Bellflower City Council
August 8, 2022

T h e C i t y o f B e l l f l o w e r
Families. Businesses. Futures.
16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower, CA 90706
Tel 562.804.1424 Fax 562.925.8660 www.bellflower.org

Next CC Resolution No. 22-49
Next CC Agreement No. 942
Next Ordinance No. 1419

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (562) 804-1424, extension 2220 or [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Agenda Items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours. For your convenience, the Agenda is also posted on the City’s Website at www.bellflower.org with links to each Agenda Item (unless they are too lengthy or unavailable at the time of posting). Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the members of the City Council after the posting of this Agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower. (Privileged documents and Closed Session documents are exempted.)




REGULAR MEETING OF THE BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL

MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2022

BELLFLOWER CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION / 7 P.M. OPEN SESSION

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The City Council Chambers will be open to the public. Per the Los Angeles County Health Officer Order effective March 4, 2022, it is strongly recommended, but not required, to wear a face covering when inside Bellflower City Hall.

5:30 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION

1 CALL TO ORDER

2 ROLL CALL: Mayor Ray Dunton
Mayor Pro Tem Sonny R. Santa Ines
Council Member Raymond Y. Hamada
Council Member Dan Koops
Council Member Victor A. Sanchez

Bellflower City Council Agenda
August 8, 2022

10 PUBLIC COMMENTS

This is the time set aside for the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the Agenda. Anyone wishing to address the City Council should come to the podium, be recognized by the Mayor, and state your name for the record. If you wish to address the City Council on an Agenda Item, you may do so by approaching the podium as we review that particular item. You will be given three (3) minutes to address the City Council.

11 PUBLIC HEARINGS

A Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to consider an application from 16411 Bellflower, LLC to modify the Transit Oriented Mixed-Use Development Project located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard as proposed by 16411 Bellflower, LLC; adopt Resolution No. 22-43; and waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1418.

Resolution No. 22-43 – A Resolution approving TOD PR 5 22 13051 to allow a modification and reconfiguration of a previously approved commercial building for retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses within the Downtown Bellflower TOD Specific Plan, and approving an addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MND 20-01 for property located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard; Applicant and Developer: 16411 Bellflower, LLC.

Ordinance No. 1418 – An Ordinance approving the first amendment to Development Agreement File No. 837.1, in a form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Bellflower and 16411 Bellflower, LLC, to modify and reconfigure the mixed-use development project within the Downtown Bellflower TOD Specific Plan on property located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard; Applicant and Developer: 16411 Bellflower, LLC.

CEQA: Pursuant to the authority and criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental assessment was conducted for this project.

Mitigated Negative Declaration Case No. MND 20-01 was previously approved for the Mixed-Use Development and an addendum to the MND was prepared to further analyze the TOD Project Review modifications and other related discretionary applications. No new significant impacts would occur with the project modifications.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Open the public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 22-43; 2) Consider introducing and waiving first reading of Ordinance No. 1418 amending the Development Agreement affecting the movie theater use; or 3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

12 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

None

13 CONSIDERATION ITEMS

None

Bellflower City Council Agenda
August 8, 2022

14 CONSENT CALENDAR

All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.

A Consideration and possible action to receive and file City Council Warrant Register No. 23-021, dated August 8, 2022.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Receive and file Warrant Register No. 23-021; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

B Consideration and possible action to receive and file the Treasurer’s Report for the Month of June 2022.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Receive and file Treasurer’s Report; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

C Consideration and possible action to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1417 – An Ordinance amending certain sections of Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) Title 17 (Zoning) pertaining to allowable uses, development standards, and process and procedures in the Town Center (TC) District.

CEQA: The Ordinance was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). Based upon that review, the Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance will not result in any development or changes to the physical environment. Following an evaluation of possible adverse impacts, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1417; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

D Consideration and possible action to receive and file Agreement File No. 939 between the City of Paramount and the City of Bellflower for the cooperative implementation of Lakewood Boulevard and Somerset Boulevard Intersection Improvements.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Receive and file AFN 939; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

Bellflower City Council Agenda
August 8, 2022

14 CONSENT CALENDAR – Continued

E Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 1 for Amendment No. 3 to Agreement File No. 855, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Harris & Associates, to conduct a feasibility study regarding the implementation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District within the Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan area.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 1 for Amendment No. 3 to Agreement File No. 855, in a form approved by the City Attorney; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

F Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 22-44 – A Resolution approving the plans and specifications for the Bellflower Boulevard Complete Streets Project from Artesia Boulevard to South City Limit (Specifications No. 18/19-07), pursuant to Government Code §830.6, establishing a project payment account; and authorizing solicitation of bids.

CEQA: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000, et seq.), the City conducted an environmental assessment. Based on the environmental assessment, the project was determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities).

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-44; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

G Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 22-45 – A Resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the Lakewood Boulevard Traffic Signal Improvements – Part 1: Lakewood Boulevard (4) Intersections and Part 2: Lakewood Boulevard and Alondra Boulevard (Specifications No. 20/21-01), pursuant to Government Code §830.6; establishing a project payment account; authorizing solicitation of bids; and authorizing staff to purchase traffic signal equipment to facilitate project completion.

CEQA: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000, et seq.), the City conducted an environmental assessment. Based on the environmental assessment, the project was determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-45; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

Bellflower City Council Agenda
August 8, 2022

14 CONSENT CALENDAR – Continued

H Consideration and possible action to authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to install red curb parking restrictions at 17802 Downey Avenue (C.E. #22-12).

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to install red curb parking restrictions at 17802 Downey Avenue; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

I Consideration and possible action to authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to install time-based parking restrictions at 17114 Passage Avenue (C.E. #22-13).

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to install time-based parking restrictions at 17114 Passage Avenue; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

J Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 22-46 – A Resolution amending the Operating Budget for Fiscal Years 2021-2023 to carryover and adjust various capital projects, activities, and revenues; and authorizing the City Manager to implement this Resolution.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-46; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

K Consideration and possible action to consider adopting Resolution No. 22-47 – A Resolution affirming the City’s opposition to the “Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative” related to sports betting on American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-47; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

L Consideration and possible action to award a contract to ABNY General Engineering, Inc. for the Butterfly Garden Park (Specifications No. 21/22-03); and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with ABNY General Engineering, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney.

CEQA: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000, et seq.), the City conducted an environmental assessment for the Project consisting of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study determined that the Project would not result in any significant effect on the environment with incorporation of mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Pursuant to the requirements from the National Park Service for the use of federal LWCF funds, the City completed a Proposal Description and Environmental Screening Form (PD/ESF) for the Project.

The completed PD/ESF becomes part of the federal administrative record in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The State NEPA pathway recommendation was that the Project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion for which documentation is required.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Award a contract to ABNY for the Project and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with ABNY in a form approved by the City Attorney; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

Bellflower City Council Agenda
August 8, 2022

14 CONSENT CALENDAR – Continued

M Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 22-48 – A Resolution adopting city-wide emergency water conservation measures.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-48; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

N Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the July 11, 2022, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Approve the July 11, 2022, Regular Meeting Minutes; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

O Consideration and possible action to ratify Council Member Victor A.

Sanchez’ appointment of Brian Ahumada to the Parks & Recreation Commission._____________________________________________________ Recommendation to City Council: 1) Ratify Council Member Sanchez’ appointment of Brian Ahumada to fill the unexpired term ending December 2022; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

15 COUNCIL REPORTS

16 ADJOURNMENT

Adjourn to the next Regular Meeting of the Bellflower City Council at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, August 22, 2022.

OV BTLLFLO
AhL
g • �
M�
lepor
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
FROM: Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning and Building Services Jason P. Clarke, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to consider an application from 16411 Bellflower, LLC to modify the Transit Oriented Mixed -Use Development Project located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard as proposed by 16411 Bellflower, LLC; adopt Resolution No. 22-43; and waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No, 1418.

Resolution No. 22-43 — A Resolution approving
TOD PR 5-22-13051 to allow a modification and reconfiguration of a previously approved commercial building for retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses within the Downtown Bellflower TOD Specific Plan, and approving an addendum to Mitigated Negative
Declaration No, MND 20-01 for property located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard; Applicant and Developer: 16411 Bellflower, LLC.

Ordinance No. 1418—An Ordinance approving the first amendment to Development Agreement File No. 837.1, in a form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Bellflower and 16411 Bellflower, LLC, to modify and reconfigure the mixed-use development project within the Downtown Bellflower TOD Specific Plan on property located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard; Applicant and Developer: 16411 Bellflower, LLC.

DATE: August 8, 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018, the Serrano Development Group, Inc. ("Serrano"), an affiliate of 16411 Bellflower, LLC, proposed amixed-use development for properties located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard; 9742 Mayne Street; and 9735 Oak Street on approximately

1.56 acres in Downtown Bellflower. This development is generally referred to as the "Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project" and consists of a single -story building containing a movie theater and retail component; a second and separate multi -story building consisting A approximately 91 residential units; a grade -level parking garage; and approximately 650 square feet of retail space (collectively, the "Project"). The movie theater and retail component of the Project are proposed to be modified and reconfigured to allow for a greater range of retail tenants.

Staff Report — TOD PR 16411 Bellflower Blvd.

