excess peak queues to be accommodated on -site without spilling onto Bellflower Boulevard, or the public right-of-way. Further discussion on the QA is included as part of Attachments D and H.
➢ Traffic Analysis
A Traffic Analysis (TA) report was prepared to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project. The TA assessed the following three scenarios: "Existing (2024)," "Existing plus Project ("E+P")," and "Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project Conditions." According to the TA, all study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service ("LOS") of "A" and "B", during both AM and PM peak hours. Accounting for the proposed Project, all LOS are projected to remain the same, except the Bellflower & Driveway 1 which is expected to change from an LOS of "A" to "B" during the AM peak hours. Further discussion on the TA is included as part of Attachments D and H. ➢ Project Timeline
The following is the Project Timeline:

On December 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing to the January 6, 2025, Planning Commission meeting for the Appellant to address ingress and egress from the site, safety concerns of pedestrians and bicyclists, and the goals and policies of the City's Housing Element.
- On December 18, 2024, the Appellant requested that the meeting be continued to the January 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting to continue its due diligence.

On January 6, 2025, the Appellant requested that the meeting be continued again to February 3, 2025, and the Director provided notice of the continuance to the February 3, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.

On January 29, 2025, the Appellant submitted a letter requesting another continuance to February 18, 2025, and a notice of cancellation and continuance was posted to continue the matter to the February 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.
-5-

Staff Report — Appeal Case No. AP 25-01
April 28, 2025

Page 6 of 8 ends

➢ Project Timeline — Continued
On February 5, 2025, the Appellant submitted revised landscape plans. The revised plans included adding an outdoor dining area and enhanced landscaping along the pedestrian entrance. Other comments raised by the Planning Commission at the December 16, 2024, meeting including, without limitation, the site layout were not addressed.
- On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission re -opened the public hearing to consider additional information provided by the Appellant, City Staff, and public testimony, and closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the Project and directed staff to prepare a resolution denying DR 3-24-15169 and CU 24-07.
- On March 3, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 24-15, a Resolution denying DR 3-24-15169 and CU 24-07.
- On March 11, 2025, an appeal application was filed appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Project.

This Staff Report incorporates by reference all Staff Reports presented to the Planning Commission, including, without limitation, those dated December 16, 2024, February 18, 2025, and March 3, 2025.
➢ Discussion on Findings
Matters discussed by the Planning Commission at its December 16, 2024, and February 18, 2025, where the Planning Commission noted the Project does not satisfy the findings required for CUP and DR approvals are summarized below. The appeal application received on March 11, 2025, included the Appellant's responses and reasons for the appeal (Attachment B), which are also summarized below.

Housing Element. The Commission expressed concern about redeveloping the Project Site for a new commercial use as it is identified as a Housing Opportunity Area in the City's Housing Element ("HE"). To meet the goals of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"), the Project Site would need to be redeveloped with housing. The Project Site was recently rezoned to implement the HE by allowing a density of up to 100 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project would remove a large parcel, in a prime location, from the City's housing inventory during a State-wide housing crisis and conflicts with the HE and the TOD SP.
➢ Appellant's response: The Appellant did not provide a response addressing these concerns.
➢ Appellant's appeal: The Appellant represented that it is not in the purview of the Planning Commission to decide the proposed development. The Appellant indicated that the Project Site is zoned to allow for commercial drive -through uses with a CUP and the housing overlay expands options for what is allowed on the Project Site.

1.3 Staff Report — Appeal Case No. AP 25-01
April 28, 2025

Page 7 of 8 ends

➢ Discussion on Findings — Continued
The Appellant further represented that the property owner has only one application and interest for development of the Project Site, does not have an applicant for a residential development, and does not plan on engaging with a residential developer in the future. The Appellant further contends that before submitting the project application, representatives of the Project met with City Staff to discuss the Project and were told there was no issue with the future residential overlay on the Project Site.

Project Site Access: The Commission expressed concern about access to and from the Project Site. The Commission asked the Appellant to seek other ingress and egress possibilities to the Project Site including a reciprocal access agreement with the property to the north or by purchasing and merging with the property to the south. ➢ Appellant's response: The Appellant represented that it was unsuccessful at negotiating a reciprocal access agreement with the property owner to the north of the Project Site and the Project design does not include any means of accessing northbound vehicle traffic from the Project Site.
➢ Appellant's appeal: The Appellant represents that the TA shows that the proposed Project will not add vehicle trips to Bellflower Boulevard, is a very low intensity use, is intended to serve those who are already traveling on Bellflower Boulevard, and that any development, including a residential development, would also have one point of ingress and egress to the Project site. The Appellant represented that the adjacent property owner will not provide reciprocal access for this proposed Project and will not for any future project.

The Commission also expressed concern about delivery trucks blocking traffic on Bellflower Boulevard while entering and exiting the Project Site. ➢ Appellant's response: The Appellant represented that they did not analyze if a 40' delivery truck could access the Project Site with center median delineators installed on Bellflower Boulevard, as conditioned by staff. ➢ Appellant's appeal: The Appellant represented that the proposed business operator will use a 26-foot dual axed straight truck for deliveries that will be able to access the Project Site without any impact to Bellflower Boulevard.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail: The Commission discussed the proximity of the proposed drive -through use to the bicycle and pedestrian trail, which receives higher than average pedestrian traffic.
➢ Appellant's response: The Appellant attempted to address this concern by adding an outdoor dining area and enhanced landscaping to attract pedestrians and bicyclists to the business, but did not address the pedestrian safety concerns. -7-

Staff Report — Appeal Case No. AP 25-01
April 28, 2025

Page 8 of 8 ends

➢ Discussion on Findings — Continued
➢ Appellant's appeal: The Appellant contends that the TA shows that the proposed Project will not add vehicle trips to Bellflower Boulevard as it is intended to serve those who are already traveling on Bellflower Boulevard; therefore, there is no reason for safety concerns for pedestrians and any development, including a residential development, would also have one point of ingress and egress to address.

Metro Light Rail Station and At -Grade Crossing The Commission expressed concern about the frequency and length of time the gates would be down at the at -grade rail crossing on Bellflower Boulevard for Metro's proposed Southeast Gateway Line. During peak hours, there will be an at -grade train crossing every 2.5 minutes within 500 feet of the Project Site. With the Metro crossing, the Level of Service on this segment of Bellflower Boulevard is expected to drop from "A" in the AM and "B" in the PM to "B" in the AM and "C" in the PM. All traffic from the Project Site will be funneled south directly towards the at -grade crossing.
➢ Appellant's response: The Appellant did not address this issue with their revised plans.
➢ Appellant's appeal: The Appellant contends that the opening date of the proposed Metro line is unknown and that the TA, which was based on scoping methodology provided by the City Traffic Engineer, showed that the proposed Project will not have an impact on the traffic once the Metro line is operational and that Bellflower Boulevard will carry the same amount of traffic.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 25-15...................................................................................9 B. Appeal Documents Submitted March 11, 2025.................................................13 C. Resolution No. PC 24-15............................................................................18 D. December 16, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments)......................................25 E. February 18, 2025 Staff Report (without attachments)........................................32 F. March 3, 2025 Staff Report (without attachments).............................................37 G. Assessor's Map, Aerial Map, Zoning Map and General Plan Map.........................41 H. Traffic Analysis, Queuing Analysis, VMT Screening Evaluation, Project Description.46 I. Revised Project Plans dated February 5, 2025...............................................123 -8-

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 25-15
m

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. 25-15
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP-25-01) AND UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-15 DENYING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR 3-24-15169) AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CU-24-07) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,786-SQUARE-

FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE -THROUGH COMPONENT
LOCATED AT 16211 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD
THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Recitals. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. On March 3, 2025, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. PC 24-15 denying Development Review Case No. DR 3-24-15169 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. 24-07 to allow a new 3,786-square-foot, drive -through restaurant (the "Project") on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard (the "Project Site"); B. Resolution No. PC 24-15, and its findings, were made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its December 16, 2024, and February 18, 2025, hearings including, without limitation, the staff reports submitted by the Director on both the above dates.

C. Robert Preece of Design UA, Inc. (the "Appellants"), timely appealed the PC Resolution to the City Council in accordance with the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC") on March 14, 2024 (the "Appeal"); D. The Appeal was scheduled for a public hearing on April 28, 2025; and E. On April 28, 2025, the City Council opened a public hearing and took testimonial and documentary evidence regarding the Appeal. This Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence presented to the City Council at its April 28, 2025, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Planning and Building Services Director ("Director").

SECTION 2: Incorporation by Reference. Except as set forth in this Resolution, all of the findings, conclusions, and determinations in the Resolution No. PC 24-15 are incorporated by reference including, without limitation, Sections 2 through 6.

Page 1 of 3 ends

-10-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 25-15

Page 2 of 3 ends

SECTION 3: Determination. Based upon the Findings and Conclusions set forth in Section 2, the City Council renders the following determinations:

A. There is no substantive evidence in the record supporting the Appeal. The PC Resolution was properly adopted based upon the evidence before the Planning Commission on March 3, 2025.

B. The City Council denies the Appeal and upholds the PC Resolution for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 4: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 5: Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 6: Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 7: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record.

The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding, is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 8: Notice. The City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Appellant, Applicant, and to any other person requesting a copy.

SECTION 9: Recordation. The Mayor, or, presiding officer, is authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Bellflower, and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest.

SECTION 10: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
-11-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 25-15

Page 3 of 3 ends

SECTION 11: Effective Date. This Resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the City Council's final decision. Persons dissatisfied with the City Council's decision may appeal it in accordance with applicable law to the Los Angeles Superior Court within 90 days of the City Council's decision.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2025.

Ray Dunton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Mayoa Ochiqui, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-12-

� At �
Appeal Documents Submitted March 111 2025
-13-

oy BELLFLO
W., "
Appeal Application,
Decisions rendered by Administrative Review and the Design Review Board can be appealed to the Planning Commission; those made by the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. RECEIVED
A.,_LA
Fees: For current fees, please consult the planning fee schedule handout. J, TYPE OR PRINT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION CrTY CLERK'S OFFICE NAME OF APPELLANT: Design UA, Inc. (Robert Preece)
MAILING ADDRESS: 153 E City Place Dr

STREET NUMBER STREET NAME
Santa Ana, CA 92705

CITY STATE ZIP CODE
DAYTIME TELEPHONE: 909-821-6703 FAX NUMBER:

TYPE OF APPEAL: (PLEASE CHECK THE APPLICABJ_E TYPE OF ACTION) ADMINISTRATIVE - PROJECT ADDRESS: 16211 Bellflower Blvd.

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
X PLANNING COMMISSION CASE TITLE: CU24-07 & DR 3-24-415169 SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPEAL: (ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY) See separate letter.

St
0:3110/202!i.-
LATE
NOTE: THIS APPEAL MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR ADVISORY BODY. IF THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE APPEAL IS CHALLENGED IN

COURT, THE CHALLENGE IMAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN C04SZ.RESPOINIDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCII, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
"'OR OFFICE USE ONLY (City Clerk)
r
E SUBMITTED:

RLIC- i%lc.:

RECEIVED BY:

August 16, 2006 Effective 07/28103
16600 Civic Center Drive, Beliflower, Ca. 96700 562-804-1424 _q or -14-

March 11, 2025
City of Bellflower
Department: Planning Division
16600 Civic Center Dr.

RE: Planning Commission Appeal for CU24-07 & DR3-24-15169 McDonald's @ 16211 Bellflower Blvd. Bellflower, CA 90706 Dear Staff,
Thank you for the time and review commitment to date on this project. We are filing an appeal against the above -mentioned cases based on the Planning Commission denial and reasons below:
1- Reason for denial communicated via staff: The property is in a commercial zone (which conditionally allows restaurants with drive thru lanes) but it's also part of a transit -oriented development overlay zone and part of an area that was identified in the housing element as a housing opportunity area. The commissioners felt the site was better suited for a residential or mixed -use development.
a. Appeal Reason:

It is not in the Planning Commissions purview to choose what development is proposed on a site. This site is zoned to allow for commercial drive-thru use with a conditional use permit and the housing element exists, per staffs direct comments and feedback, to. expand options for what is allowed on a site, See highlighted blue below from the City's Housing Element. As it stands, the land- owner has only one application and interest for development on this parcel, and that is this McDonald's project.