MND 20-01 Addendum, TODPR 5-22-13051, and Amendment to AFN 837.1 August 8, 2022

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Open the public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 22-43;
2) Consider introducing and waiving first reading of Ordinance No. 1418 amending the Development Agreement affecting the movie theater use; or 3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved, the revised project would create economic opportunity, as defined by Government Code § 52200.2 by creating jobs and increasing property tax revenues by at least 15%. In addition, if an entertainment tenant does not occupy a portion of the commercial building, the owner must pay the City liquidated damages of up to $500,000 as outlined in the amended Development Agreement.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Herald American (Bellflower Edition) newspaper on July 28, 2022. Public hearing notices were sent on July 25, 2022, to 60 property owners within a 300' radius of the Project site. Public hearing notices were posted at City Hall, Bellflower Substation, Thompson Park, Simms Park, and Caruthers Park on July 22, 2022. Public notices were also posted on the subject site on July 29, 2022. As of the writing of this staff report, the City has not received any correspondence.

CEQA STATUS
Pursuant to the authority and criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental assessment was conducted for this project. Mitigated Negative Declaration Case No, MND 20-01 was previously approved for the Mixed -Use Development and an addendum to the MND was prepared to further analyze the TOD Project Review modifications and other related discretionary applications. No new significant impacts would occur with the project modifications. —2—

Staff Report — TOD PR 16411 Bellflower Blvd.

MND 20-01 Addendum, TODPR 5-22-13051, and Amendment to AFN 837.1 August 8, 2022

BACKGROUND
Property Owner:
16411 Bellflower Blvd, LLC
General Plan Land Use
"MU" Mixed Use
Designation:

Zoning Classification:

Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development
Specific Plan (TOD SP), and includes the Town Center
(TC -1) District and the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North BVOZ-N
Property Size:
.47 acres - Parcel A: 20,736 SF
Current Development:

Parcel A is vacant. Parcel B includes 91 residential units, a commercial tenant space, and is under construction at 9735 Oak Street and 9742 Mayne Street
Surrounding Land Uses
and Zoning:

North
City Parking Structure TODSP
South
City Parking Lot and Commercial Businesses TODSP
West
Multifamily Residential TODSP
East
Los Angeles County Fire Museum and Event Center
TODSP
Previous Actions
On June 22, 2020, the City Council approved a Transit Oriented Development Mixed -Use project that included the renovation of an existing one-story, 14,450 square -foot commercial building, including a 9,350 -square foot movie theater (4 -room, 278 seats) and 5,100 -square foot commercial space for future retail/restaurant uses located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard (Parcel A) and a five -story, 91 -unit mixed -used development located at 9735 Oak Street and 9742 Mayne Street (Parcel B). The City Council also approved Development Agreement File No. 837.1 to facilitate development of the property, including parking license agreements for some of the required off-street parking. See Attachment C for a complete description of previously approved project.

To date, the commercial building (the previous Greek Market) on Parcel A was demolished and the site is currently vacant. The construction on Parcel B for the 91 -unit mixed -used building is underway.

DISCUSSION
Project Request
The Applicant is requesting to modify and reconfigure the commercial component of the project on Parcel A, which included a theater and retail/restaurant tenant spaces. Given the uncertainty of establishing a movie theater as the primary use on the site, the Applicant is requesting to modify the plans to allow for a greater range of retail tenants.

The following modifications are being requested per the Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development Specific Plan (TODSP) and the Bellflower Municipal Code (BMC) as follows:
—3—

Staff Report — TOD PR 16411 Bellflower Blvd.

MND 20-01 Addendum, TODPR 5-22-13051, and Amendment to AFN 837.1 August 8, 2022

Transit -Oriented Development Project Review
Per Chapter 8.4 and Tables 4.16 and 4.17 of the TODSP, the proposed Project involves modifications to the Transit Oriented Development Project Review to allow design changes to the commercial development on Parcel A.
o Parcel A (16411 Bellflower Boulevard) —The TODSP Project Review includes a new, partial two-story, 14,258 square -foot building with 10,490 -square feet of leasable space on the 1st floor, 3,387 -square feet of leasable space on the 2nd floor, and a 381 -square foot staircase. The modified design can facilitate a greater range of retail tenants with or without a theater component. Exterior features include a 3,483 square -foot public plaza on the corner of Bellflower Blvd. and Oak St., patio space for potential outdoor dining on the first floor, and a 1,378 square - foot potential outdoor dining deck on the second floor. The building will be designed with contemporary architectural features, incorporating various building materials on all four sides of the building. The building will allow for Retail, Restaurant, Offices, and an Entertainment Anchor. Conditions of approval are included to address exterior building materials, a master sign plan, Building and Fire Code compliance, Traffic and City Engineer compliance, and Storm Water compliance.

There are no requested changes to the following entitlements/approvals: Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) No. 82987, Administrative Conditional Use Permit (ACU) 20-01, and Conditional Use Permit (CU 20-02).

Development Agreement Amendment
Development Agreement File No. AFN 873.1 included provisions related to development OT the TOD Mixed Use Project, including a "Theater Component" and "Residential Component." Amendments to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Bellflower and the Applicant/Owner, are requested because of the proposed modifications to Parcel A and the Theater Component and because a broader range of retail tenants are now expected to occupy the 14,258 square -foot commercial building.

The amendments to the Development Agreement include: 1) replacing the theater and theater retail with general retail; 2) the requirement that the Owner execute a lease with an "Entertainment Anchor' of at least 4,000 square feet within one year after the City issues a temporary certificate of occupancy; 3) provisions that if the Owner fails to secure an Entertainment Anchor by the deadline, then liquidated damages will be paid to the City every year for a maximum of 15 years not to exceed $500,000; and 4) revised parking agreements that allow the parking for the commercial building to be transferred to designated off-site parking locations.

An "Entertainment Anchor" means one of the following: theatre, live music venue; brewery, art gallery, bowling; or other retail that provides the customer with an entertainment experience. The proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement is attached (Attachment B).
—4—

Staff Report — TOD PR 16411 Bellflower Blvd.

MND 20-01 Addendum, TODPR 5-22-13051, and Amendment to AFN 837.1 August 8, 2022

Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
An addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 20-01) was prepared for the Project. The addendum analyzes a modified development to Parcel A, which consists of less commercial building space by 192 square feet and is substantially similar to the proposal analyzed in the 2020 MND. Any future additional space/modifications beyond 14,258 square feet of commercial space on Parcel A may require additional CEQA documentation. The addendum concludes no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications; therefore, no additional mitigations are required for the proposed project.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and findings can be made to approve the Project, as discussed in Resolution No. 22-43 (Attachments A). In addition, the proposed Project will not be detrimental to the existing community or surrounding neighborhood and will create additional commercial opportunities. The Project helps with the City's vision to revitalize underutilized commercial areas or deteriorated commercial areas.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 22-43 (Conditions of approval and addendum to MND 20-01) ................................6 B. Ordinance No. 1418 (Includes First Amendment to AFN 837.1).. . I ........ 1''.. ....... k .................... 04 C. June 20, 2020 City Council — (Staff Report, Resolution No. 20-29 and Ord. No. 1391 only) ...... ....112 D. Applicant's Application Submittal, Project Description, Findings, and Project Plans ............ 149 —5—

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. 2243
A RESOLUTION APPROVING TOD PR 5-22-13051 TO ALLOW A

MODIFICATION AND RECONFIGURATION OF A PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR RETAIL, RESTAURANT,

AND ENTERTAINMENT USES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN

BELLFLOWER TOD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND APPROVING AN
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. MND
20-01 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16411 BELLFLOWER
BOULEVARD; APPLICANT AND DEVELOPER: 16411 BELLFLOWER,
LLC
THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES A5 FOLLOWS:

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

A. On June 22, 2020, adopted Resolution No. 20-29 approving Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 20-01; Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project Review (TOD PR) 1-20-10630; Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) No. 82987; Administrative Use Permit (ACU) 20-01; and Conditional Use Permit (CU 20- 02) to allow a remodel and partial demolition of an existing commercial building into a 14,450 square foot commercial space including a 9,350 -square foot movie theater and 5,100 -square foot commercial space, with a 4,750 -square foot leasable area for future retail/restaurant uses on Parcel A located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard; and allow a 5 -story, 138,600 -square foot mixed-use building with a 91 -unit residential development, 650 square feet of commercial space, and 139 parking spaces on Parcel B located at 9735 Oak Street and 9742 Mayne Street ("Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project"); B. On July 13, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1391 approving Development Agreement File No. 837.1 ("Agreement"), in a form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Bellflower and 16411 Bellflower, LLC ("Owner"), to facilitate development of the property, including parking license agreements for some of the required off-street parking; C. On August 12, 2020, the City and Owner executed the Development Agreement and it was recorded on November 97 2020 as Document No. 20201419960 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County; D. The commercial building on Parcel A has since been demolished and the lot is currently vacant. Construction of the five -story mixed use building with 91 - residential units and 650 square feet of commercial space on Parcel B has commenced and is underway;
E. On June 29, 2022, 16411 Bellflower, LLC ("Applicant"), filed an application for revisions to the previously approved Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project to facilitate a greater range of retail tenants ("Project") on Parcel A located at 16411 Bellflower Blvd. ("Project Site"). The Project includes a new two-story, 14,258 square -foot commercial building, with 10,490 -square feet of leasable space on the 15t floor, 3,387 -square feet of leasable space on the 2nd floor, and _6_ Page 1 of

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 2243

a 381 -square foot staircase. Exterior features include a 3,483 square -foot public plaza, patio space for potential outdoor dining on the first floor, and a 1,378 square -foot potential outdoor dining deck on the second floor. The submittal was deemed complete on July 25, 2022;
F. The Director completed review and scheduled the public hearing before the City Council for August 8, 2022;
G. The application was reviewed by the Director for, in part, consistency with the General Plan, the Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development Specific Plan and conformity with the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC"); H. 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"); I. Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law;
J. On August 8, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing to receive and consider public testimony and other evidence regarding the project including, without limitation, information provided to the City Council by the Applicant; and K. The City Council considered the information provided by City staff and public testimony, and the Applicant's representatives. This Resolution, and its findings were made based upon the entirety of the administrative record including, without limitation, evidence presented to the City Council at its August 8, 2022 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report.

SECTION 2. Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the following facts exist:

A. The Project Site is within Area 3/BVOZ-N area of the TOD SP, with a General Plan land use designation of "MU" (Mixed Use);
B. The Project Site is accessible from Bellflower Boulevard, an 80'-0" wide right-of-way secondary arterial street; from Mayne Street, a 50'-0" wide right-of-way local street and from Oak Street, a 50'-0" wide right-of-way local street;
C. The Project Site is bounded to the north by a City parking structure; to the south by commercial businesses and a City parking lot; to the west by mixed-use development under construction; and to the east by Los Angeles County Fire Museum and Event Center;
D. The Project Site (Parcel Al16411 Bellflower Boulevard) is a 20,736 -square foot lot that is vacant land;
—7—

City of Bellflower
Resolution No, 22-43

E. The proposed uses are compatible with the various existing businesses located in the Downtown Area and the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ- N) area of the Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development Specific Plan (TOD SP) which include retail, restaurant, alcohol services and comedy theater uses;
F. The proposed building on Parcel A will be designed with contemporary architectural features, incorporating various building materials on all four sides of the buildings;
G. The Property is part of the City's gateway into the downtown and its revitalization is crucial for the economic revitalization of the downtown; H. Improving the Property through private investment is a critical component of the City's overall plan for a thriving downtown;
I. An addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND No. 20-01) was prepared for the Project. The addendum analyzes a modified development to Parcel A, which consists of less commercial building space by 192 square feet and is substantially similar to the proposal analyzed in the 2020 MND.

J. The City Council's efforts in fulfilling the community's expectations for an inviting and attractive downtown is demonstrated in a number of actions including, without limitation, the design and construction of a new Mayne Events Center and Fire Museum; complete refurbishment of downtown Bellflower Boulevard; the development and construction of the Regional Transit Center and Parking Structure; the Bellflower Business Assistance Program; and adoption of zoning overlays that incorporate various incentives for aesthetics and the development of existing and new businesses.

SECTION 3. Environmental Review Findings. The City Council finds as follows:

A. An Initial Study was previously prepared for the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15063 which showed that, if mitigated, the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project would not cause any significant environmental impacts.

B. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b), the City previously prepared and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impacts for the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project and a Notice of Determination was filed.

C. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines
§ 15164,
the City as the lead agency
determined
that the proposed revisions
to the
Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use
Project
are
minor and an addendum
to
the
MND
was prepared.

D. The addendum analyzed the TOD Project modifications and it was determined that the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact not previously considered in the MND.
—8—

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 2243

SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with Pub. Res. Code §§ 211523 21167(f); 14 CCR § 15094; and any other applicable law.

SECTION 6. General Plan and Zoning. The Land Use Designation of the Project site is "MU" (Mixed Use). The Project conforms to the City's General Plan, TODSP and Title 17 (Zoning) of the BMC as follows:

A. The Land Use Designation of the Project is "MU" (Mixed Use). The project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element:

1. General Plan Land Use Element General Goal 1: "Discourage disjoint land use patterns

2. General Plan Land Use Element General Goal 2: "Create a City that functions efficiently, is aesthetically pleasing, and makes the best use of its various resources'

3. General Plan Land Use Element General Goal 5: "Provide incentives for reinvestment in aging built -out developments and encourage consolidation of properties for higher quality land uses and designs";

4. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 1.1: "Provide land use designations which match actual viable uses";

5. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 1.2: "Encourage opportunities to sensitively integrate different, but compatible, land uses";

6. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.1: "Create opportunities wherein a population diverse in terms of income, age, occupation, race, lifestyle, values, interest, and religion may interact, exchange ideas, and realize common goals";

7. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.2: "Provide commercial facilities to meet the retail and service needs of the community';

8. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.12: "Develop strong themes identifying Bellflower as a city of visual and community quality';

9. General Plan Land Use Element Mixed Use Policy 1: "Allow for innovative and/or neo -traditional uses in established areas';
B. The City zoning designation for the project site is Downtown Bellflower Transit - Oriented Development Specific Plan (TOD SP). The Project is located within Planning Area 3 (Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ-N)) of the TOD SP, which allows for commercial development. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the TOD SP:
—9—

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 22-43

1. Objective 1: "Create an experience -oriented district around the future ECO - Rapid Line and Downtown Bellflower that reinforces and promotes the specific plan area as a desirable and economically vital place to live, work, visit, and create businesses."

2. Policy 1.2: "Encourage development that offers housing, shopping, employment, and business development options for residents and visitors."

3. Policy 1.3: "Encourage appropriately -scaled infill and mixed-use development."

4. Policy 1.4: "Accommodate the development of uses that meet the needs of businesses and residents. This includes retail, dining, healthy food, recreation, entertainment, and housing options."

5. Policy 1.5: "Accommodate growth within a half mile of the station area and commercial corridors that respects and responds to the existing scale and density of the neighborhood."
SECTION 7. Transit -Oriented Development Project Review Findings. The City Council finds as follows:

A. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan.

Pursuant to § A of Table 4.16 of the TODSP: "retail, office, and restaurant uses" are permitted by right in the TODSP. Pursuant to § C of Table 4.16 of the TODSP: depending on the use, "entertainment uses" may either be permitted by right, administratively conditionally permitted or conditionally permitted. A Conditional Use Permit was previously approved for a movie theater on the subject site.

B. The project's design and building architecture is complimentary and compatible with other projects within the Specific Plan area.

Pursuant to §§ 4.10.3 and 7.7.1 of the TODSP, the design and building architecture complies with guidelines of the BVOZ-N, which includes an architectural design that is sensitive to the "pedestrian scale" of the ground level building elevation. The design and building architecture of the commercial development is complimentary and compatible with 1) the proposed 91 -unit mixed-use development to the west on Parcel B; and 2) the recently constructed Steelcraft building with regards to steel/metal features.

C. The overall project design and architecture are of high quality and innovative design, use quality construction materials, and creatively use landscape and hardscape materials in order to create a "signature" development for the City of Bellflower.
—10—

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 2243

The project includes a new commercial building design that includes four-sided architecture by incorporating materials such as flat and partial slanted roof with thick cornices, composite aluminum panels, cement plaster trim, and metal and wood awnings. The development also includes a public plaza with seating, landscaping, and a new metal stairwell tower feature leading to the second - floor commercial use that will attract travelers and commuters along Bellflower Boulevard.

Landscaping is proposed throughout the development. Outside seating and dining areas with decorative trellises can be accommodated with the proposed design. Lastly, hardscaped areas throughout the project includes decorative stamped concrete paved walkways, sidewalks, and masonry seat walls.

SECTION 8. Adoption and Approval. Based on the foregoing, the City Council approves TODPR 5-22-13051, subject to conditions listed on attached Exhibit "A," which are incorporated by reference and adopts the addendum to MND 20-01 as set forth attached in Exhibit "B," and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 9, Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed in order 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 10, Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the matter. The 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 11. Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of this matter is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating the matter that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the matter will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the matter is the City Council'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. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

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. 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 —11—

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 22-43

invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 14. 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 15. Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 16. The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to any other person requesting a copy.

SECTION 17. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby 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 thereto.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER ON THIS 8T" DAY OF AUGUST 2022.

Ray Dunton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A —
—12—
Conditions
of
Approval
Exhibit
B
—Addendum
to
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
No. MND
20-01
—12—

EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 22- 43 — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TOD PROJECT REVIEW CASE NO, TODPR 5-22-13051
In addition to all applicable provisions of the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC") including, without limitation, the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan ("TOD SP"), 16411 Bellflower, LLC (the "Applicant"), agrees that it will comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of Bellflower's approval of Transit Oriented Development Project Review Case No, TODPR 5-22-13051 ("Project Conditions").

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the construction ofwords and phrases used in the Conditions of Approval use the definitions set forth in the BMC.

A. Standard Conditions of Approval
The project site must be developed and/or used in the manner requested and must be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans date-stamped July 25, 2022, unless revisions and/or additional conditions are specifically required herein.

This approval runs with the land. All rights and obligations of this approval, including the responsibility to comply with the Conditions of Approval, are binding upon Applicant's successors in interest. The Conditions of Approval may be modified, terminated, or abandoned in accordance with applicable law including, without limitation, the BMC.

3. Any proposed deviations from the Exhibits, Project Description or Conditions of Approval must be submitted to the City Council for review and approval. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval constitute a violation of the permit approval.