N. The site currently has no applicants or has ever had previously an applicant for a residential project and the property owner is not, and does not, plan to engage any residential project for this site — now or in the future. This was communicated to staff and the Planning Commission.
ili. In the infancy stages of the project McDonald's and its consultants met with city staff and McDonalds specifically brought up the housing element as an early potential issue to address. Staff responded, after internal review, that "Pre or post -overlay there wouldn't be an issue with the project as it relates to the Housing Element. On our end, we would need to find another parcel to rezone that can accommodate for the potential housing lost with the development of commercial at this site."
2- Reason for denial communicated via staff: Traffic. Egress. Delivery. Traffic is also further enhanced because there is a Metro light rail station planned almost adjacent to the site and there will be at -grade crossings proposed to be happening up to every 2.S minutes and stopping traffic.
153 East City Place Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 i phone 714,802.3900 -15-

a. Appeal Reason:

The start date for the metro rail operations is unknown currently, At the Planning Commission hearing it was stated it could possibly commence in 2030 or even further beyond.. In the current proposal without the light rail, our traffic analysis, which was based on scope methodology provided directly by the city traffic engineer at early meetings, determined the McDonald's development will not have an impact on the current traffic pattern or impact current adjacent intersections studied. Once the light rail goes in the same findings would still be consistent that the McDonald's development would not impact traffic pattern or impact current adjacent intersections studied. ii. There was a statement from the Planning Commission that McDonald's would cause public safety concerns having only one ingress and egress, The volume of the store and traffic analysis show that there are no added trips on Bellflower Blvd. compared to pre -development. That said there wouldn't be any reason for safety concerns for pedestrians or the public. Even a residential project would have one ingress and egress point to address.
ill. Delivery process was brought up on the delivery truck impacting traffic on Bellflower Blvd, McDonalds has put in place to use a 26-foot dual axei straight truck rather than the typical 65-foot semi -truck. This will allow delivery to come and go onsite gust like any other vehicle without -any impact on Bellflower Blvd..

This will ensure a delivery truck does not need to back into the location and can adequately maneuver completely on -site.
iv. The existing condition of Bellflower Blvd. will carry the same points of critical review on any other project, including a proposed residential project.

McDonald's is a very low intensity use and does not cause significant added trips. Instead, it pulls from already existing trips and is intended to serve those who are already traveling on Bellflower Blvd. Cross -parcel access, for this project, and any other assumed project in the future, will not happen based on direct feedback from the adjacent ownership group.

Below is a snapshot of the City's Housing Element. The Planning Commission's concerns on traffic, access, light rail impact would be significantly further compounded by a proposed residential development of the size below described compared to a McDonald's development. Thus, stating that a residential project is preferred here is a cyclical argument that stands in opposition to the straightforward intent of the overlay.

I53 East City Place Or, Sena Ana, CA 92705 Phone 714,892,3900 Papa 2 of 3
-16-

QS!rPiiY'rMi - �klllt{,sf'ilj
t,.a•'tr+«iiy e.9�'+�?W3,;7 wta}r Fk
r.

V"i VM,
Y
. `•c1,m:F -yT.RP !SU'+'(er4.1C+•M+•3r nS
. ,•. � ... ..z : -,:�s`.w S!e ff r ,: RIN�fR��f'li�iM
Ofteiaonr+-•d neWW"O tees 4600 W W* COV.MPOWi loom a .
aocownoda* Owwr s dip to ourws pelt ?M OWW4 -C 01-0
q d KW eve r!xu90 vo Or4WWWO vAM OCLwo a" WO VO *004 W
M ' N Der oas. am 90000OV VA".vPMOIIIIIIlmkvw
e�an w+KrpIJWOM01r fit m"rr E: ,:i��J^'n'SF'.7�w"'+rt K i»*Kd': ir+ L'r^'�•'YP C'J��fJ xftq G+rY +YY; sFtes�".�•4dks `G nrx4va :,yx c�.�s«#•err, i r«>;�, �s�!-��x +cr «wr+.rsrs!�; c>++sru�,aa+n z� � a .k :.�� a� rx �'*:.ir+°ci0':GIG*� w^'>• ev�P,e�r,? v� rcfrr.�b�r!+.:w c?.�7+� i�tir � .i "..;a°�;a,r3r,:*,r,.;> �'G� ..._....__ if you have any questions, please let us know. Thank you all in advance for your continued efforts in reviewing this project. We look forward to our continued investment into the City of Beliflower.

Sincerely,
/'OBERTREEECE

PRINCIPAL
DESIGN UA, INC.
153 East City Place Or. Santa Ana. CA 327051 Phone 73A.892.3900

Page 3 of 3 ends

-17-

It 1 m i� lon
Resolution No. PC 24-15
-18-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. PC 24-15
A RESOLUTION DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE NO. DR 3-
24-15169 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. CU 24-07 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,786-SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT

WITH A DRIVE -THROUGH COMPONENT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN

BELLFLOWER TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN
("TOD SP") ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16211 BELLFLOWER
BOULEVARD.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS;
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission finds and declares that:

A. On March 14, 2024, Robert Preece of Design UA, Inc. ("Applicant"), filed an application and submitted plans and associated documentation for a Development Review ("DR") and a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to allow a new 3,786-square-foot, drive -through restaurant (the "Project"). The application was initially deemed incomplete on April 11, 2024. On May 1, 2024, the Applicant submitted revised plans, and the application was deemed incomplete for a second time on May 31, 2024. On August 20, 2024, the Applicant submitted revised plans, and the application was deemed incomplete for a third time on September 20, 2024. On October 7, 2024, the Applicant submitted revised plans, and the application was deemed complete on November 7, 2024;
B. The application was reviewed by the City's Department of Planning and Building Services for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the Bellflower Municipal Code CBMC");
C. In addition, the City reviewed the Project's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Environmental Guidelines ("Bellflower Guidelines"; CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and Bellflower Guidelines collectively referred to as "CEQA Regulations"); D. The Director of Planning and Building Services ("Director") completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before this Planning Commission on December 16, 2024;
E. Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law; F. On December 16, 2024, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing to receive and consider public testimony and other evidence regarding the Project including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by the Applicant. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to January 6, 2025;
G. On December 18, 2024, the Applicant submitted a letter requesting that the meeting be continued to the January 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting

Page 1 of 6 ends

-19-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. PC 24-15

Page 2 of 6 ends

to complete their due diligence. On January 6, 2025, the Applicant requested to continue the meeting to February 3, 2025 and notice was given at the January 6, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. On January 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted a letter requesting that the meeting be continued to the February 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting and the February 3, 2025 Planning Commission meeting was cancelled with a notice of continuance for the February 18, 2025 Planning Commission meeting;
H. On February 5, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised landscape plans, On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission re -opened the continued public hearing to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by the Applicant; and
J. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by the Director and designees, public testimony, and the Applicant. This Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its December 16, 2024 and February 18, 2025 hearing including, without limitation, the staff reports submitted by the Director on both the above dates.

SECTION 2. Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds that the following facts exist:

A. The Applicant seeks approval of a DR and CUP to allow a new 3,786-square- foot, drive -through restaurant within TOD SP on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard (the "Project Site");
B. The Project Site is accessible from Bellflower Boulevard, a 75-foot-wide right- of-way, major arterial street,
C. The Project Site is bounded: to the north, by a grocery store and gym located within Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP; to the south, by a locksmith located within Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP; to the west by an automobile dealership within Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP; and to the east, by an apartment complex and motel zoned Plan Area 1 of the TOD SP;
D. The Applicant submitted a Traffic Analysis ("TA") which represents that all intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service; and E. The developable Project Site area measures 0.99 acres (43,245 square feet) and is currently developed with a vacant janitorial supply retail building.

SECTION 3. Environmental Assessment. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). CEQA Guideline § 15061(b)(4) exempts projects that are disapproved or rejected. This -20-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. PC 24-15

Page 3 of 6 ends

Resolution is a denial of a conditional use permit and development review. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings and Conclusions. Pursuant to BMC § 17.96.040 (Necessary Conditions Precedent to the Granting of a Conditional Use Permit) the Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the BMC. The Project Site is located within Plan Area 2 of TOD SP and must conform to the C-G provisions. Pursuant to BMC § 17.44.030(A)(26) (C-G Conditional Uses), "drive-in, or drive -through businesses" are conditionally permitted.

B. The proposed drive -through restaurant use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community. The Project Site is identified as Housing Opportunity Area ("HOA") I (Bellflower Station) and part of Site 11.2 in the City's adopted 2021 — 2029 Housing Element ("HE"). Site 11.2 is comprised of two parcels, including the Project Site, totaling 1.06 acres off Bellflower Boulevard, directly adjacent to the planned Beli lower Metro light rail station.

The Project Site was recently rezoned to implement the HE by allowing up to 100 dwelling units per acre, accommodating 65 residential units of varying income levels to address the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") requirements. The proposed drive -through restaurant use at the Project Site would remove a large parcel, in a prime location for a true mixed - use development, from the City's housing inventory during a State-wide housing crisis and conflicts with the HE and TOD SP, including, without limitation:
• HE Program 27 ensuring adequate sites to accommodate RHNA by reducing the number of large, available sites for housing development.

HE Program 29 lot consolidation because the Project Site accounts for the majority of Site 11.2's acreage and development potential such that its development as a drive -through would further isolate and discourage consolidation of the remaining 0.07 acres within Site 11.2, interfering with the City's ability to rely on large parcels that allow mixed use zoning to develop affordable housing.

HE Policy 5.2: Create mixed use opportunities along key commercial corridors as a means of providing housing in close proximity to services and transit, enhancing pedestrian activity and community interaction.

The HE and TODSP identify Bellflower Boulevard, including the segment between Alondra Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard as a key commercial corridor. The Project Site is located adjacent to the future light rail station which is uniquely situated to contribute to the corridor's existing pedestrian -oriented character, and the intended mixed use and multi -modal transportation vision for this area of the City. • HE Policy 5.6: Explore opportunities for new residential development within those areas of the City occupied by vacant or underutilized -21-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. PC 24-15

Page 4 of 6 ends

commercial or industrial uses. The Project Site was developed in 1952 and has a land -to -improvement ratio of less than one, indicating no significant upgrades have been made. Currently, the building on the Project Site only occupies 17% of the total site area, leaving considerable room for mixed -use development to increase allowable density in such a prime location. Given the location, transit accessibility, and high potential for increased development, the Project Site is likely to be redeveloped with mixed use residential during the 2021-2029 planning period.

C. The Project Site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping. The Project is tailored to the Project Site such that, as proposed, it meets and exceeds all required development standards.

D. The Project Site does not relate to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use, The Project Site abuts the parcel where the future transit station will be located, is accessible only bytto southbound traffic on Bellflower Boulevard and is less than 500 feet north of at -grade rail crossing on Bellflower Boulevard and the Bellflower -Flora Vista signalized intersection. The Final Transportation Impact Analysis Report prepared for the EIS/EIR for Metro's West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor states that during peak hours, there will be an at -grade train crossing every 2.5 minutes. The Project Site is not situated for a vehicle centric use because of its inability to provide safe and legal access to northbound traffic, the narrow width of Bellflower Boulevard, the proximity to the T-intersection at Flora Vista, and at -grade rail crossing within 500 feet. The Applicant is proposing a drive -through use at the Project Site that limits patrons to right -turn -in and right -turn -out only. Additionally, Metro's EIS/EIR identifies that the Level of Service ("LOS") on this segment of Bellflower Boulevard will drop once the transit station is developed which Will be exacerbated by the proposed drive though use funneling traffic southbound towards the at -grade crossing. The existing LOS at Bellflower Boulevard and Flora Vista Street is "A" in the AM and "B" in the PM. The LOS is expected to drop to "Bm in the AM and "C" in the PM. Moreover, the purpose and intent of the TOD SP is to provide a regulatory framework for the downtown Bellflower area that includes customized land uses and development standards, and provides expanded multimodal transportation choices, including, without limitation, contributing to the existing pedestrian -oriented character of the City's downtown. The proposed drive -through use is contrary to the City's visions for this area and the approved future use of Bellflower Boulevard.

SECTION 5. Development Review Findings and Conclusions. Pursuant to BMC § 17.80.040 (Development Review findings), the Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. The Project conflicts with the HE and TOD SP as identified in section 5 of this Resolution.

B. The Project design is not appropriate to the City, the neighborhood, and the lot on which it is proposed as identified in section 5 of this Resolution. -22-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. PC 24-15

Page 5 of 6 ends

C. The Project design is incompatible with its environment with respect to use, forms, materials, colors, setbacks, location, height, design, or similar qualities as specified in the TOD SP as stated in Section 5. Additionally, Bellflower Boulevard prohibits northbound traffic from entering the Project Site, and limits vehicles exiting the Project Site to southbound traffic making the Project Site right turn-in/out only. Among other things, the Project Site has only one proposed point of ingress and egress which increases the volume of vehicle traffic headed southbound on Bellflower Boulevard towards the Bellflower -Flora Vista intersection, at -grade rail crossing, Bellflower Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail that runs along the Pacific Electric Railroad, and further into the pedestrian oriented downtown. Pursuant to the 2017 Bellflower -Paramount Bike Trail Master Plan bicycle and pedestrian counts, the highest peak hour pedestrian volume was observed at the West Santa Ana Branch Trail and Bellflower Boulevard. Moreover, the Project Site is directly adjacent to the Town Center District, which is intended to enhance pedestrian activities, and a strictly commercial development would impede the City's future efforts to obtain funding for complete neighborhoods in low resource areas (HE Program 34), including, without limitation the TOD SP, because of the Project Site's removal as an affordable housing site needed to meet the City's RHNA obligations.