4. When exhibits and/or written Conditions of Approval are in conflict, the written Conditions of Approval prevail.

5. The effectiveness of this Project will be suspended for the time period that any Condition of Approval is appealed whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. If any Condition of Approval is invalidated by a court of law, the Project must be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed.

6. The Applicant/owner of the future establishments must comply with all applicable law.

7. The Applicant/Developer must sign this Conditions of Approval, as set forth below, to acknowledge acceptance, within 30 days from the date of approval by the City Council.

The City will only issue permits for development when the construction documents (e.g., building plans) substantially comply with the approved plans.

The size, shape arrangement, use and location of buildings, walkways, parking areas, drainage facilities, and landscaped areas must be developed in substantial conformity with the approved plans. Substantial conformity may be determined by the Director.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 2243 - Exhibit A

9. This decision is not effective until Applicant acknowledges acceptance of all Conditions of Approval and any appeal period has lapsed, or a waiver of right to appeal is filed or if there is an appeal, until a final decision has been made on the appeal. By use of the entitlements granted by a development application, the Applicant acknowledges agreement with the Conditions of Approval.

10.Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this section, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, but not limited to, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, etc., will render any entitlements granted by this section null and void. Construction must cease until all requirements of this section are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the TODSP/BMC are abated.

1. The Applicant must provide a sheet on the construction plans with the City of Bellflower signed resolution stating the Conditions of Approval, as adopted by the City Council. This information must be incorporated into the plans before the City issues a building permit.

12.The Applicant must comply with the Conditions of Approval before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy.

13. Permittee agrees to pay City any development impact fees ("DIFs") that may be applicable to the Project. Permittee takes notice pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d) that City is imposing the DIFs upon the Project in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.). Applicant is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020.

14.Applicant must reimburse the City for all actual fees including, without limitation, legal fees, expended by the City that are directly related to the processing of this project. The City will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy or other final occupancy approval until all fees are paid by the Applicant.

15.16411 Bellflower, LLC, agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising from the City's approval of Transit Oriented Development Project Review Case No. TODPR 5-22-13051, except for such loss or damage arising from the City's sole negligence or willful misconduct. Should the City be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of the City's approval of Transit Oriented Development Project Review Case No, TODPR 5-22-13051, 16411 Bellflower, LLC, agrees to defend the City (at the City's request and with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. For purposes of this section "the City" includes the City of Bellflower's elected officials, appointed officials, officers, and employees.
—14—

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 2243 - Exhibit A

B. Planning
16, The Applicant must submit a Master Sign Program ("MSP") to the Director. The MSP must identify the location of all permissible signs (e.g., wall signs, window signs, address signs, parking signs) proposed within the site. The MSP must describe, without limitation, the permissible design, height, materials, colors, sign type, styles, illumination method and maintenance of all signs. The Director will review and render a decision on the MSP and all sign permit requests.

17. The landscape and irrigation plans must comply with California's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the BMC.

18.All building elevations must include address sign locations for the units and the building. Building addresses must be lighted. Building signs must be visible and must be at an appropriate location for service vehicles to see.

19. The Applicant, its employees and representatives must fully cooperate with lawful directions of public officials, including law enforcement. Applicant must grant free access to the business, including access to any locked or otherwise secured rooms, to public officials exercising their lawful duties.

20. Noise from all construction equipment must be appropriately mitigated to reduce noise levels and meet BMC requirements. Equipment staging areas cannot be sited on public streets, public alleys, public parking areas or the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

21. The Applicant must comply with conditions of approval from Resolution No. 20- 29 -Exhibit A, which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

22.The Applicant must install a decorative wood trellis over the trash enclosure.

23.A11 rooftop mechanical and electrical equipment must be screened from public view through the use of architectural features (e.g., parapet, cornice).

C. Building

24.A112019 California Codes must be complied with. The project must fully comply VVith the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; the 2019 California Building; Plumbing; Mechanical; and Electrical Codes; the 2019 California Energy Standards Code; the 2019 California Fire Code; and the Bellflower Municipal Code as adopted and amended by the City of Bellflower.

25.A Geotechnical Report with liquefication results must be submitted.

26.All Licensed Professionals must stamp and sign each submittal sheet.

27. All Licensed Professionals names must be identified with the Project Team.

28. The Sheet Index must list all sheets (including structural). .15—

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 22-43 - Exhibit A

29.The Bellflower Municipal Code must be listed on the plans as an Applicable Code.

U. The Occupancy Group must be provided on the plans.

31.A list of Deferred
Submittals
must
be provided (e.g., solar, fire sprinklers,
fences/gates 6'-0"
and greater)
to the
Director.

32.The Site Plan must provide the following information:
a. Site drainage slope
b. All utility (electrical, gas, sewer, and water) pipe sizes, location, connection location, and distances to verify minimum 2019 CPC, 2019 CMC, and 2019 CEC requirements are met. A notation must be added on the plans that the City Inspector will field verify the sizes are compliant based on the existing conditions.
c. All exterior mechanical and electrical equipment must be identified on the plans as existing or proposed.

33.A11 building elevations must provide the following information:
a. Dimension ground to top of roof peak;
b. Roof slope;
c. Roofing materials;
d. Roof underlayment;
e. Exterior finish materials;
f. Exterior mechanical equipment; and
g. Exterior electrical equipment.

34.There must be a minimum of two cross sections provided with the locations identified on the floor plans for reference. The sections must - 0" scale.

35.The cross sections must include all construction materials (e.g., foundation/footing size, slab thickness, floor joist size, stud size, insulation type) of all existing and proposed conditions. In addition, they must include all items behind the cut lines (e.g., doors, windows, cabinetry).

36. Natural light calculations must be provided on the plans.

37. Ventilation calculations must be provided on the plans.

38.A11 roof slopes less than 4:12 must comply with the underlayment identified in CRC R905 tables.

39. The Roof Plan must provide the following information:
a. Roof Slope;
b. Roof materials;
c. Class;
d. Underlayment; and
_16- e. Ventilation locations.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 2243 - Exhibit A

40. The submittal must include the following drawings at minimum:
a. Floor Plans at 1/4 = 1'— 0" scale;
b. Roof Plan at 1/4" = 1'— 0" scale;
c. Sections at 1/4 = V— 0" scale;
d. Elevations at'/4" = V— 0" scale;
e. Foundation Plan at/4" = 1'— 0" scale (to comply with Geotechnical Report); and
f. Framing Plan at W = V— 0" scale.

41. Structural calculations must be provided.

42.The Special Inspections list must include those identified in the Geotechnical Report.

43.A notation that all Special Inspector certifications are to be provided to the City Building Official for review must be included in the building plan check submittal package.

44.A notation that all Special Inspection observation reports and testing results are to be provided to the City Building Official for review must be included in the building plan check submittal package.

45.All details (both foundation and framing) must provide job specific information (e.g., foundation depth, footing sizes, floor joist sizes, ceiling joist sizes, roof rafter sizes, beam sizes, stud wall size for interior and exterior wall framing, insulation rating, hardware, roof sheathing, drywall).

46.A Title 24 Report must be provided for each unit.

D. Stormwater

47. Before the City issues grading permits, the Applicant/Owner must submit a Low Impact Development (LID)/ Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Director and/or the City Engineer.

By signing this document, 16411 Bellflower, LLC, certifies that it has read, understood, and agrees to the Project Conditions listed in this document.

Jason Tolleson, representing 16411 Bellflower, LLC
(Applicant and/or Developer)
(If Corporation or similar entity, need two officer signatures or evidence that one signature binds the company)
—17—

EXHIBIT B
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. MND 20-01 -18-

ASCENT
Addenduin to the Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented
Development Mixed Use Project
illl]1 a alkj
r
I
sHaa SHOP SHOP � P.ESTAUf -.�
a �

Downtown Bel Iflower Transit On'ented
Deve Ic:p nt Mixed Use Project
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO, 2020050144
Prepared for:

Gtr p� BELLFL��
'OWING TOG56C
City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental
1230 Columbia Street, Suite 440
San Diego, California 92101
August 2022
isomiaa.oz

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
ACRONYMSAND ABBREVIATIONS.....:......................................................................................................._..---...................................w 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................_..................................................................................1 1

1.1 Background and Action Triggering the Addendum ........... ........... .............. ....... ...... ............... .......................... 0... ............. 1 1

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Regarding. an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPROVED ORIGINAL PROJECT AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS............- ........................2 1

2.1 Approved Original Project and Proposed Modifications ........ _.._............ ................:............:...::...............-.................2-1

2.2 Necessary Project Approvals.. ....... ........ .... ................. ..... ..... ....... .......... .......... ........ -........... ..._.............._..............................2-2 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS.......................:.......................:...................................3-1

3.1 Explanation of environmental Checklist Evaluation Categories ......... .....................,... ..... .............. ............_................. 3-1

3.1.1 Where Impact was Analyzed in the Adopted 2020 MND? ..... ................. ........ .................... ..................... ...... 3-1

3.1.2 Do Proposed Modifications Result in New Significant Impacts? ........................... ......... .......... ..... ........... ....3-1

3.1.3 Any New Significant Impacts Due to Changes in Circumstances?,. -1 A ............... --,A ............ w ............. m ....... AA.. 3-1