Accordingly, the Project design is, among other things, incompatible with the Project Site location.

SECTION 6. General Plan and Zoning. The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and TOD SP as stated in Sections 5 and 6 of this Resolution.

SECTION 7. Action. The Planning Commission determines that the findings for a conditional use permit and design review cannot be satisfied and denies DR 3-24-15169 and CU 24-07.

SECTION 8. Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the Planning Commission's intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 9. Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 10, Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the Planning Commission's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. -23-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. PC 24-15

Page 6 of 6 ends

The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 11. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Planning Commission intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 12. Preservation. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Resolution's effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

SECTION 13. The Planning Commission Secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant and to any other person requesting a copy.

SECTION 14. Appeal. This Resolution may be appealed within ten calendar days after its adoption, pursuant to BMC Chapters 17.80, 17.96 and 17.112. All appeals must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within this time period. Failure to file a timely written appeal will constitute a waiver of any right to appeal.

SECTION 15. Effective ,bate. Except as provided in Section 15, this Resolution is the Planning Commission's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption and remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 16. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 17. Recordation, The Planning Commission Chairman, or, presiding officer, is authorized to affix its signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Bellflower, and the Planning Commission Secretary, or its duly appointed deputy, may attest,

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER THIS 3a'° DAY OF M Ci2#i2 —
Robert Wilson, Chairman
ATT ST:
62zel-
Elizabeth 4. Oba, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marl H. Berger, City Attorney
Justi A. Ta ay , Ass taut City Attorney
-24-

ATTACHMENT
December 16, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments)
-25-

oil Op 8ELLF1
of
leport
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ATTENTION: Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services FROM: Kathryn Brun, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit, and to adopt Resolution No. PC 24-15 — A Resolution approving Development Review Case No. DR 3-24-15169 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 24-07 to allow the construction of a 3,786-square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component within The Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan ("TOD SP") on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard.

DATE: December 16, 2024

RECOMMENDATION

1. Open the public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. PC 24-15, or

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE; QUASI-JUDICIAL, OR ADVISORY) Quasi-judicial: The recommended action includes issuing a Development Review ("DR") and a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), In considering such actions, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial role. While doing so, the Planning Commission acts like a court: it applies facts gathered during a public hearing to existing law. Just like a court, the Planning Commission can only consider facts that are relevant to the case. A party appearing before the legislative body is entitled to:
• Notice of the proposed action;
• Reasons for the action;
• A copy of the evidence on which the action is based; and • The right to respond before a reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer.

If the Planning Commission asks irrelevant questions and bases its decision -making on such questions, a court may overturn the Planning Commission's decision and hold the City potentially liable for violating the Applicant's constitutionally protected due process rights.
-26-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard December 16, 2024

Page 2 of 6 ends

The DR is typically subject to an administrative -level review per Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC") § 17.80.020 (A)(1). However, when a development review application requires other approvals by the Planning Commission, such as the requested CUP, the DR then occurs concurrently per BMC § 17.80.030(C). In the matter of the DR, the Planning Commission must also make findings pursuant to BMC § 17.80.040:

A. That the proposal is consistent with the Bellflower General Plan and the BMC- B. That the design of the proposal is appropriate to the City, the neighborhood, and the lot on which it is proposed; and
C. That the design of the proposal is compatible with its environment with respect to use, forms, materials, colors, setbacks, location, height, design, or similar qualities as specified in § 17.80.010.

In the matter of the CUP, the Planning Commission must make findings pursuant to BMC § 17.96.040:

A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Los Cerritos Community News newspaper on December 6, 2024. Public hearing notices were sent on December 5, 2024 to 176 owners within a 300' radius of the Project Site and posted at City Hall, Bellflower Substation, Brakensiek Library, Thompson Park, Simms Park, Caruthers Park, and the City's website. Public hearing notices were also posted at the Project Site on December 6, 2024. As of the writing of this staff report, the City received no inquiries on the Project.

CEQA STATUS
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). CEQA Guideline § 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) provides an exemption in urbanized areas, up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary -27-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard December 16, 2024

Page 3 of 6 ends

public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. This Project proposes the construction of a 3,786-square-foot restaurant building.

Property Owner:

Lee Young Suk Lee Family Trust
General Plan Land Use
Designation:

Mixed Use (MU)
Zoning Classification:

Plan Area 2 of TOD SP
Property Size:

0.99 acres (43,245 SF)
Current Development:

Retail Commercial Building
Previous Entitlements/
Permit History:

Resolution No. PC 01-61: CUP Case No. CU 01-29 allowing a wireless communication facility.

Resolution No. PC 09-23: CUP Case No. CU 09-06 allowing the co -location of a wireless communication facility.

Surrounding Land
Uses and Zoning:

North
Grocery Store and Gym (Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP)
South
Locksmith (Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP
West
Automobile Dealership (Plan Area 2 of the TOD SP)
East
Apartment Complex and Motel -4-1 Plan Area 1 of the TOD SP) ME= �
The Applicant seeks approval of a DR and a CUP for a new 3,786-square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component. In addition, the Applicant is proposing parking lot improvements. The Applicant represented that "McDonald's" is their proposed tenant.

The Project Site is located within Plan Area 2 of TOD SP and is subject to the General Commercial ("C-G") provisions (i.e., permitted/conditionally permitted uses and development standards). Pursuant to BIVIC § 17.44.030(A)(26) (C-G Conditional Uses), "drive-in, or drive -through businesses" are conditionally permitted. ➢ Project Site Configuration
The proposed building will be situated near the southeastern portion of the triangular shaped property. Access to the Project Site is via one driveway off of Bellflower Boulevard. A Project Condition is recommended requiring the plans include decorative paving within the ten -foot setback of the driveway entrance (Condition No. 15 on Exhibit A of Resolution No. PC 24-15 - Attachment A). Twenty-four (24) parking spaces are proposed for the Project. Lastly, the Project Site will be separated from the adjacent properties by landscaping, concrete curb, and an existing CMU wall along the site perimeter.

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard December 16, 2024

Page 4 of 6 ends

➢ Business Operation
The Applicant represented that the proposed dine -in restaurant will include a drive - through component with two -order points (i.e., menu / order board), along with delivery and mobile service pickup counters for pedestrians. They are proposing to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Applicant also represented that the restaurant would employ approximately seventeen (17) employees per shift. ➢ Building Architecture I Floor Plan Layout
The proposed building is consistent with the corporate prototype architectural design and includes vertical and horizontal composite wood siding, awnings, accent lighting, and colors such as gold, white, brown, and gray. The tallest point of the building measures 19'-9 %2" and complies with the BMC. Setbacks between the building and Site boundaries are proposed to measure between 12 feet and 88 feet, which is consistent with the C-G standards.

The dining area is located on the northeast side of the building and is approximately 418 square feet in size. The remainder of the building floor area is dedicated as kitchen and utility areas including a pedestrian order, pick-up and delivery "customer service" area.

Along the north portion of the building are the public restrooms, utility, food storage areas, walk-in cooler and freezer, mechanical equipment and electrical rooms. The drive -through windows are located on the south side of the building, along with the kitchen, hallways, office, and crew room. In addition, the order and delivery / pick-up windows for vehicles are located on the south side of the building,
➢ Drive -Through Layout
The entrance to the drive -through area is located within the parking lot in the northwestern portion of the Project Site, opposite Bellflower Boulevard. The drive -through area starts with two lanes leading to two order points. After the two order points, the drive -through area curbs along the southern portion of the Project Site, where the two lanes merge into one lane leading to the first window (payment) and the second window (I St pick-up) and third window (alternate pick-up). The drive -through lane ends at the eastern portion of the Project Site, adjacent to Bellflower Boulevard. The two-lane portion of the drive -through has a queuing capacity of four (4) vehicles and the single -lane portion of the drive -through has a queuing capacity of six (6) vehicles. The combined queuing capacity of the drive - through is ten (10) vehicles where each lane is 12-foot wide. ➢ Landscaping
The Applicant is proposing to landscape 34.7% of the site and incorporate 10-foot-wide landscaped planters along Bellflower Boulevard. The Project Site will also include the minimum required 6-foot-wide landscape planters along the western and southern property lines. Within the landscaped areas, a total of five (5), 48-inch box trees, ten (10), 24-inch box trees, thirteen (13), fifteen -gallon trees, eight hundred forty (840), five -gallon shrubs, and ground cover are proposed.
-29-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevarf December 16, 2024

Page 5 of 6 ends

➢ Mechanical Equipment and Lighting
The Project proposes rooftop mechanical equipment and exhausts. Consistent with the BMC, a parapet wall will screen the rooftop mechanical equipment from the ground surface, from a distance of 100 feet.

Site lighting is proposed throughout, including the parking area, the drive -through area and on all sides of the building. A recommended Project Condition is included that would require the Applicant to submit a photometric plan for the Director's review and approval, before building permits can be issued. The photometric plan must show a zero -foot candle at the Project Site boundaries (Condition No. 15 on Exhibit A of Resolution No. PC 24-15 - Attachment A).

ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the project satisfies the BMC requirements. As a courtesy to the Applicant, certain Building, Fire, and Engineering requirements are identified in the attached Courtesy Notice (Attachment C). The requirements identified in Attachment C are not to be construed to be a comprehensive list of the applicable law or of technical code requirements, and the Applicant is solely responsible for complying with all applicable laws.
➢ Traffic Analysis
A Traffic Analysis ("TA") report was prepared to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project (Attachment D). The TA assessed the following three scenarios: "Existing (2024)," "Existing plus Project ("E+P")," and "Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project Conditions." According to the TA, all study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service ("LOS") of "A" and "B", during both AM and PM peak hours. The following are the studied intersections: Bellflower Bl. & Alondra BI., Bellflower Bl. & Harvard St., Bellflower Bl. & Driveway 1, Bellflower Bl. & Flora Vista St., Bellflower Bl. & Mayne St., and Bellflower Bl. & Oak St. The existing AM LOS is "A" for all studied intersections. The existing PM LOS is "A" for the studied intersections except Bellflower Bl. & Alondra Bl. and Bellflower Bl. & Driveway 1 which have a LOS of "B". Accounting for the proposed Project, all LOS are projected to remain the same, except the Bellflower & Driveway 1 which is expected to change from an LOS of "A" to "B" during the AM peak hours. ➢ Drive -Through Queuing
A Drive -Through Queuing Analysis ("QX) was also required for the Project and included in the TA (Attachment D). The QA found that the observed peak queue at three referenced McDonald's in Brea, La Palma, and South Gate were ten (10) to thirteen (13) vehicles.

The proposed drive -through area is designed to accommodate ten (10) vehicles, which is adequate queuing capacity according to the QA. Also, there is additional drive-thru capacity for two (2) vehicles located on the east side of the proposed building (i.e., pull -30-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard December 16, 2024

Page 6 of 6 ends

forward area). Therefore, the QA finds that the Project Site was designed to allow potential excess peak queues to be accommodated on -site without spilling onto Bellflower Boulevard, or the public right-of-way.
➢ Noise Analysis
A Noise Analysis ("NA") was prepared and evaluated the future exterior noise environment. The NA concluded that Project daytime and nighttime operational noise, construction noise, and construction vibration impacts are considered less than significant. Therefore, no recommendations were provided. ➢ Parking and Loading
Per the BMC, the minimum required number of parking spaces for the Project, based on the floor area of the building, is thirteen (13) parking spaces (at a ratio of one parking space for every 300 square feet of building floor space). A total of twenty-four (24) parking spaces are proposed, which exceeds the minimum parking requirements by eleven (11) parking spaces. All proposed parking spaces measure a minimum of 9'-0" by 20'-0" and comply with BMC requirements. In addition, short-term and long-term bicycle racks are proposed.
➢ Conclusion
The Project conforms with the City's General Plan Land Use Element and as conditioned, the Zoning Regulations in the BMC. In addition, the Project meets all the DR and CUP findings, as outlined in Resolution No. PC 24-15 (Attachment A).

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. PC 24-15
B. Assessor's Map, Aerial Map, Zoning Map and General Plan Map C. Courtesy Code Notice
D. Traffic Analysis, Queuing Analysis, VMT Screening Evaluation, Project Description and Project Plans
-31-

February 18, 2025 Staff Report (without attachments)
4 -32-

OF BELLF104,
af
mwmk,.00&� ok
,GkGt'�'iNG TOGE'�R leport
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ATTENTION: Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services FROM: Kathryn Brun, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to consider an application from Robert Preece (representing Design UA, Inc.) for a Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit, and to adopt Resolution No. PC 24-15 — A Resolution approving Development Review Case No. DR 3-24-15169 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 24-07 to allow the construction of a 3,786- square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component within The Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan ("TOD SP") on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard.