3.1.4 Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? ................ 3-1

3.1.5 Do Mitigation Measures in the Adopted 2020 MND Address/Resolve impacts? ... ,,.„,......... ....... ........ 3-2

3.2 Discussion and Mitigation Sections .......... ...... .......... ....... ..... ................ ......... ...... ..... .................... ......................... :._:..... ....... 3-2

3.2.1 Discussion ..... ............ ................. .................. ._............... .............. ........ ...................... .......... ....... .......... .......................... 3-2

3.2.2 Mitigation Measures... ........................................_...................-................._...._.-._.:....:.....::.::.:::::.......:,....._...........3-2

3.3 Environmental Checklist.,,'... ........ ...... && .......... Am. Am . A . . . . . . . I . I A A . I & A . A . . . . . A . . . . . A A A A A I . A A . A . . A A A . 4.11.1 1 A . . A A . . . . . A . A . . . A, A & A & . . A . . . . . . . . I A A d A A A . . . . . 00 - 4 . &A . 3 -2

3.3.1 Aesthetics...”, ....................................................................................................................................._.......................:...3-3

3.3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ...... .............................................................................FAA .....................................3-5

3.3.3 Air Quality ......... ...................................................................................................................... ......... ............................... 3-7

3.3.4 Biological Resources ........ ........... ................. ................. ........... ..._........... ....._........ .......... ....... .... ..... ...... ..................... 3-9

3.3.5 Cultural Resources --- ..... ......... ........... ...... ........ ............ ............. ........ ..............._...... .... ......... ................. .....................3-11

3.3.6 Energy .......... ................... ......... ............ ............... .....................:.3-13

3.3.7 Geology and Soils .......... ............. ............. ........... ................ .--- ........................................................ ............ ............... 3-15

3.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.. ..... A ........ I ... & ............... I --- I& .............. A.A—. ............. m ........ 14& ....... I ........ & .............. I ... .... .... 3-18

3.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................................................3-20

3.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality....,- ......... ........................ A ....... m ...... && ............................ m ... Am ............. *w.&.& ...... 3-22

3.3.11 Land Use and Planning ..... ... .......... :......... ...........:.... ...........................:....................................................................3-24

3.3.12 Mineral Resources.. ............................_..................................................................................::.................................3 26

3.3.13 Noise... I A A A I . A A . A . . A 4..'. . . A . . . A . . . & 1 .1 A A . A A A A . A A A A . . A . A . A A m A A . A A A & A A . A . . . 111 A A A A I A A . . . . . . A A . A . I 1 1. .& ............... 4 ... , ................... q ............ a ..... 3-27

3.3.14 Population and Housing ...... ............................. ............. ............. .............. ............................... ._ ... ......... ....... .......... 3-29

3.3.15 Public Services ....... .......................................................................... ...... ................................... .--- .......... ...... ............ ...3-30

3.3.16 Recreation ....... .................... ................................................................................................. :........ ......... ....................... 3-32

3.3.17 Transportation...... . . . . A . A I A A.., A . A I A . . . . 1. 1 .1-.1 4. Am . A . . A . I A A A A A I A A A A I A . . . . A A A . . A 1. A ................. I A I I..& . . A A A A A A A . A —4.1 . A.& . A A . . . I A . A A A A 4 . A A . . . . . V A . . A A & A A A A A . A . . 3-33

3.3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources._...................................._................................................................................................3-37

3.3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .......... ......:............. .._................................. ......... ...... ...... ................................. ..... .... 3-39

3.3.20 Wildfire ....... ............ .................. ..................... ...... ........... .::.:.... .:......... ..................... ......................................................3-41

3.3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance......._ ........... ...... ................... ............... ................. ....... ..._....... ................... 3-43 4 LIST OF PREPARERS.......... . ......................................:................ IN, Ind ......:._....... Ind ................................................:..........a............... 4-1 5 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................................Pan, .........5-1 City of Bellflowe
r
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-21-

Table of Contents I Ascent Environmental
Figures
Figure1 Regional Location ............ :....................... ...... :,.:..,_.................... .......,........ .:..:.::....... ............. ........................................ 1-3 Figure 2 Previously Approved Site Plan ......... .............. ....:......... ......... ....... ......... ........ ................ ;. *VV ......... VIVO .......... ....... ,...... 2-3 Figure 3 Site Plan for Proposed Modifications .... ......... .................. I..... ,. ... ....... ............ :............ .... ..... .......... ...... ..:2-5 Figure 4 Proposed North and South Building Elevations. ......... IV., ........... ",I ....... & ......... V ... *V*I ..... V ................ 1IwII_I --- 41, .... 111,.. 2-7 Figure 5 Proposed East and West Building Elevations... .".,... _»:: ... ....... 2-9 Figure6 Proposed Building Rendering-,.-, .... I ............. , ... q.: ........ V ................ IV,, ........ ......... &..V_ w ........... . . Vp I .... &... .................. 2-11 Tables
Table 17-1 Parcel A Trip Generation — Proposed Modifications Relative to Approved Original Project..... ....... &.3-35 Gty of Bellflower
ii _ Addendum to MND No. 20 -Of
-22-

Ascent Environmental - List of Abbreviations
LIST ®F ABBREVIATI®NS
adopted 2020 MND 202p Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ADT average daily vehicle trips
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
Basin South CoastAirBasin
gMp best management practices
BSMWC Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company
BVOZ-N Bellflower Village Overlay Zone —North
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAP Climate Action Plan
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Bellflower
DART Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility
EIR environmental impact report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
GHG greenhouse gas .

LACFD Los Angeles County Fire Department
LASD Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
LOS Level of Service
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPR California Office of Planning and Research
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Sg Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SWppp stormwater pollution prevention plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TOD SP Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-23-

List of Abbreviations
This page intentionally left blank.
-24-
Ascent Environmental
City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01

INTRODUCTION

1.9 BACKGROUND AND ACTION TRIGGERING THE ADDENDUM
This addendum to the 2020 Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (adopted 2020 MND) for the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Mixed Use Project (approved original project) evaluates modifications to the approved development (commercial) on Parcel A of the project site. The modifications to the approved development are to accommodate the proposed Edgeway Retail Project (referred to herein as the "proposed modifications'). There are no changes to the approved development (residential) on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved We (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The adopted 2020 MND evaluated 14,450 SF of total development on Parcel A, including a Multi -screen Theater (9,350 SF), Retail Commercial/Restaurant (4,750 SF; 50 percent Retail Commercial/50 percent Fast Casual Restaurant); and 350 SF trash area. The adopted 2020 MND evaluated redevelopment/adaptive reuse of the existing and vacant "Cosmopolitan Grocers' building forthe new theater and retail commercial/restaurant uses. Following project approval, it was determined that the Cosmopolitan Grocers building was not appropriate for the proposed commercial portion of the project, and it has subsequently been demolished. The building was demolished under a ministerial permit.

This addendum analyzes a modified development proposal for Parcel A, which includes a total of 14,258 SF of Retail Commercial development, which is substantially the same as the total amount of development evaluated on Parcel A in the adopted 2020 MND (the total amount of development in the proposed modifications is 192 SF less than evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND). A Multi -screen Theater is no longer proposed as a primary use in the project, although an entertainment anchor is retained as a potential future optional use should the market support it. In addition, this addendum analyzes construction of a new retail commercial building whereas the adopted 2002 MND evaluated redevelopment/adaptive reuse of the Cosmopolitan Grocers building for the previous theater and retail commercial/restaurant uses. Parking for the modified development proposal for Parcel A would be located off-site via a parking license agreement with the City of Bellflower; which is the same as for the approved original project evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND.

This addendum environmentally clears 14,258 SF of commercial use regardless of the internal space/suite space subdivision. Future additional space modifications beyond 14,258 SF may require additional CEQA documentation.

The City of Bellflower (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project.

As a lead agency under CEQA, the City has determined, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, that the changes in the approved original project evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND are minor, would not result in a significant environmental impact not previously considered, and, therefore, warrant preparation of an addendum.

1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES

REGARDING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
Altered conditions, changes, or additions to a project that occur after certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) or adoption of an MND may require additional analysis under CEQA when a new approval is sought. The legal principles that guide whether additional environmental documentation is required to support a discretionary decision are provided in the State CEQA Guidelines, which establish three mechanisms to address these changes: a subsequent FIR or MND, a supplement to an EIR, and an addendum to an EIR or MND.

City
of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01 1-�
-25-

Ascent Environmental,
Introduction
An addendum to an MND is appropriate when there is a previously adopted MND (adopted 2020 MND) and some changes or revisions to the approved original project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the approved original projecthave changed, but none of the changes or revisions could result in new significant environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA Statute Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15164..

This addendum is intended to evaluate and confirm CEQA compliance for the modified development proposal on Parcel A, which would be a change relative to what is described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND for the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development and Mixed Use Project The adopted 2020 MND presented substantial evidence in support of the City's determination that, with incorporation of mitigation, no significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the approved original project.

This addendum is organized as an environmental checklist, and evaluates all environmental topic areas for any changes in circumstances or the project description, as compared to the adopted 2020 MND, and determines whether such changes may result in new significant environmental impacts compared to the adopted 2020 MND.