DATE: February 18, 2025 (Continued from February 3, 2025)

RECOMMENDATION
Re -open the public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. PC 24-15; or

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE; QUASI-JUDICIAL; OR ADVISORY) Quasi-judicial: The recommended action includes issuing a Development Review ("DR") and a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). In considering such actions, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial role. While doing so, the Planning Commission acts like a court: it applies facts gathered during a public hearing to existing law. Just like a court, the Planning Commission can only consider facts that are relevant to the case. A party appearing before the legislative body is entitled to:
• Notice of the proposed action;
• Reasons for the action;
• A copy of the evidence on which the action is based; and • The right to respond before a reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer.

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard February 18, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

A. That the proposal is consistent with the Bellflower General Plan and the BMC.

B. That the design of the proposal is appropriate to the City, the neighborhood, and the lot on which it is proposed; and
C. That the design of the proposal is compatible with its environment with respect to use, forms, materials, colors, setbacks, location, height, design, or similar qualities as specified in § 17.80.010.

In the matter of the CUP, the Planning Commission must make findings pursuant to BMC § 17.96.040:

A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Los Cerritos Community News newspaper on December 6, 2024. Public hearing notices were sent on December 5, 2024, to 176 owners within a 300' radius of the Project Site and posted at City Hall, Bellflower Substation, Brakensiek Library, Thompson Park, Simms Park, Caruthers Park, and the City's website. Public hearing notices were also posted at the Project Site on December 6, 2024. As of the writing of this staff report, the City received no inquiries on the Project.

Leiagjm
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). CEQA Guideline § 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) provides an exemption in urbanized areas, up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not -34-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard February 18, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. This Project proposes the construction of a 3,786-square-foot restaurant building.

BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request for a DR and CUP to allow the construction of a 3,786-square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component within The Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan ("TOD SP") on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing to the January 6, 2025, Planning meeting. On December 18, 2024, the Applicant submitted a letter requesting that the meeting be continued to the January 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting to continue their due diligence. A staff report for the continuance was provided at the January 6, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. On January 6, 2025, the Applicant requested that the meeting be continued to February 3, 2025, and the Director provided notice at the January 6, 2025 meeting. On January 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted a letter requesting that the meeting be continued to February 18, 2025, and a notice of cancellation and continuance was posted for the February 3, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. On February 5, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans. The revisions to the plans include adding an outdoor dining area and enhanced landscaping along the pedestrian entrance to create a more welcoming entrance for pedestrians. The following items of concern were discussed during the December 16, 2024 meeting:

1. Housing Element.- The Commission expressed concern about redeveloping the Project Site for a new commercial use as it is identified as a Housing Opportunity Area in the City's Housing Element. To meet the goals of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"), the Project Site would need to be redeveloped with housing.

2. Traffic and Circulation:
a. Project Site Access: The Commission expressed concern that the proposed center median delineators on Bellflower Boulevard in front of the Project Site would restrict potential northbound customers from accessing the site.

The Applicant acknowledges that even if the Public Works Director requires delineators installed in the center median of Bellflower Boulevard, the southbound traffic still warrants the Project Site viable. b. Project Site Circulation: The Commission asked if there were other ingress and egress possibilities to the Project Site including a reciprocal access agreement with the property to the north or by purchasing and merging with the property to the south.
-35-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Bouleva • 18, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

The Applicant has made attempts to negotiate a reciprocal access agreement with the property owner to the north of the Project Site, but the property owner is not willing to discuss the issue.
c. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail: The Commission expressed concern about adding a high vehicle traffic use next to the bicycle and pedestrian trail that could harm pedestrians.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. PC 24-15
B. December 16, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments) C. Revised Project Plans
-36-

ATTACHMENT F
March 3, 2025 Staff Report (without attachments)
-37-

,URGING TOCsE'�R to
e p ort-_
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ATTENTION: Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services FROM: Kathryn Brun, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. PC 24-15 — A Resolution denying Development Review Case No. DR 3-24- 15169 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 24-07 for the construction of a 3,786-square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component within The Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan ("TOD SP") on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard.

DATE: March 3, 2025

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt Resolution No. PC 24-15; or

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA STATUS
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQX) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). CEQA Guideline § 15061(b)(4) exempts projects that are disapproved or rejected. The attached resolution is a denial of a conditional use permit and development review. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

BACKGROUND
This Staff Report incorporates by reference the prior Staff Reports for DR 3-24-15169 and CU 24-07 dated December 16, 2024, and February 18, 2025, On December 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a design review ("DR") and condition use permit ("CUP") request from Robert Preece (representing Design UA, Inc.) ("Applicant") for the construction of a 3,786-square-foot restaurant with a drive -through component within The Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan ("TOD SP") on property located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing to the January 6, 2025, Planning meeting.

Page 1 of 3 ends

-38-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard March 3, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

On December 18, 2024, the Applicant requested that the meeting be continued to the January 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting to continue its due diligence. On January 6, 2025, the Applicant requested that the meeting be continued to February 3, 2025, and the Director provided notice of the continuance at the January 6, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. On January 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted a letter requesting another continuance to February 18, 2025, and a notice of cancellation and continuance was posted for the February 3, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.

On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission re -opened the public hearing to consider additional information provided by the Applicant, City Staff, and public testimony, and closed the public hearing. The Applicant submitted revised plans that included adding an outdoor dining area and enhanced landscaping along the pedestrian entrance but failed to address other comments raised by the Planning Commission at the December 16, 2024 meeting including, without limitation, site layout. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the Project and directed staff to prepare a resolution denying CU 24-07 for consideration at the March 3, 2025 meeting.

Among other matters discussed at its December 16, 2024, and February 18, 2025, meetings, the Project does not satisfy the findings required for CUP and DR:

Proiect Site Access, The Commission expressed concern about access to and from the Project Site. The Commission asked the Applicant to seek other ingress and egress possibilities to the Project Site including a reciprocal access agreement with the property to the north or by purchasing and merging with the property to the south. The Applicant was unsuccessful at negotiating a reciprocal access agreement with the property owner to the north of the Project Site and the Project design does not include any means of accessing northbound vehicle traffic from the Project Site.

The Commission also expressed concern about delivery trucks blocking traffic on Bellflower Boulevard while entering and exiting the Project Site. The Applicant indicated that they did not analyze if a 40' delivery truck could access the Project Site with center median delineators on Bellflower Boulevard.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail. The Commission discussed the proximity of the proposed drive -through use to the bicycle and pedestrian trail which receives higher than average pedestrian traffic. The Applicant attempted to address this concern by adding an outdoor dining area and enhanced landscaping to attract pedestrians and bicyclists to the business but did not address the pedestrian safety concerns. -39-

Staff Report — DR 3-24-15169 & CU 24-07 for 16211 Bellflower Boulevard March 3, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

Metro Light Rail Station and At -Grade Crossing:_The Commission expressed concern about the frequency and length of time the gates would be down at the at -grade rail crossing across Bellflower Boulevard for Metro's proposed Southeast Gateway Line.

During peak hours, there will be an at -grade train crossing every 2.5 minutes within 500 feet of the Project Site. With the Metro crossing, the Level of Service on this segment of Bellflower Boulevard is expected to drop from "A" in the AM and "B" in the PM to "B" in the AM and "C" in the PM. All traffic from the Project Site will be funneled south directly towards the at -grade crossing. The Applicant did not address this issue with their revised plans.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. PC 24-15
B. December 16, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments) C. February 18, 2025 Staff Report (without attachments) -40-

ATTACHMENT G
Assessor's Map, Aerial Map, Zoning Map and General Flan Map -41-

it
V/
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
�. t�A�r'
b, Arp-
I"
d LM

Q2idHDHO
AY
O�P� .
/�, 7
n
or
L
� aJ
f—=
/�
by
V
r'
'3.aZ.if.O-s CL
z
w
9 _
co
V
ry
U
}. ❑ Til
C
4 � ina6 O^
,fl C Q V1
N
�Ac�D
C m ti m N
M
a
J VSL'11U
L �
t
}
n
N
O
J
O
z�Etz
a
U
I` -
o$�{
0)
i--I
F-
er ��r
£,
Q
n
Q
` o
:ry Om
Z I
�
L_
U
�,m
N
-43

N
LU O
r a_
2 VS C N
U C
e a
L q
Z019t
yv
v l9t Q
`yt
900t Ott
c c
_ W
eiltlower Blvd —
m
�L L
co
c
3 CL
°a
r .

V m
1 � T
o N
'e t0
T
9t:6 I'lurmp
� p
9'90 O r Z
7 't�
and p�p
i_96
-45-

ATTACHMENT H
Traffic Analysis, Queuing Analysis, VIVIT Screening Evaluation, Project Description
-46-

URBAN CROSSROADS
MCDONALD'S - 16211

BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD
DEV2021-00218

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY: Robert Vu
I [email protected]
Jose Alire
I [email protected]
Aric Evatt
I [email protected]
Lt�f QCT A 7 2024
BY:

URBAN CF,OSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tableof Contents............................................................................ ............... ii ....................................................

Appendices......................................................................................................................................................... iv Listof Exhibits..................................................................................................................................................... v Listof Tables...................................................................................................................................................... vi Listof Abbreviated Terms ..................... .......................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Summary -of Findings...............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Overview.......................................................................................................................................................3

1.3 Analysis Scenarios.....................................................................................................................................................3

1.4 Study Area.................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Deficiencies..................................................................................................................................................................7

1.6 Recommen ations....................................................................................................................................................7

1.7 Queuing Analysis....................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Methodologies........................................................................................................................................11

2.1 Level of Service..................................................................................................-....................................................11

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis...........................................................................................................................11

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology............................................................................................12

2.4 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service(LOS)............................................................................................12

2.5 Deficiency Criteria..................................................................................................................................................12 3 Area Conditions......................................................................................................................................15

3.1 Existing Circulation Network.............................................................................................................................15

3.2 City of Bellflower Circulation Element Roadway Classifications........................................................15

3.3 Transit Service..........................................................................................................................................................15

3.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian. Facilities............................................................................................................................20

3.5 Existing (2024) Traffic Counts........................................................................................................................... 20

3.6 Intersection Operations Analysis.....................................................................................................................20

3.7 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis....................................................................................................................... 20 4 Projected Future Traffic.........................................................................................................................25

4.1 Project Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Project Trip Distribution......................................................................................................................................26

4.3 Modal Split.................................................................................................................................................................26

4.4 Project Trip Assignment....................................................................................................................................... 26

4.5 Background Traffic.................................................................................................................................................26

4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic..................................................................................................................... 26 5 E+P Traffic Conditions............................................................................................................................34 1 S789B-03 TA Report

URBAN i CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

5.1 Roadway Improvements..................................................................................................................................... 35

5.2 Existing plus Project Traffic Volume Forecasts.......................................................................................... 35

5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................... 35

5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis....................................................................................................................... 35 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Traffic Conditions, ......................................................................... 39

6.1 Roadway Improvements..................................................................................................................................... 39

6.2 Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts.................................................................................................. 39

6.3 With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts......................................................................................................... 39

6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................... 39

6.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis....................................................................................................................... 42 7 References...............................................................................................................................................43 157896-03 TA Report
-49-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 1.2: Site Adjacent Queues
Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts - January 2024
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.1: E+P Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.1: Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.2: Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
157896-03 TA Report
IV
-50-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit1-1: Location Map..................................................................................................................................2 Exhibit 1-2: Preliminary Site Plan.....................................................................................................................4 Exhibit1-3: Study Area....................................................................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 1-4: Site Access Recommendations .................... ........ 9 .......................................................................

Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls.............................................16 Exhibit 3-2: City of Bellflower General Plan Roadway Classification Plan.................................................17 Exhibit 3-3: Existing Transit Routes (1 of 2)...................................................................................................18 Exhibit 3-3: Existing Transit Routes (2 of 2)...................................................................................................19 Exhibit3-4 Bicycle Facilities ............ :..................... ................. .... ......... ............................................................. 21 Exhibit 3-5: Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................22 Exhibit4-1: Project Trip Distribution (Outbound)........................................................................................27 Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution (inbound)...........................................................................................28 Exhibit 4-2: Project Only Traffic volumes
Exhibit 4-3: Cumulative Development Location Map..................................................................................30 Exhibit 4-4: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................31 Exhibit 5-1: E+P Traffic Volumes.....................................................................................................................36 Exhibit 6-1: Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project Traffic Volumes......................................40 Exhibit 6-2: Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project Traffic Volumes............................................41 15789B-03 TA Report
v
-51-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations......................................................................................................5 Table1-2: Summary of LOS...............................................................................................................................7 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds for ICU.........................................................................11 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds.................................................................................12 Table 2-3: Threshold of Significance ................................ ..............................................................................13 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions.................................................................23 Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Summary ...............................................................................................25 Table 4-2: Cumulative Development land use Summary...........................................................................32 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for E+P Conditions....................................................................................37 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Conditions..................................42 15789E-03 TA Report
vi
-52-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1)
Reference
ADT
Average Daily Traffic

CAMUTCD
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CMP
Congestion Management Program
DIF
Development Impact Fee
E+P
Existing plus Project
HCM
Highway Capacity Manual
ICU
Intersection Capacity Utilization
ITE
Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS
Level of Service
MUTCD
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NP
No/Without Project
--OPR
Office -of Planning -and Research
PHF
Peak Hour Factor
Project
McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard
sf
Square Feet
TA
Traffic Analysis
WP
With Project
v/c
Volume to Capacity
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled
vphgpl
Vehicles per Hour Green per Lane
15789E-03 TA Report

URBAN 1 CROSSROADS McDonald's —16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank
15789B-03 TA Report
Will
-54-

URBAN ' CPOSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Traffic Analysis (TA) for McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard development ("Project"), which is located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard, in the City of Bellflower, as shown on Exhibit 1-1. The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and where necessary recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations consistent with the City's General Plan level of service goals and policies. This TA has been prepared in accordance with the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Quly 2020) (TA Guidelines) as the City of Bellflower does not have their own traffic study guidelines. City of Bellflower staff was consulted on traffic analysis methodology during the scoping process. (1) The Project's traffic study scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA, which has been reviewed and approved by the City of Bellflower.