This checklist is not the traditional CEQA Environmental Checklist, which is located in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. As explained in Section 3.1, the purpose of the checklist used herein is to evaluate if any "changed condition" p.e., changed. circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) in each environmental issue area may result in a new significant environmental impact compared to the adopted 2020 MND, consistent with CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15163, and 15164.

The Regional Location Map is shown in Figure 1.

City of bellflower
1-2 Addendum to MND No. 20-01

Introduction
an Fnoncuro
Burbank
5 DETAILED _ Pasadena.

AREA
sAngeles Glendale
LOS Ar
City
Inglewood
EI �

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
10 -
Ascent Environmental
05 `SAN
(BERNARDINC
COUNTY
rwalk I ._ 57 \
r I
710 605. r �� Anaheiml�V
Torrance 405 "
5577

ORANGE COUNITY
\\ \J
Lang Beach
\ \\ Santa Ana \\
Huntington t 405 Irvine
Beach
Costa Mesa _
Newport
Beach
* Project Location
®Miles
ESRI Ocean Base
19010144.01 GIS 001
Source: adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2021
Figure 1 Regional Location
City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-27-

Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank
1-4
-28-
ntroduction
City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPROVED ORIGINAL PROJECT AND

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Serrano Development Group (project applicant) is proposing modifications to a previously approved original project n the City of Bellflower, California. The modifications to the approved development are to accommodate the proposed Edgeway Retail Project (referred to herein as the "proposed modiflcations'7.The proposed project also ncludes the discretionary applications that are included in Section 2.2. This addendum provides the necessary analysis and environmental clearances forthese applications. The approved original project and proposed modifications are described below.

2.1 APPROVED ORIGINAL PROJECT AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The approved original project evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND consisted of two contiguous parcels: Parcel A and Parcel B (Figure 2). The proposed modifications only apply to development on Parcel A. Parcel A is currently a vacant lot with concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, and overhead utilities along Mayne Street, Bellflower Boulevard.

Parcel A is relatively flat and includes no native vegetation. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B, and is not a part of the proposed modifications evaluated in this addendum.

The project site General Plan designation is Mixed -Use (MU). The Zoning. is the TODSP, which includes the Town Center (TC -1) District, Area 1; and the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone- North (BVOZ-M. The approved original project included 14,450 SF of development on Parcel A, including a Multi -screen Theater (9,350 SF), Retail Commercial/Restaurant (4,750 SF; 50 percent Retail Commercial/50 percent Fast Casual Restaurant); and 350 SF trash area. The approved original project included redevelopment/adaptive reuse of the vacant "Cosmopolitan Grocers' building for the new theater and retail commercial/restaurant uses. The Cosmopolitan Grocers building was subsequently demolished following project approval, as it was determined to be inadequate to accommodate the proposed theater and retail uses. The site plan for the approved original project is shown as Figure 2.

The modified development proposal (referred to as Edgeway Retail) for Parcel A, includes 14,258 SF of Retail Commercial development. The leasable space locations and sizes will be determined as required to accommodate tenant requirements, as long as the total square footage is not exceeded. Approximately 5,000 square feet of the total space is anticipated to be occupied by restaurant uses for impact analysis purposes. A Multi -screen Theater is no longer proposed as a primary use, although an entertainment anchor is retained as a potential optional future use should the. market support. Anticipated uses could include a variety of neighborhood commercial tenants including retail, restaurants, and office. The site plan for the proposed modifications is shown as Figure 3. The proposed building elevations along Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street are shown in Figures 4 and 5. A project rendering is shown in Figure 6.

Construction of the proposed modified project is anticipated to begin in the winter of 2022.and be complete by winter 2023. Construction hours are proposed to be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

The following project components were included in the approved original project and are not affected by the proposed modifications:

Parking for the modified development proposal for Parcel A would be located off-site via a parking license agreement with the City of Bellflower.
► Direct ingress/egress vehicular access would be provided at -grade from Oak Street, via a 24 -foot wide dual lane driveway. Egress only would be allowed from the site onto Mayne Street. Pedestrian access would be provided from the existing sidewalks along Bellflower Boulevard, Mayne Street, and Oak Street. The project would provide sidewalk improvements as well as maintain the above -ground utilities (i.e., electrical lines) located along both Mayne Street and Oak Street.

City of Bellflower "
Addendum to MND-No.20-O7 - 2-1
-29-

Ascent Environmental

2.2 r NECESSARY PROJECT APPROVALS
The proposed project modifications require approval of the following entitlements- , uJe
ntitlements:
roject Review Case No. 5=22-13051: To allow meth ication and reconfiguration of a previously approved commercial building for retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses, as described previously.

2. Development Agreement Amendment 837.1: A development agreement amendment to memorialize the terms :and conditions under which the developer will operate, park, and construct the project. The development agreement amendment includes the parking agreements for the use of off-site parking in City -owned properties.

The development agreement amendment'also addresses future fees to be paid to the city should the future entertainment anchor option not be constructed.
-. City of Bellflower
2-2 - Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-Ju-

----- —----_---- --- — —__—

MAYNE STREET
-- --- _ THEATER - -
_ - CR SIDENTIAL BUILDIC
oo�
PARCEL 6 , R ,REEL
PAKUA
_ 1` I' • Theater' 9350SF/45cmens2305eaU
--J 5Retail Comma al 4,7505F
b I NOT APART �� RETAIL Tarok 3595F
3 s
ofPHRCEL6
ResidentialU 91
Rohl] Commemirtia1:6505F
- '�— - Pahin9: 139apace

EXISTING RETAIL
-I ——— --

PROJWTSRE
MULIFAMUMDW6F6
XiRFA WL
Mua

Q RFTPICCOMMERCVI
-_-_-_-__-_-_-_--ON(STHEET
Imae. p,ma prooded b/ A mu R u19,.0aN06 W. nl2019. -
ripmz Pr OUu YARp Si Plan -
avff tllnmver„_„
-31-

-----MAVNEST----
I
i
I I
I
- - - MSMO RETAIL
soortelmnev�Uaand e v�N by�Ix Nz019.rN'2:tl g�nj
zon
Flgum3 Sit Planbv Pioprwd Modgimh'ms
-32-

lit t10 — TIOPAWET
bN
DI
_, _ .. i _ _ .. __.. _•_ I ;;.ams
rl EAST ELEVATION - SELLFLOWER BLVD
V
sW,4Image �wtaaand d aroo,am re
srnomzon
Fgvm4 Pmpvsed NwV�aMw hBulidy Fevao'an
x�
-33-

O_NOffidELEVAT.ID.L�-MAYNE 6T _.__._.. _____..-_..

FgureS Prepu dGrtaM Wst Buildrg OMVp15
wn�o HlYONu2Po1
-34-

�H�P m SHtJP �_ SHOF P.ESThUF---�._
y �6
�I
1 �I
�H�P m SHtJP �_ SHOF P.ESThUF---�._
y �6

3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

MODIFICATIONS

3.1 EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATION

CATEGORIES
The purpose of this environmental checklist is to evaluate the modifications to the approved project and determine if the proposed modifications would result in new significant impacts when compared to the impacts identified in the MND adopted in 2020. The row titles of the checklist include the full range of environmental topics, as presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, the column titles of the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15168. A "no" answer does not necessarily mean that there are no environmental impacts for that environmental resource topic; rather, it means there is no change in the condition or status of the impact compared to the conclusions of the adopted 2020 MND. The purpose of each checklist column is described below.

3.1.1 Where Impact was Analyzed in the Adopted 2020 MND? This column references the page number(s) where each environmental checklist question was analyzed in the adopted 2020 MND.

3.1.2 Do Proposed Modifications Result in New Significant Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column identifies whether the proposed modifications to the approved original project would result in new significant impacts that were not considered in the adopted 2020 MND.

3.1.3 Any New Significant Impacts Due to Changes in
Circumstances?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column identifies whether there have been any changes to the project site or the vicinity (i.e., circumstances underwhich the project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to adoption of the MND, which would result in the proposed modifications to the approved project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the adopted 2020 MND.

3.1.4 Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have.been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence atthe time the MND was adopted is available. If so, this would require an update to the analysis of the adopted 2020 MND to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. f the new information shows that: (A) the proposed modifications would result in one or more significant effects not . discussed in the adopted 2020 MND; or (B) that feasible mitigation measure(s) which were previously found not to be feasible or are considerably differentfrom those analyzed in the adopted 2020 MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, the question would be answered 'Yes'. If the answer to the question is City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No.20-01 3-1
-36-

Environinental Checklist Ascent Environmental
yes, the new information would be considered of "substantial importance" and that an addendum could not be prepared and additional CEQA documentation would be required. However, if the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental checklist review finds that the conclusions of the adopted 2020 MND remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, then the question would be answered "No" because the new information would not be "of substantial importance' and no additional CEQA documentation beyond this addendum would be required.

3.1 .5 Do Mitigation Measures in the Adopted 2020 MND
Address/Resolve Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the mitigation measures in the adopted 2020 MND would also apply to potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed modifications to the project. If "N/A" is indicated, there is no significant impact requiring mitigation in the adopted 2020 MND or with implementation of the proposed modifications to the approved original project evaluated in this addendum.

3.2 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS

3.2.1 Discussion
Section 3.3 includes separate discussions for each of the environmental resource topics considered in the Checklist.