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Project is to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with development of the site:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound -approach at -Driveway 1 (egress Project traffic).

Driveway-1 willaccommodatesite access with right-in/right-out only access. • The Project's frontage from the southern boundary to the northern boundary is to allow on -street parking, consistent with Bellflower Boulevard within the vicinity of the Project. Additionally, Project to install a green -painted curb (i.e., short-term parking) beginningfrom the Projects southern boundary to 40' north of the boundary.
• On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

Additional details and intersection lane geometries are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations of this report. The Project Applicant's responsibility for the Project's contributions towards deficient off - site intersections is fulfilled through payment into pre-existing fee programs (if applicable) that would be assigned to the future construction of any future localfregional improvement needs. The Project Applicant would be required to pay requisite fees consistent with the City's requirements. 15789E-03 TA Report
1 -55-

URBAN': CROSSROADS McDon a[ d's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP
�ALONDRA W L
HARVARD.
-7
SITE
Zj
0 T. MAYNE

OAK ST,
15789B-03 TA Report
-56-

URBAN ' CROSSROADS McDonald's — 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project consists of developing a new 3,786 square foot (SF) McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window. The Project is proposed to utilize the following driveways:
• Driveway 1: right-in/right-out only driveway
A preliminary site plan of which the traffic study will be based on is shown on Exhibit 1-2.

In an effort to provide a conservative analysis and to provide flexibility in future minor site plan changes, a higher square footage has been evaluated than the square footage shown on the latest site plan. For the purposes of the Traffic Study, the Project has been evaluated as 3,915 SF of restaurant use.

In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip -generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). (2) The Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 824 two-way trips per day with 89 AM peak hour trips and 61 PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project's trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.

1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2024)
• Existing plus Project (E+P)
• Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project Conditions • Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project Conditions

1.3.1 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2024) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. For a detailed discussion on the existing traffic counts, see Section 3.5 Existing Traffic Counts.

1.3.2 EXISING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Project (E+P) conditions analysis determines the potential circulation system deficiencies based on a comparison of the E+P traffic conditions to Existing conditions. The roadway network is similar to Existing conditions except for new connections to be constructed by the Project.

Cumulative development projects and ambient growth are not included for E+P traffic conditions. 15789B-03 TA Report
3 -57-

URBAN;. CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
F,
... ......... . m
fi
2 15789B-03 TA Report
4 -58-

URBAN ` CPOSSPOADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

1.3.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) CONDITIONS
The Opening Year Cumulative (2025) traffic conditions analysis determines the potential near -term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. The roadway network is similar to Existing conditions except for new connections to be constructed by the Project. To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing (2024) conditions of 1 % is included for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) traffic conditions. Conservatively, this TA estimates the area ambient traffic growth and then adds traffic generated by other known or probable related projects, if applicable. These related projects are at least in part already accounted for in the assumed ambient growth rates; and some of these related projects may not be implemented and operational within the 2025 Opening Year time frame assumed for the Project. The resulting traffic growth utilized in the TA (ambient growth factor plus traffic generated by related projects) would therefore tend to overstate rather than understate background cumulative traffic deficiencies under 2025 traffic conditions.

1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Bellflower's traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a Project traffic study scoping package for review by City of Bellflower staff prior to the preparation- of this report. This agreement _provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The agreement provided to the City is included in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.

The 5 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1-3 and listed in Table 1-1 were selected for evaluation in this TA based on consultation with City of Bellflower staff. At a minimum, the study area includes intersections where the Project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips. The "50 peak hour trip" criterion represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be affected by a given development proposal. The 50 peak hour trip criterion is a traffic engineering rule of thumb that is accepted and used throughout the City for the purposes of estimating a potential area of influence (i.e., study area). Additional study area intersections were requested by the City of Bellflower to be included with this traffic study.

TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
#
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Signalized?
1 Bellflower BI. & Alondra BI.*
Bellflower
Yes
2 Bellflower BI. & Harvard St.*
Bellflower
Yes
3 Bellflower BI. & Driveway 1
Bellflower
No
4 Bellflower BI. & Flora Vista St.*
Bellflower
Yes
5 Bellflower BI. & Mayne St.*
Bellflower
Yes
6 Bellflower BI. & Oak St.*
Bellflower
Yes
* Requested
by the City of Bellflower
15789E-03 TA Report
-59-

URBAN:

CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA
1$789B-03 TA Report
6 -60-

URBAN' CROSSROADS

1.5 DEFICIENCIES
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This section provides a summary of deficiencies by analysis- scenario. Section 2 Methodologies provides information on the methodologies used in the analysis and Section 5 E+P Traffic Conditions, and Section 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Traffic Conditions include the detailed analysis. A summary of level of service (LOS) results for all analysis scenarios is presented on Table 1-2.

1.5.1 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during both AM and PM peak hours.

1.5.2 E+P CONDITIONS
No study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS for E+P traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic would not trigger the City of Bellflower's significance criteria.

1.5.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) CONDITIONS
No study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without and With Project traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic would nottriggerthe City of Bellflower's significance criteria.

TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF LOS
Existing
E+P
2025 NP
2025 WP
# Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1 Bellflower BI. &Alondra BI.
-at
2 Bellflower BI. & Harvard St.l
y'
3 Bellflower BI. & Driveway 1
4 Bellflower BI. & Flora Vista St.
r,
,:
5 Bellflower BI. & Mayne St.,
w171
6 Bellflower BI. &Oak St.
�.
t
:7-1
74 =A -D '=E Q =F

1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations forthe proposed Project. The site adjacent recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1-4.

Recommendation 1 - Bellflower Ell. & Driveway 1 (#3) - The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach at Driveway 1 (egress Project traffic).

Driveway 1 will accommodate site access with right-in/right-out only access. 15789E-03 TA Report
7 -61-

URBAN ! CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis Recommendation 2 - Bellflower BI. - it is recommended that the Project's frontage from the southern boundary to the northern boundary is to allow on -street parking, consistent with Bellflower Boulevard within the vicinity of the Project. Additionally, Project to install a green -painted curb (i.e., short-term parking) beginning from the Project's southern boundary to 40' north of the boundary.

On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed in the master signing program and construction plans for the Project site.

Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Bellflower sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

1.7 QUEUING ANALYSIS
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package SimTraffic has been utilized to assess the queues. SimTraffic is designed to model networks of signalized and unsignalized intersections, with the primary purpose of checking and fine-tuning signal operations. SimTraffic uses the input parameters from Synchro to generate random simulations. These random simulations generated by SimTraffic have been utilized to determine the 95th percentile queue lengths observed for each applicable turn lane. A SimTraffic simulation has been recorded up to 5 times, during the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours, and has been seeded for 15-minute periods with 60-minute recording intervals. The queuing analysis was conducted for study area intersections utilizing existing signal timings provided by City staff. The results of the queuing analysis worksheets for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are provided in Appendix 1.2 of this report for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project traffic conditions. Under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project traffic conditions, sufficient signal progression is anticipated along Bellflower Boulevard within the study area. 15789B-03 TA Report
-62-

URBAN. CROSSROADS
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
15789B-03 TA Report
9 -63-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank
15789B-03 TA Report
10 -64-

URBAN CROSSROAA DS
2 METHODOLOGIES
McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with the TA Guidelines. (1)

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors, such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free -flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop -and -go conditions.

LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.

2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The 7t" Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (3) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. In comparison, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology expresses the LOS at a signalized intersection in terms of volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c). (4)

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Bellflower requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the ICU for signalized intersections and HCM for unsignalized intersections. (3) (4) ICU LOS operations are based on an intersection's intersection capacity per the ICU methodology.

Signalized intersections located within the City of Bellflower have been analyzed using Traffix (Version 8). The ICU methodology is utilized at signalized intersections only. A minimum clearance interval of

0.10 in association with lane capacities of 1,600 vehicles per hour of green time for through lanes and turn lanes will be assumed for the ICU calculations.

TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS FOR ICU Description
ICU
Level of
Service
Little or no capacity deficiencies.

1.00 F
Source: County of Orange CMP, ICU Methodology
15789E-03 TA Report
11 -65-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Bellflower requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (3) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). At two-way or side -street stop -controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. For all -way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay).

TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Average Control Delay
Level of Service,
Description
(Seconds), V/C 50.00
F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.

2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or determine the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized, full access intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (5) Since the study area intersections are either signalized or unsignalized with restricted access, traffic signal warrant analysis cannot be applied to the study area intersections.

2.4 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
A volume/capacity ratio of 0.90 or LOS D shall be the lowest acceptable LOS at study area intersections.

2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
For intersections, the impact is considered significant if the project related increase in the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio equals or exceeds the threshold shown below:
1578913-03 TA Report
12 URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis TABLE 2-3: THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
Level of Service Final V/C Ratio Project -Related Increase In V/C C > 0.700-0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.04
D > 0.800-0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.02
E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01
15789E-03 TA Report
13 -67-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank
15789E-03 TA Report
14 -68-

URBAN CPOSSPOADS) McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Bellflower General Plan Circulation Element, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the scoping agreement with City of Bellflower staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 6 existing and future intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-3. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

3.2 CITY OF BELLFLOWER CIRCULATION ELEMENT ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS As noted previously, the Project site is located within the City of Bellflower. Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Bellflower Circulation Element Update Final Report (prepared by DKS Associates for the City of Bellflower) roadway classifications. The roadway classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross -sections of the major roadways within the City of Bellflower in the vicinity of the proposed Project, as identified on the City's Circulation Element, are described subsequently.

Major Arterial streets and highways are designed to move relatively high volumes of traffic between freeway systems, and between the freeway and local circulation system. • Bellflower Boulevard
Secondary Arterial are designed to collect and distribute traffic from major highways and other arterial roadways to traffic destinations. Such as schools, shopping centers, and employment centers. • Flora Vista Street

3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is currently served by Bellflower Bus via the North Route and South Route, and Long Beach Transit via Route 91. There are currently several bus stops near the proposed Project along Bellflower Boulevard. The transit services are illustrated on Exhibit 3-3. These existing transit routes could potentially serve the site. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Bellflower and Long Beach Transit periodicallyto address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
15789B-03 TA Report
1s

URBAN CROSSROADS
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS DEf
.1 t— Ilk
= Exis6rg Tra.rw _stt-rxt;
- ► = Exz ring Erne
DEF .- DOac'to Turn Lane
-Ir= Existingstop sign
15789E-03 TA Report
16 -70-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF BELLFLOWER GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION PLAN u
15789B-03 TA Report
17 -71-

q
00 I
I�
sit
O
p�
�a
64 tCOC7rURLI'F
t#'WX
i
t:tt.o T
ail
t�tt EX
B�Z.L.Fl_.UiT'E�
MUTT
'
s �■�t■■i■

WOODRUFF
rn
X
G7
-I
W
X
Z
D
Z
O
C
-i
L-1
t.�
ZZ
O
n
N
K
-72-

CD
w
D
rt;
�� Yy
C3 P.{s:fi :,dV
fry
mm
WJ
W
w
X
Z
�
G1
Z
C
m
v
Q
N
N CC
O
351�¢rvik>R4 dw
�
W
O
C
S
-73-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

3.44 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
In an effort to promote alternative modes of transportation, the City of Bellflower also includes a bikeway system. The City of Bellflower General Plan planned bicycle network, shown on Exhibit 3-4, shows the existing and proposed bikeways within the City. There are no existing bike routes within the vicinity of the Project site.

Pedestrian facilities are built out within the study area. Field observations and traffic counts conducted in January 2024 indicate active pedestrian and bicycle activity within the study area.

3.5 EXISTING (2024) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in January 2024 when local schools were in session and operating on normal bell schedules. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes, and near -by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-5.

3.6 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized on Table 3-1, which indicates that all the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during both of the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

3.7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. There are currently no study area intersections that traffic signal warrant analysis can be applied to.
15789B-03 TA Report
20 -74-

URBAN I CROSSROADS
I
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-4 BICYCLE FACILITIES
to d)
�
2 A/
ml >
Foster Rd
TCompton183INd
+ Vista St
Arlinoton St
183rd St
15789B-03 TA Report
21 -75-

URBAN C R 0 SSSR 0 A D S McDona I d's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
sar
IDI
va
4 I
WRIOWer El, & Alorgra
2 84ffower8L tfamrd,3
5,e41b,**r5L & Ddveeway
st
§
250
c4PVf
i.. t
1 W C-4.4
20,M
j"
&Floravlsu
5 S'"Owef 5L St
6 seffkmer Ef. & Oak st,
1,200
iz,
o
j
4f=
44 15789B-03 TA Report
22 -76-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS Delay (secs .)2 Level of
Traffic ICU (v/c) Service
# Intersection Control'. AM PM AM PM
1 Bellflower BI. & Alondra BI. TS 0.497 0.618 A B
2 Bellflower BI. & Harvard St. TS 0.190 0.290 A A
3 Bellflower BI. & Driveway 1 CSS 9.8 10.3 A B
4 Bellflower BI. & Flora Vista St. TS 0.313 0.363 A A
5 Bellflower BI. & Mayne St. TS 0.222 0.238 A A
6 Bellflower BI. & Oak St. TS 0.241 0.287 A A
CSS = Cross -Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
2 All signalized intersections will be evaluated utilizing Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. For intersections with all way or cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds and ICU reported as a volume -to - capacity ratio.
157896-03 TA Report
23 -77-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This page intentionally left blank
15789B-03 TA Report
24 -78-

URBAN ' 'CROS)SROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project's trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The proposed Project consists of developing a new 3,786 SF McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window. The Project is proposed to utilize the following driveways:
• Driveway 1: right-in/right-out only driveway
A preliminary site plan of which the traffic study will be based on is shown on Exhibit 1-2.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced bythe specific land uses being proposed for a given development. in order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip -generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (111" Edition, 2021) was used to estimate the trip generation. (2) In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip -generation statistics published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11t" Edition, 2021) for Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive - Through (ITE Land Use Code 934) land use were utilized. (2) The trip generation rates are shown in Table 4-1. As shown in Table 4-1, the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 824 two-way trips per day with 89 AM peak hour trips and 61 PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
ITE LU Ai is Peak Hour PM Peak K cur
Lard Use L r. ta` [fie In Our Toot In Gaut 0 %l [Daily
=rip G eneratior, Rates
Fa-Fe-cdRes c,Vrartv:ith Drive ahrough s5F 2 22.75 2'1.96 4�161 17,19 JaSS 33"z3 467Aq T':f-...sm.:t_..: «o =L Ilaxa: 74-L Ma
ANT i oak Hour
PM P+ a!< Rvjr
Lar:o l 3c
Quantity urats'
In Cut
T c�I
Ia Out Total .

D ily
F_cFcc.uEe-staurantWth Drh=- Rreugh

3.91575F
03 SEE
;755
_12-0
1:3??
P33•l f ?SsSS AM: 3=K PMtGaFh: `:
-43 _ZI
-3.6

34. 31-EL
-1,009
tits! NetTrips_
46 Z_
35 33 i fit
e f
`:1:- I;�«...F-_ { -a ..,.k'.( -,3. .f.._:i3. ,_ir ti.p-kC+• ., :L. Ti L' �. ..hzi 5+1-r sf,.

L'?� _ .....,. r_ .'�s `;y.
15789B-03 TA Report
25 -79-

URBAN. CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis

4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. Exhibit 4-1 shows the Project passenger car trip distribution patterns.

4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been included as part of the Project's estimated trip generation. Essentially, the Projects traffic projections are "conservative", in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.

4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, the Project only peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2.

4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 1% per year, compounded annually, for 2025 traffic conditions. The total ambient growth is 1% for 2025 traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area -wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in conjunction with traffic generated bythe development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. 2025 traffic volumes are provided in Section 6 of this report. The traffic generated by the proposed Project was then manually added to the base volume to determine With Project forecasts.

4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Bellflower. The cumulative project list includes pending/approved projects that are anticipated to contribute traffic to the study area intersections.

At the request of City staff, the future Metro light rail station and at -grade crossing is to be included in this Traffic Analysis. Additional details on the Metro light rail station is provided in Section 4.6.1.

Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-2. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the future forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects on Table 4-2 are reflected as part of the background traffic. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are added in conjunction with the ambient growth identified in Section 4.5 Background Traffic. Cumulative ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, in actual vehicles, are shown on Exhibit 4-4.
15789B-03 TA Report
26 -80-

URBAN CROSSROADS
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION (OUTBOUND)
S
s «
a
.

Lid -
A YN E r
"5
I
f
OAK
..
_ LO
!
LEGEND:
10 - PERCENT FROM PROJECT
15789B-03 TA Report
27 -81-

i URBAN CROSSROADS
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION (INBOUND)
ON:

TO - PERCENT TO, P40JECT
15789B-03 TA Report
28 -82-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WMCWer 81. a AkfWra
2 eAftweraL a tiamard
3 Wlftwerst&Dfivewsay
1$0
Se
it
100
I'm
4 84 &-W-ar aL & oa ra Vista
5 eamtowerBL & rvuy"- sit.
&W�--Wer Ef. & Oak SL
st
100
*-f Av,-mgeD-0YT*5
1578913-03 TA Report
29 -83-

URBAN ; CROSSROADS
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
-
9 Hln 4 C
AfI
Y 4
}
t f^ ¢ rt
r
F
ik `4 `3
_ h,f
tHw d,Y�G
it
rt
it i
RaL"9." Y .4.It- 'J
Q
Ail
lxs fil s
,•
aY
4 Am
i
At .'p�•-
Al J,�k1rJ;•f ZZ
' Ztot
art •'[•h, �
_
Swrdes. Emi, HERE,Ga i1-r tecrnap, mcr dctt P`_Corp.

J
GEBC0. USGS,FA0,NPS ease 1CxN,aoa ier
. ■ _;. i_r ..
.NRCAN
N �or6aPs-a Sur - ESti S]p3ti, It i CiP. �_-h}na fi'?4N?t7 Kongi, icj Open�tTe?t14t ip contr6Cutor . and the CtS User 15789B-03 TA Report
30 -84-

11%

URBAN CROSSROADS
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Ajoodra
2 54%WfF &Nat atti3
eq,
VDI
IT ir
14 ko
R
-930
It
4 BeCow er IL & gora 1,Lqa
5 W)fl�W r 81. toaVte St.
6 W W tower el. Oak St
200
i,30
CO 241
+ 0(2)
41 1 - wl L
C%

2.1 -5W
Im-
*4 Average 004- rips
1578913-03 TA Report
31 -85-

URBAN CROSSROADS
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
Project
Address
rand Use
Quamityl
City
c: Bellflower
2-1
Polla Camper
9045 Rosecrans Ave.

CGrnmercW

2.596 TSF
B2
Best Buy Cutfet
17220 Lakewood Blvd..

Comrnercial

63.656 TSF
B3
7-Eleven wl Attached Restaurant
1311 GLakewood Blvd.

Carnmercfal
N.A
B4
Dunkin'Daaum
10100RosecransAve
CarrTmerciat

1.256 TSF
B5
Medical Building
9400 Rosecrans fare.

Medica[ Office
33,G36 TSF
BG
Sell lower Mieed-Use Projea
1641 1 Bell-flomter• Blvd�, 973.5 Gak St,; 9-7'2 Mayne Sr- Resider lal
91 DU
Commercial
15,209 TSF
B7
McDonald's
10146Artes`ra Blvd.

Commercial

1.947 TSF
86 MCDonald`s
NWC of nloadra Blvd. and McNaL Aver
Ccrnrnereiaf
3:,600 TSF
B9
Metro Bellflower Stadon
€tiWCand SwCofBellflewerEkTd.and Flora Vista
Transit Facilivy
Ave.

B10 Metro MaimetTance and Storage
'903G Somerset Blvd.
i�1alC4i�ran�e"
Facility
and Stora e
I DU =LINeIiirtg units �t of Avaiiaabk-;
TEF = 7h.ousimd'-; `u ars Fest

4.6.1 METRO LIGHT RAIL STATION
In March 2024, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) completed the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Pro-ject Final Transportation Impact Analysis Report (Metro Report). The study provides a transportation impact analysis report on the proposed light rail transit (LRT) line, which would connect the City of Bellflower to other portions of Los Angeles County. As stated in the Metro Report, the locally preferred alternative (LPA) consists of a 14.5-mile LRT line that will extend from the northern terminus in the City of Los Angeles/Florence-Firestone community of LA County to a southern terminus in the City of Artesia. The LPA is currently under environmental review and the forecasted opening is 2035. As part of the LPA, the following development was proposed within the study area of this Traffic Analysis (see Exhibit 4-5):
• an at -grade transit facility (Bellflower Station) is proposed to be constructed west of Bellflower Boulevard, south of Flora Vista Street, and north of the Bellflower Bike Trail. The Bellflower Station will provide approximately 260 parking spaces.
• A future Bellflower maintenance and storage facility (MSF) is proposed to be designated as the LRT's main MSF site. The MSF site is located at 9030 Somerset Boulevard in the City of Bellflower and is currently occupied by the Hollywood Sports Park. The MSF site could accommodate up to 80 light rail vehicles.
• Realignment of the existing Bellflower Bike Trail east of Bellflower Boulevard. The Bellflower Station platform and tracks will conflict with an approximately 350-foot-long segment of the Bellflower Bike Trail. The existing segment west of Bellflower Boulevard will remain. The bike trails will remain operational and the function of the bike trails will be maintained.

The following study area intersections were located in the Metro Report and evaluated for traffic impacts:
• Bellflower BI./Flora Vista St. (#4)
• Bellflower BI./Mayne St. (#5)
• Bellflower BI./Oak St. (#6)
A summary of the 2042 year impacts are summarized in Table 4-3. 15789B-03 TA Report
32 URBAN CROSSROADS) McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-5: METRO LOCALLY PREFFERED ALTERNATIVE
++.YY
��c]'•
r'-
'iw:+kpnr t�e�xi=.�ptr�o-rs�nti�+^ama
��
7 V
"
DOWNEY
A
A9
#
$�
4 #
c
�Cii�''w•�P�i��'� i St
b
ZI
'N
h�tlth#
a
..' . 4
!e
ce.

Ilk

PARAMOUNT
sr
�n
y
41%
ttz
is
.125 [}.S
ibAK T
mites
s
a
a� tr
W5lcS 3`€ansit Cati•idor'F'rnjs--f
a a
LAOgE .
ne
MSF Fitz
i"UR
�
>-0: At -Grad- e
w iP E
f0flboljsdt Ae.+(j(
WALNUT
Pari6ng Fawi'lRy
At#;ia*s54w
So rce: W }Band TA HA 20123
1578913-03 TA Report
33 _87_

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF METRO STUDY IMPACTS (2042)
Level of Service
Existing (2017)
No Build (2042)
LPA (2042)
Delay (SeCS.)2
Level of
Delay (secs.) Level of
Delay (SeCS.)2
Level of
Traffic
ICU(v/c)
Service
ICU (wc) Service
ICU (v/c)
Service
# Intersection
Control'
AM PM
AM PM

AM PM AM PM
AM PM
AM PM
4 Bellflower Bl. &Flora Vista St.

7.1 14.2
A B

6.9 25.5 A C

18.1 25.9
B C
5 Bellflower Bl. &Mayne St,
TS

11.0 10.1
B B

6.2 19.4 A B

18.2 24.8
B C
6 Bellflower BI. & Oak St.

21.7 25.0
C C

17.5 28.3 B C

22.1 32.2
C C
Source: West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project Final Transportation Impact Analysis
Report (March 2024)
I TS =Traffic Signal
Ouguing
Available
Stacking ,g 95th Percentile
Intersection Distance (Feet) Queue (Feet) Acceptable? t Bellffower Blfflora Vista St
From Intersection to Back of Rail Crowing 155 195 No
9 el [-;I ower Ell Joa k St.

From Intersection to Back ofemail Crossing 240 248 No
' ,t
act D--starice is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the -stacking distance provi,cled.

Parking
Proposed Stati on PrqJ ected 21;42 Excess Transit
Parking Spaces Prq[ecte d 21042 Excess Transit ParkinglDernand Parking Deal and (Uncanstralnecl Parking Dernand Narking Demand (Constrained (Constrained Station Locations) (All Stations) (All Stations) Locations) Locations) 6 e-Hilower Station 7 *2-: f) 6 : * iili-- ;:* -7, G` , - - i, 411) - : -17-60, - Source: West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Project Final Transportation ImR:LctAnai}�r Report flylarch 20:74) Table 5-18. 1 S789B-03 TA Report
34 LEA

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's — 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis 5 E+P TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Project (E+P) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for E+P conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for E+P conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project's frontage and driveways).

5.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus Project traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, which can be expected for E+P traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.

5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
E+P peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized on Table 5-1 for E+P traffic conditions, which indicate that no study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under E+P traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2024) traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic would not trigger the City of Bellflower's significance criteria. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.

5.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for E+P traffic conditions are based on peak hour and average daily volume -based traffic signal warrants. There are no study area intersections that traffic signal warrant analysis can be applied to for E+P traffic conditions due to restricted access (i.e., right-in/right-out only access).
15789E-03 TA Report
35 -89-

URBAN: CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 5-1: E+P TRAFFIC VOLUMES
pjv-,,Aprl.. -ST
A
&0wer ef r & Afand ra
2 safewe a & m r amard
sa-a0we r al. & D Kvew-y
SL
St
1 WV
j 4A
1r,
20934-7
.1,qw
1,00
4 sa&wv 5L Aora Vixm
5 BdiffawerflL Nwmest.
6 aeKbwtr ft, oak st,
4m
Ps
L I.

Tti3,4DO
N,
2 t r
OrZ4 4 TT
13�
--I,
W4 T�',
ZOO
#49
15789B-03 TA Report
36 -90-

URBAN i CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis TABLE 5-1; INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR E+P CONDITIONS
Existing (2024)
E+P
Delay (secs.)Z-Level
of
Delay (seCS.)2
Level of
Pro}ect-
Traffic
ICU (v/c)
Service
ICU
(v/c)
Service
Related
#
Intersection
Control
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Deficiency?3
1 Bellflower BI. &Alondra BI.

0.497

0.618
A
B

0.497

0.627
A
B
No
2 Bellflower BI. & Harvard St.

0.190

0.290
A
A

0.207

0.302
A
A
No
3 Bellflower BI. & Driveway 1
CSS

9.8 10.3
A
B

10.3 10.5
B
B
No
4 Bellflower BI. & Flora Vista St.

0.313

0.363
A
A

0.320

0.367
A
A
No
5 Bellflower BI. & Mayne St.

0.222

0.238
A
A

0.235

0.236
A
A
No
6 Bellflower BI. & Oak St.

0.241

0.287
A
A

0.252

0.289
A
A
No
CSS = Cross -Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
z All signalized intersections will be evaluated utilizing Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. For intersections with all way or cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds and ICU reported as a volume -to -capacity ratio. 3 Atransportation impact on a City of Bellflower intersection shall be deemed "significant" in accordance with the following table:

Level of Service FlnalV/C Ra4o Project -Related increase in VIC C > (k700 0-800 Equal to or greaterthan 0.04
D > 0.800-0.900 Equal to orgreater than 0.02
E.E >0.900 Equal toorgreatentfi)anq.01
15789B-03 TA Report
37 -91-

URBAN ` CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This page intentionally left blank
15789E-03 TA Report
38 -92-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis 6 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
T-h-is-section-d iseus-ses-the-methods-used-to-deve lop -Ope-ni ng-Y-ear-Cumulative-(20-257)-Without-nd With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project's frontage and driveways). • At the request of City staff, the Metro Light Rail Station cumulative project has been included in the Opening Year Cumulative conditions.
• If applicable, driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative conditions only.

6.2 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes, plus an ambient growth rate of 1.0%, plus traffic from pending and approved but notyet constructed known development projects in the area. The weekday ADT and weekdayAM and PM peak hourvolumes which can be expected for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.

6.3 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project traffic in conjunction with the addition of Project traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-2.

6.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 6.1 Roadway Improvements. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1 for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project traffic conditions, which indicates that no study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2024) traffic conditions.
15789E-03 TA Report
39 -93-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 6-1. OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES I Eetiti,7*erU MOM—
2 saf werat &ffanewti
40ft werBf.&Udwway
25 . 750q
E'_
.,
fir;
r
P' i%.� :e�
r� 1+
l:.
{t+--V✓
serk v E!. . Ftara'.SPis[a
5- €3e ilea ter at. & A&vm St.
6 belPawer el, &Oak-q,
st
21[2-
.ell L
.riq�'= C
�a
it
�
Itq live! r„ � ySr il';g35
15789B-03 TA Report
40 -94-

URBAN ; CROSSROADS
i
McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 6-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES M
2 eWlftow ¢rat. & s ondra'7_
Wife er SL & sRamwd
3 Bate-wer aL G ffwway
tl
"°-k
S
Ly—fat; -'.�.
:7 '.' t
Avk*tj�ta±z�jt''a'�5.
1578913-03 TA Report
41 -95-

I
URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis With the addition of Project traffic, no study area intersections anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2025) With Project traffic conditims The-additiic woolsl-nottrigger-the_City_ofBellflower!s significance criteria. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.

TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2025) CONDITIONS 2025 kNithout Project:
2025 With Project
Delay{secs,}
Levelot
Delay (secs.)'-
Level of
Project-
Trafs"ic ICJ (vtC)
Service
ICU (vFC)
Service
Related
r Intersection Control' MA PM
Ail PM
AM PM
AM PM
Derrciency?;
1 Beltfiower El. & r lorldra EII. TS 0.552 0316
A C

0.511 0:715
A C
No
2 Beliflo.iver 61. & Harvard 5t TS 0.2.55 0.338
A A

0.302 0.346
A A
No
3 Bellflovter 91. & €3rtveway tC5S 10.3 1�15
.8 B
? l.7 .1*1 Z
B 0
No
4 Beli lomr Bi: 13. Flora Mist St. TS 0.504 O�538
A A

0.521 0.593
A A
No
5 Bellflower 6f. & Mayne SL TS 0.234 0.293
A A
0,256_ 0:301
A A
No
6 Betl4iower €xl'.. & Oak St TS 0.296 0345
A A

0.299 0,352
A A
NO
= C�5 = Crc�s-Sven Sin; ;s=7rsr;rcSSgn_t
` Alf t Rakiaesi' intera£Cti6ns vrNtbee`�ralva d utfflz xe lawzriecc�-,r� CapEcitn U dlizati" {tCW mediodclogy. For irterzactionz wIt all Bray
or crtlssstreat
stop control:, t:ne delay and levelo sa,,ficefor theivo,--tinrlivid-usirnovement formovemmentssha.riq asingle lave;are51ci.'wn. 14CM delay rep--ortE4 in zecond,sa and ICJ reported as avo lame -to -cap achy ratio, A transr.`ortatw,n irpacton aCibf of e"ellfl-werintersemon:Shall be deem" 'VgTificant` in accord ante withth a fool bwlrI „Iat,1c:
.

L€iv'di t}f 'E'YIC: r@rs=31 Vic 0110 PY9;e4t Relit ;ttCr 75s in ,rX C - If 700-f7 %€7 Eqxal Tod or g-*3ts'f Eifatt aOLA
Fgkga: fi',YiFP;Zmater atarl0-02

1.F ?0,900 Eq Al toorgreater thanUI

6.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) traffic conditions are based on the peak hour volumes or planning level ADTvolume-based traffic signal warrants. There are no study area intersections that traffic signal warrant analysis can be applied to for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) Withoutand With Project traffic conditions due to existing signalization or restricted access (i.e., right-in/right-out only access).
15789B-03 TA Report
42 -96-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's - 16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis 7 REFERENCES

1. Los Angeles County Public Works. Transportation ImpactAnalyisis Guidelines. Los Angeles County:
s. n.

2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.

3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 7th Edition. s.l.: National Academy of Sciences, 2022.

4. Husch, David and Albeck, John. Intersection Capacity Utilization: Evaluation Procedures for Intersections and Interchanges. Albany, California : Trafficware, 2003 Edition. 09742903-0-0.

S. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014, Updated January 11, 2024 (Revision 8).

6. —. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6).
15789B-03 TA Report
43 -97-

URBAN CROSSROADS McDonald's -16211 Bellflower Boulevard Traffic Analysis This page intentionally left blank
15789E-03 TA Report
44 URBAN ` CROSSROADS
DATE:

July 18, 2024
TO:

Robert Preece, Designua, Inc.

FROM:

Jose Alire & Robert Vu, Urban Crossroads
JOB NO:
1578913-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation

MCDONALD'S BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD DRIVE-THRU

EVALUATION
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submitthe following Drive-Thru Evaluation for the proposed McDonald's Bellflower Boulevard (referred to as "Project"). The Project is located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard in the City of Bellflower, as shown on Exhibit A. This Drive-Thru Evaluation is intended to determine if the proposed circulation plan provides adequate on -site drive-thru storage capacity to accommodate the peak on -site vehicle demands.

EXHIBIT A: LOCATION MAP
AUG 2 0 ?C24
-99-

Robert Preece, Designua, Inc.

July 18, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

INTRODUCTION
The Project site is currently occupied by an existing and vacant commercial building. The proposed McDonald's project will redevelop the site with a 3,786 SF fast food restaurant with side -by -side drive-thru, as shown in Exhibit B.

EXHIBIT B: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
t4" 4
ma L�
MR
The proposed building will implement many of the current McDonald's restaurant design improvements. McDonald's restaurants are designed to optimize operations, drive-thru lane configurations, parking, and on -site circulation. McDonald's understands that the drive-thru wait time directly impacts the customer experience and sales. To reduce the vehicle drive-thru wait time, McDonald's has developed equipment and procedures to improve cook times and crew efficiency. These improvements include dual order boards (or a Side -By -Side drive-thru) that enables customers to place orders earlier. The Side -By -Side drive-thru allows two cars to stack next to each other. This allows the kitchen more cook time to prepare the food to have it ready by the time the customer gets to the pickup window. For a Side -By -Side drive-thru, approximately 180 seconds would elapse from the time the customer completes the order to the time the customer picks up the order from the window. Overall, the Side -By -Side drive-thru decreases total wait time and total stacking lengths during peak demands. Recognizing the benefits of the URBAN CROSSROADS 15789B-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-100-

Robert Preece, Designua, Inc.

July 18, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

dual order boards, nearly all rebuilds, and newly constructed McDonald's restaurants employ this more efficient design configuration.

DRIVE-THRU LANE
The proposed McDonald's Bellflower Boulevard Circulation plan prepared on July 1, 2024, by Kimley Horn, as shown on Exhibit B, indicates that the drive-thru lane will provide storage capacity for 10 vehicles.

It should be noted that approximately 20 to 25 feet per vehicle is an industry standard used to estimate the length needed for a queued vehicle. However, since the drive-thru operations involve relatively low speeds, a slightly shorter distance between vehicles is often observed. This can result in allowing more vehicles to queue in a given length. While a reduced queue length is appropriate, this analysis relies on a more conservative vehicle length of 25 feet per queued vehicle.

REFERENCE DRIVE-THRU LANE DATA COLLECTION
To evaluate the proposed dual drive-thru order board configuration, Urban Crossroads, Inc. collected drive-thru queuing data at three reference McDonald's restaurant locations in October 2023. The three reference queuing surveys, shown on Table 1, were collected at McDonald's locations with dual drive-thru configurations and high drive-thru volumes. Table 1 presents the existing weekday drive-thru queuing data for the breakfast and lunch conditions. The reference queuing data includes a count of each vehicle entering the drive-thru lane during peak breakfast and lunch activity. Peak customer activity begins in the morning at 11:00 AM and concludes at 1:00 PM. The dinnertime volumes are estimated to be approximately 62% of the lunchtime volumes. In addition, the counts describe the total number of vehicles queued in the drive-thru lane at any time. This includes vehicles queued at the pickup window, cashier window, and order board.

TABLE 1: REFERENCE DRIVE-THRU QUEUING DATA SUMMARY
Average Vehicle Queue Peak Vehicle Queue
Location AM MD AM MD
(7am-9am) (11am-1pm) (7am-9am) (11am-1pm)
Brea' 7 5 11 12
La Palmaz 5 5 11 10
South Gate3 7 5 11 13
Based on counts collected at the McDonald's located at 825 Imperial Highway on Tuesday, October 17, 2023 (Appendix A).
z Based on counts collected at the McDonald's located at 5062 Orangethrope Avenue on Tuesday, October 17, 2023 (Appendix B).
3 Based on counts collected at the McDonald's located at 3309 Tweedy Boulevard on Tuesday, October 17, 2023 (Appendix Q.

Table 1 shows that the peak observed vehicle queue lengths in the drive-thru lane ranged from 10 to 13 vehicles. The average vehicle queue at the three reference McDonald's locations ranged URBAN 1 CROSSROADS
157898-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-101-

Robert Preece, Designua, Inc.

July 18, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

from 5 to 7 vehicles. The maximum number of total vehicles observed in the drive-thru never venicies at any of the three reference locations.

DRIVE-THRU QUEUING ANALYSIS
Since the proposed McDonald's Bellflower Boulevard Circulation Plan provides a drive-thru storage capacity of 10 vehicles, the proposed drive-thru lane will accommodate the reference average queue length of approximately 6 vehicles. At no time does the existing or reference peak queue exceed a maximum of 13 vehicles.

The site plan provides adequate drive-thru storage capacity to serve the average queue length of approximately 6 vehicles within the drive-thru lane. During peak drive-thru demands, the site plan can accommodate a total of 10 vehicles within the drive-thru, suggesting an overflow of on - site drive-thru lane capacity approaching 3 vehicles under peak conditions. Additional drive-thru capacity for 2 vehicles is located on the east side of the proposed building (i.e., pull forward area).

Potential excess peak queues can be accommodated on -site without spilling onto Bellflower Boulevard or the public right of way.

CONCLUSIONS
The Project site is currently occupied by an existing and vacant commercial building. The proposed McDonald's project will redevelop the site with a 3,786 SF fast food restaurant with side -by -side drive-thru, located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard, in the City of Bellflower.

Our evaluation indicates that the proposed drive-thru lane will provide sufficient capacity to accommodate average vehicle demands for the proposed McDonald's Bellflower Boulevard. The McDonald's Bellflower Boulevard drive-thru analysis suggests that the Project provides stacking accommodations for approximately 10 vehicles. Our review also suggests that the drive-thru storage may experience an overflow of drive-thru capacity approaching 3 vehicles during peak conditions. Additional drive-thru capacity for 2 vehicles is located on the east side of the proposed building (i.e., pull forward area). Potential excess peak queues can be accommodated on -site without spilling onto Bellflower Boulevard or the public right of way.

If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
r%
Jose Alire, P.E.

Senior Traffic Engineer
_11�
Robert Vu, P.E.

Senior Traffic Engineer
URBAN 1 CROSSROADS
157898-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-102-

APPENDIX A:

REFERENCE SURVEY (825 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, BREA)
URBAN 1 CROSSROADS
157898-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-103-

This page intentionally left blank

URBAN I CROSSROADS
15789E-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-104-

DRIVE THRU SURVEY
LOCATION: McDonalds, 825 Imperial Hwy
CITY: La Brea, CA
DATE: 10/17/2023
DAY: Tuesday
TIME
PickUp Window
To Order Board
Order Board
to DT Entrance
DT Entrance
into Street
TOTAL
7:00
5 0
0 5
7:05
3 1
0 4
7:10
0 1
0 1
7:15
2 2
0 4
7:20
4 1
0 5
7:25
5 1
0 6
7:30
5 5
0 10
7:3S
6 4
0 10
7:40
5 2
0 7
7:45
6 1
0 7
7:50
5 1
0 6
7:55
4 4
0 8
8:00
5 6
0 11
8:05
5 6
0 11
8:10
4 6
0 10
8:15
4 5
0 9
8:20
4 5
0 9
8:25
3 2
0 5
8:30
4 1
0 5
8:35
5 4
0 9
8:40
4 1
0 5
8:45
2 6
0 8
8:50
6 5
0 11
8:55
6 0
0 6
9:00
5 3
0 8
-105-

DRIVE THRU SURVEY
LOCATION: McDonalds, 825 Imperial Hwy
CITY: La Brea, CA
DATE: 10/17/2023
DAY: Tuesday
TIME
PickUp Window
To Order Board
Order Board
to DT Entrance
DT Entrance
into Street
TOTAL
11:00
3 0
0 3
11:05
2 0
0 2
11:10
0 1
0 1
11:15
2 0
0 2
11:20
0 0
0 0
11:25
0 0
0 0
11:30
0 0
0 0
11:35
4 3
0 7
11:40
3 0
0 3
11:45
4 2
0 6
11:50
6 3
0 9
11:55
6 1
0 7
12:00
1 1
0 2
12:05
6 1
0 7
12:10
2 2
0 4
12:15
7 5
0 12
12:20
4 0
0 4
12:25
2 3
0 5
12:30
4 1
0 5
12:35
9 1
0 10
12:40
3 1
0 4
12:45
6 5
0 11
12:50
6 4
0 10
12:55
5 3
0 8
13:00
3 1
0 4
-106-

APPENDIX B:

REFERENCE SURVEY (5062 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE, LA
PALMA)

URBAN I CROSSROADS
157898-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-107-

This page intentionally left blank

URBAN I CROSSROADS
157898-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-108-

DRIVE THRU SURVEY
LOCATION: McDonalds, 5062 0rangethorpe Ave
CITY: La Palma, CA
DATE: 10/17/2023
DAY: Tuesday
TIME
Pickup Window
To Order Board
Order Board
to DT Entrance
DT Entrance
into Street
TOTAL
7:00
2 2
0 4
7:05
3 2
0 5
7:10
4 1
0 5
7:15
1 2
0 3
7:20
1 2
0 3
7:25
1 2
0 3
7:30
2 1
0 3
7:35
3 0
0 3
7:40
2 2
0 4
7:45
6 3
0 9
7:50
1 2
0 3
7:55
2 2
0 4
8:00
2 3
0 5
8:05
3 2
0 5
8:10
4 0
0 4
8:15
5 3
0 8
8:20
6 5
0 11
8:25
5 6
0 11
8:30
5 4
0 9
8:35
1 1
0 2
8:40
3 4
0 7
8:45
3 5
0 8
8:50
4 0
0 4
8:55
3 0
0 3
9:00 1
1 3
0 4
-109-

DRIVE THRU SURVEY
LOCATION: McDonalds, 5062 Orangethorpe Ave
CITY: La Palma, CA
DATE: 10/17/2023
DAY: Tuesday
TIME
Pickup Window
To Order Board
Order Board
to DT Entrance
DT Entrance
into Street
TOTAL
11:00
1 1
0 2
11:05
2 1
0 3
11:10
6 4
0 10
11:15
4 1
0 5
11:20
1 4
0 5
11:25
1 0
0 1
11:30
2 2
0 4
11:35
1 2
0 3
11:40
1 1
0 2
11:45
5 2
0 7
11:50
4 2
0 6
11:55
4 3
0 7
12:00
3 0
0 3
12:05
2 0
0 2
12:10
2 5
0 7
12:15
5 2
0 7
12:20
4 5
0 9
12:25
3 1
0 4
12:30
1 2
0 3
12:35
2 3
0 5
12:40
2 1
0 3
12:45
3 4
0 7
12:50
1 0
0 1
12:55
1 1
0 2
13:00
3 3
0 6
-110-

APPENDIX C:

REFERENCE SURVEY (3309 TWEEDY BOULEVARD, SOUTH
GATE)
URBAN i CROSSROADS
157898-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-111-

This page intentionally left blank

URBAN I CROSSROADS
157898-02 Drive-Thru Evaluation
-112-

DRIVE THRU SURVEY
LOCATION: McDona Ids, 3309 Tweedy Blvd
CITY: South Gate, CA
DATE: 10/17/2023
DAY: Tuesday
TIME
PickUp Window
To Order Board
Order Board
to DT Entrance
DT Entrance
into Parking Lot
TOTAL
7:00
3 2
0 5
7:05
1 1
0 2
7:10
0 4
0 4
7:15
4 4
0 8
7:20
4 0
0 4
7:25
1 3
0 4
7:30
1 4
1 6
7:35
2 2
0 4
7:40
1 3
0 4
7:45
3 3
0 6
7:50
2 3
6 11
7:55
2 3
5 10
8:00
4 3
1 8
8:05
5 3
3 11
8:10
1 4
1 6
8:15
1 4
3 8
8:20
3 4
3 10
8:25
4 3
3 10
8:30
1 2
0 3
8:35
0 2
0 2
8:40
3 3
3 9
8:45
2 4
3 9
8:50
1 4
5 10
8:55
1 4
5 10
9:00
3 2
2 7
-113-

DRIVE THRU SURVEY
LOCATION: McDonalds, 3309 Tweedy Blvd
CITY: South Gate, CA
DATE: 10/17/2023
DAY: Tuesday
TIME
PickUp Window
To Order Board
Order Board
to DT Entrance
DT Entrance
into Parking Lot
TOTAL
11:00
2 3
3 8
11:05
0 2
0 2
11:10
1 1
0 2
11:15
0 2
0 2
11:20
2 0
0 2
11:25
2 0
0 2
11:30
1 2
0 3
11:35
1 3
0 4
11:40
1 4
0 5
11:45
1 4
1 6
11:50
3 4
1 8
11:55
1 4
5 10
12:00
2 3
6 11
12:05
5 3
5 13
12:10
3 3
3 9
12:15
4 4
1 9
12:20
3 0
0 3
12:25
2 1
0 3
12:30
1 0
0 1
12:35
0 0
0 0
12:40
0 0
0 0
12:45
1 2
0 3
12:50
1 1
0 2
12:55
0 2
0 2
13:00
1 4
2 7
-114-

URBAN ; CROSSROADS
DATE:

July 17, 2024
TO:

Robert Preece, Designua, Inc.

FROM:

Alex So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO:
1578913-02 VMT
16211 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD MCDONALD'S VEHICLE MILES

TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING EVALUATION
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation for the 16211 Bellflower Boulevard McDonald's (Project), which is located at 16211 Bellflower Boulevard in the City of Bellflower.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the project is to consist of a 3,786 square foot drive- thru restaurant. The Project site plan can be found in Attachment A.

BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects.

To comply with CEQA, local agencies have adopted VMT guidelines to establish analysis methodologies and impact thresholds for their respective jurisdictions. It is our understanding that the City of Bellflower utilizes the County of Los Angeles Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Quly 23, 2020) (County Guidelines) (1) to conduct VMT assessments in their City.

VMT SCREENING
The County Guidelines provide details on screening criteria that are used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant transportation impact. The screening criteria identified within the County Guidelines are listed below and those shown in bold will be evaluated further based on their applicability to the Project.
-115-

Robert Preece, Designua, Inc.

July 17, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

-------------------------- --
• Non -Retail Project Trip Generation Screening
• Retail Project Site Plan Screening
• Proximity to Transit Based Screening
• Residential Land Use Based Screening
A land use project needs only to meet one of the above screening criteria to be excused from further VMT analysis.

RETAIL PROJECT SITE PLAN SCREENING
As identified in the County Guidelines, projects that consist of local serving retail uses such as specialty retail, shopping center, grocery store, pharmacy, financial services/banks, fitness center or health club, restaurant, and cafe under 50,000 sf may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. The proposed Project consists of a 3,786 square foot drive-thru restaurant and is therefore expected to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

Retail Project Site Plan Screening criteria is met.

PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT BASED SCREENING
The County Guidelines state that projects located within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor may be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact if the Project meets the following sub -criteria:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking than required by the County Code; • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy RTP/SCS; or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of market -rate residential units.

The Project site is located within the 2045 High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) SCAG Region map (see Attachment B), however, the Project does not meet sub -criteria such as having a FAR greater than 0.75.

Proximity to Transit Based Screening criteria is not met.

CONLCUSION
The Project was found to meet the Retail Project Site Plan Screening criteria and is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact; no further VMT analysis is required.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected].

URBAN ; CROSSROADS
157898-02 VMT
-116-

-117-

-118-

DUSTING COMMERCIAL
NAP.

EXISTING COMMERCIAL
N.A.P.
4ERAL NOTE
_E REPORT EXCEPTIONS

EXISTING COMMERCIAL
NA.P-
cma MA-17A
URBAN CROSSROADS 157898-02 VMT

-120-

URBAN I CROSSROADS
15789B-02 VMT
-121-

March 11, 2024
City of Bellflower
Department: Planning Division
16600 Civic Center Dr.

RE: Project Description
McDonald's @ 16211 Bellflower Blvd. Bellflower, CA 90706 Dear Staff,
We are proposing filing for the above -mentioned McDonald's, a newly constructed restaurant, approximately 3,786 Sq. Ft. The filings will be for a Conditional Use Permit. We are requesting 24-hour operation open daily. There will be about 17 employees per shift. The proposal will be a drive-thru and dine -in operation with delivery and mobile service pickup counters. This new building for McDonald's is of the latest standards and brings many of McDonald's new initiatives into this project location. This will. further enhance the proximity of McDonald's in Bellflower and meet what our customers have come to expect of our brand.

The site is proposing to add a new drive thru with two -order points. This allows customers less wait time compared to a traditional single order point drive-thru lane so they can go about their day. This also assists in alleviating longer queue lines as we can now take two orders simultaneously.

The site will be fully developed to include new landscaping, paving, and parking meeting municipal code requirements. New site structures will also be added (light poles with LED heads and trash corral).

The proposed building will house our standard kitchen production facilities and a small dining room area. This location is ideal for placement of a new McDonald's as our customers expect to find a McDonald's within a certain range of travel so we feel this new model will be very welcomed by the public to meet these development needs.

We look forward to the opportunity of working with staff on these filings. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

ROBERT PREEECE

PRINCIPAL
DESIGN UA, INC.
153 East City Place Or. Santa Ana, CA 92705 1 phane 714.892.3900 -122-

ATTACHMENT
Revised Project Plans dated February 5, 2025
-123-

Bellflower City CouncilApril 28, 2025

Bellflower City Council
April 28, 2025