Each discussion begins with an overview of what was discussed and concluded in the adopted 2020 MND, and dentifies what, if any, impacts were concluded forthat topic, followed by a summary of the proposed modifications and changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance as it relates to that topic. These details are then the focus of the rest of the environmental analysis, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a),

3.2.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures from the adopted 2020 MND that apply to the proposed modifications are listed under each environmental resource topic section, where appropriate.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A summary of findings and overall conclusions of the environmental checklist and requirements for further environmental documentation pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15162, 15163,15164, and 15168 are provided following the checklist items.
3-2
City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-37-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.1 Aesthetics
Would Any New AnySubstanually Do Mitigation
Wherelmpact Would Proposed ImporhantNew Measuresinthe
Involve New
wasAnabved Changeslnvolve Circumstances Information Adopted 2020 EnvironmentalResourceTopic - intheAdopted New Significant RequidngNew MND 2020 MND, Impacts? Significant Analysis or Address Resolve Impacts? Verfiration? Imoacts?
Aesthetics. Fxcept as provided in Pu61ie Resources Code section 27099 (where aesthetic impacts shall not he considered significant for qualifying residential, mixed-use residential, and employment centers), would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic page 22 No No No N/A vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, page 22 No but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway? -
No No N/A
c In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the pages 22-23 No No No N/A
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are -
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an -
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare page 23 No No No N/A
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The new five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B. The Cosmopolitan Grocers building has been demolished since the 2020 MND was adopted and the projectwas,approved.

The project site is located on the southwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard at Mayne Street within the City's doI
ntown area. The project site is currently vacantwith a concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, landscaping, and overhead utilities. The project site is generally bordered by commercial uses and a parking garage to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot to the east; the Mayne Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the southeast; Mayne Street, vacant commercial uses, and a surface parking lotto the south; single and multi -family residential uses to the southwest, and single and multi -family residential uses located immediately to the west The adopted 2020 MND found that the project site does riot support any scenic resources, there are no scenic viewpoints or eligible or designated State scenic highways within the vicinity of the project site, and therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas or scenic highways would occur. The adopted 2020 MND also found that scenic quality mpacts would be less than significant because the project would be consistent with the zoning of the site and the design guidelines of the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan (fOD SP) and developed and designed under the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ-N). Light and glare impacts were found to be ess than significant in the adopted 2020 MND because compliance with Section 17.48.240(B) of the City's Municipal Code requires all light and glare associated with operations and illuminated signs be shielded or directed so as not to City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01 3-3
-38-

Environmental Checklist
Ascent Environmental
lluminate abutting
residential districts and the project does not include large expanses of glass or other
highly
eflective materials.

Under the proposed modifications, the project applicant would construct anew two story commercial building with 14,258 SF of Retail Commercial development. The previously approved original project proposed to redevelop the then vacant Cosmopolitan Grocers building on Parcel A with 14,450 SF of development including a Multi -screen Theater (9,350 SF), Retail Commercial/Restaurant (4,750 SF; 50 percent Retail Commercial/50 percent Fast Casual Restaurant); and 350 SF trash area. The Cosmopolitan Grocers building was recently demolished following the previous project approval.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to scenic vistas or State scenic highways because none are located within the vicinity of the project site. No new significant impacts related to scenic quality or light and glare would occur because the proposed modifications would be consistent with the zoning of the site and the design guidelines of the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan (FOD SP), developed and designed under the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ-N), and in compliance with Section 17.48.240(B) of the City's Municipal Code which requires that all light and glare associated with operations and illuminated signs be shielded or directed so as not to illuminate abutting residential areas. No changes in circumstances or new information related to aesthetics resources has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the originally approved project would result in less than significant impacts or no impact to aesthetic resources. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant impacts on aesthetics, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant aesthetic impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to aesthetics has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
3-4 Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-39-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
page 24
No
WouldArryNew
AnySubstandally
Do Mitigation
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImportantNew
Measuresinthe
ErnironmentalResourceTopic
wasMah2edin
Changeslnwlue
ISigNeNew
Adopted202020
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
theAdopted
New Significant
Significant
RequidngNew
equld gNe
MND
the California Resources Agency, to non-
2020MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Anaysisor
Address/Resolve
agricultural use?
Verification?
Impacts?
Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
page 24
No
No
No
N/A
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
page 24
No
No
No
N/A
or a Williamson Act contract?
c Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
page 25
No
No
No
N/A
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
page 25
No
No
No
N/A
forest land to non -forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
page 25
No
No
No
N/A
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modif cations would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surr ounding area, is developed and urbanized. The project site is zoned for Mixed -Use development.

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in no impacts to agricultural or forestry resources because the project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to'non-agricultural use; would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, or with a Williamson Act contract; would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use, and would not involve any other changes that could result in conversion of Farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non -forest uses.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources
because none are located within the vicinity of the project site. No changes in circumstances or new information related to agriculture and forestry resources has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

City of 8eliflower
Addendum to MND Na. 20-01 3-5
-40-

Environmental ChecWist
Ascent Environmental

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in no impacts to agriculture or forestry resources. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.

No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed mo ca ons to the project would not result in new significant impacts to agriculture or forestry esources, nor would any change in circumstances occurthat would result in new significant agriculture or forestry esources impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to agriculture or forestry resources has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an OR would occur.

City of Bellflower
3-6 Addendum to.MND No. 20-01
-41-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.3 Air Quality
Air Quality. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstuctimplementationofthe
Where Impact
'
WoWdProposed
WouldAnyNew
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
Measuresinthe
FnvironmentalResourceTepic
wasMaly[edin
Changeslrnolue
Circumstances
IrnoNeNew
ImporiantNew
InformationSignificant
Adopted 2020
L Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
the Adopted
New Significant
No
RequidngNew
MND
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
2020N1ND.

Impact?
Impacts?
Ari
Address Resolve
region is non -attainment under an applicable
Verification?
Impacts?
Air Quality. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstuctimplementationofthe
pages 26-31
No
No
No
N/A
applicable air quality plan?
L Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
pages 31-32
No
No
No
N/A
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
pages 32-37
No
No
No
N/A
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
pages 37-38
No
No
No
N/A
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which for air quality planning is under the Jurisdiction of
the South Coast Air Quality Management Dist ct (SCAQMD). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted by the SCAQMD as a program to lead the Basin into compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone (federal and state standards), PM10 (state standards only) and PMzs (federal and state standards).

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP because it would not conflict with any AQMP control strategies during construction or operations; would not conflict with underlying AQMP demographic or economic assumptions because it would be consistent with the City's General Plan land use and zoning designation; and would not generate construction or operational emissions in excess of SCAQMD-prescribed regional daily emissions thresholds.

The adopted 2020 MND also found that the proposed project's construction and operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the Basin is in non -attainment because daily emission levels for ozone precursors (NOx and VOC) and particulate matter (PMto and PMzs) generated during construction and operational activities would not exceed SCAQMD regional daily emissions thresholds. Because maximum localized construction and operational emissions for sensitive receptors would not exceed SCAQMD localized thresholds for NOx, CO, PM1o, or PMzs; CO emissions at intersections affected by the project. The modified project would result in 12 percent more trips than the approved 2020 project (which is not significant) and would not exceed the CAAQS one-hour or eight-hour standards. Construction -generated toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would not result in significant incremental increases in health risk based on SCAQMD guidance, and project operations would not involve the types of land uses that could exceed SCAQMD thresholds for TAC emissions. The Cdy
^4D 110
Addendum to MND No. 20-01 3.7
-42-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
adopted 2020 MND found that sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

With respect to other emissions such as those leading to odors, the adopted 2020 MND found that emissions would not affect a substantial number of people due to compliance with applicable SCAQMD and CARB rules during construction and the absence of any uses in the project identified by SCAQMD as causing substantial odors, and therefore, this impact would be less than significant
The proposed modifications would not result in new significant air quality impacts during operations or construction for the following reasons. The proposed modifications would develop Parcel A with substantially the same amount of total development as the approved original project and are consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation and underlying zoning designation.. The change in uses from Multi -screen Theater and Retail Commercial/Restaurant to Retail Commercial would not result in substantial increases in stationary or area -wide sources of any criteria air pollutant emissions or TAC emissions during operations, and would not involve new uses dentified by SCAQMD as sources of TAC emissions or substantial odors. The proposed modifications to Parcel A would result in 1,925 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) during operations, which is a 12 percent increase over the 1,721 ADT that would have resulted from the approved development on Parcel A. A 12 percent increase is not considered significant. As a result, operational criteria air pollutant emissions from mobile sources, including CO emissions at intersections affected by the proposed modifications, would be slightly higher than under the approved original project.

The development of a new building of substantially the same size as the approved original project would not require a substantial increase in construction equipment use, type of construction equipment used, or other construction activities (e.g., application of architectural coatings) relative to the approved original project. Therefore, criteria air pollutant emissions and TAC emissions resulting from construction of the proposed modifications, including equipment use and truck trips required to construct the new building, would not substantially increase relative to the approved original project No new sensitive receptors have been identified in the project vicinity since adopted of the MND.

Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed modifications would not conflict with or obstruct, mplementation of the AQMP, would not result in exceedances of SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions or SCAQMD localized thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, or PMzs, would not exceed the CAAQS one- hour or eight-hour standards for CO emissions, and would not generate odor emissions affecting a substantial number of people. No changes in circumstances or new information related to air quality has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. No new significant air quality impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifi
cations to the approved original project would not result in new significant air quality impacts, nor would any change in circumstances oaurthat would result in new significant air quality impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to air quality has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of BeIlBower
3-8 Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-43-

Environmental Checklist

3.3.4 Biological Resources
Ascent Environmental
Biological Resources. Would the project
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or Wherehnpact
Would Proposed
WouldAnyNew
An
Substarrtially-
Do Mitigation
Measuresinthe
EnvironmentalResounxTopic
was Matyredin
Changeslnvolve
Circumstances
InvoNeNew
ImporFantNew
Intonnation
Adopted 2020
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
theAdopted
NewSignificard
Significant
Requiring New
MND
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Anatysisor
Address/Resolve
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Verification?
Impacts?
Biological Resources. Would the project
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or page 39
No
No
No
N/A
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
page 39
No
No
No
N/A
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or bythe California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
page 40
No
No
No
N/A
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
.
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
page 40
No
No
No
N/A
native resident or migratory fish and wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
page 40
No
No
No
N/A
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
page 40
No
No
No
N/A
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is developed with a vacant commercial building and a paved surface parking lot with limited landscaping and no native vegetation is present on site. No riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands are present on the project site or in the surrounding area. The City does not have any local policies or ordinance such as a tree preservation ordinance addressing biological resources, and the City is not subject to any Natural Community Conservation or Habitat Conservation Plans.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-44-
3-9

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in no impacts to biological resources because the project site and surrounding area do not include any candidate, sensitive, or special status species or habitats, riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, wetlands, biological resources protected by local policy or ordinance, and are not subject to any Natural Community Conservation or Habitat Conservation Plans.

Under the proposed modifications, the project applicant will construct a 14,258 SF
of Retail
Commercial development.

The previously approved original project proposed to adaptively reuse an existing
building
on Parcel A.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to biological resources because the area within the vicinity of the project site has been urbanized and is devoid of any biological resources, including sensitive plant and wildlife species, riparian habitats, and wetlands. Additionally, the City of Bellflower does not have any local policies addressing biological resources, nor is it subject to any Natural Community Conservation or Habitat Conservation Plans. No changes in circumstances or new information related to biological resources has been dentified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in no impacts to biological resources. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new signifcant impacts to biological resources, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant biological resources impacts. No new nformation of substantial importance related to biological resources has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

Ciiy of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No.2p-01
-45-

Environmental Checklist

3.3.5 Cultural Resources
Ascent Environmental
Cultural Resources, Would the pro
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Would Any New
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
Measuresinthe
ErnronmedalResourceTopic
wasAnaly¢edin
Changeslmolve
Circumstances
ImrolveNew
ImporlantNew
Information
Ado pted2020
§15064.5?
theAdopted
2020 MND,
NewSignificant
Impacts?
Significant
Requiring New
IVIND
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
pages 41-42
No
Impacts?
Analysisor
Address Resolve
significance of an archaeological resource
Vedfication?
Impacts?
jeck
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
page 41
No
No
No
N/A
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
pages 41-42
No
No
No
Yes
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuantto §15064.57
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
page 42
No
No
No
N/A
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The entire project site has been previously disturbed. The site is developed with a vacant commercial building and a paved surface parking lot. There are no historical resources on the project site. The closest building to the project site with historical significance is the Pacific Electric Railway Depot building, which is located approximately 95 feet to the northeast of the project site, across Mayne Street.

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant impacts to historical resources and human remains because the project would be located on a developed site that has previously been subject to disturbance and did not contain any historical resources, and would not result in any disturbance to the Pacific Electric Railway Depot building. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097.98 would require proper handling of any human remains in the unlikely event they are encountered during ground -disturbance activities. The adopted 2020 MND found that the impact to archaeological resources would be less than signiflcant with mitigation because previously unknown subsurface artifacts that could be encountered during ground -disturbance activities would be protected from substantial adverse changes by requiring that specified measures be taken in the event archaeological resources are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to cultural resourc es because the
project boundary and area of disturbance is the same as evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND, and no known archaeological resources are located within the vicinity of the project site. The potential to encounter previously unknown archaeological resources would not increase because the proposed modifications would not increase the extent or depth of ground or below ground disturbance associated with project construction. The site does not contain any historic resources, and because the previous structure on site has been demolished, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. The project site is developed and thus has been previously disturbed, therefore the potential for human remains is low. As discussed above, the project would continue to comply with the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code to ensure proper handling of any inadvertent human City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-0
7 3.11
-46-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
remain finds. The potential to encounter previously unknown human remains would not increase because the proposed modifications would not increase the extent or depth of ground or below ground disturbance associated with project construction. No changes in circumstances or new information related to cultural resources has been dentified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND concluded that impacts to historical resources and human remains would be less than significant, and that the impact to archaeological resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1. The proposed modifications would be required to implement the same mitigation measure from the adopted 2020 MND, which would reduce archaeological resources impacts to less than significant.

No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

MM -CUL -1: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, the project contractor halt or redirect ground -disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to determine whether or not the find is significant. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the City and appropriate Native American monitors) and group(s) (if the find is a prehistoric or Native American resource), shall develop a treatment plan. Construction activities shall be redirected to otherwork areas until the treatment plan has been implemented or the qualified archaeologist determines that work can resume in the vicinity of the find.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant impacts to cultural resources, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant cultural resources impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to cultural resources has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
3-12 Addendum to MND No. 20-07
-47-

Environmental Checklist

3.3.6 Energy
Ascent
Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Would Any New
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
Measuresinthe
FirvironmentalResourceTopie
wtheAdotedin
ChangesInvolveAdopted
Circumstances
Involve New
ImpodantNew
Information
20200
consumption of energy resources, during project
the Adopted
New Significant
Significant
RequidngNew
MND
construction or operation?
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Anaysisor
Address/Resolve
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
pages 44-45
No
No
Verification?
Impacts?
Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
pages 43-44
No
No
No
N/A
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
pages 44-45
No
No
No
N/A
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B. The site is currently vacant.

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementati
on of the approved original project would. result in less than significant energy impacts because it would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operations and would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Under the proposed modifi
cations, construction -related energy (e.g., diesel, gasoline, electricity) would be required to operate construction equipment and transport materials, as well as energy consumption from the operation of off- road construction equipment. On -road vehicle trips by construction workers commuting to and from the site and haul trucks trips would not exceed the levels of energy expended to construct the approved original project This is because the proposed modifications would develop Parcel A with substantially the same amount of total development as the approved original project. Demolition of the existing vacant building has been completed and development of a new building of substantially the same size would not require a substantial increase in construction equipment use, type of construction equipment used, or other construction activities (e.g., application of architectural coatings) relative to the approved original project. Therefore, energy consumption resulting from construction of the proposed modifications, including from equipment use and truck trips would not substantially increase relative to the approved original project.

In addition, the change in uses from Multi -screen Theater and Retail Commercial/Restaurant to Retail Commercial would not result in substantial increases in building energy use (e.g., electricity consumption) during operations relative to the approved original project. The proposed modifications to Parcel A would result in 1,925 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) during operations, which is 12 percent higher than the 1,721 ADT that would have resulted from the approved original project on Parcel A. A 12 percent increase is not considered significant. As a result, operational energy consumption from vehicle tdps would be slightly higherthan under the approved original project.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to energy because the on-site energy demands and the use of non-renewable resources in the modified project would be similar to the previously analyzed in the adopted 2020 MND. The proposed modifications also do not involve features that would conflict with or City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND Na. 20-D1 3-13
-48-

Environmental Checklist
Ascent Environmental
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No changes in circumstances or new nformation related to energy has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant energy impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant energy impacts, nor would any change n circumstances occur that would result in new significant energy impacts. No new information of substantial mportance related to energy has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
3-14 Addendum to. MND No.2�-01
-49-

Environmental Checklist

3.3.7 Geology and Soils
Ascent Brvironmental
Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
pages 46-47
No
Would Any New
Any Substantially
Do Mitigation
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or Whemlmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImpodantNew
Measuresinthe
FsvironmentalResourceTopic
wasAnahrcedin
Changeslnvolve
InvoNeNev
Information
Adopted 2020
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as.
theAdopted
Newsignificant
Significant
RequidngNew
MND
delineated onthe most recent Alquist-Priolo
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
An atysisor
Address/Resolve
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued bythe
Vedficallon?
Impacts?
Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
pages 46-47
No
No
No
N/A
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as.
delineated onthe most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued bythe
State Geologist forthe area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismicground shaking?
page 47
No
No
No
Yes
ill. Seismic -related ground failure, including
page 47
No
No
No
Yes
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
page 48
No
No
No
N/A
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
page 48
No
No
No
N/A
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
page 48
No
No
No
N/A
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in: on -
or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
page 48
No
No
No
N/A
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
page 48
No
No
No
N/A
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
page 49
No
No
No
N/A
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits ofthe project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B thatwas evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF developmentfootprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-50-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is currently vacant and is relatively level. The site has soils with very low expansive potential. It is not located in an area of slope instability and is not prone to landslides. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are present within the project site. The closest active fault to the site is the Newport -Inglewood Fault, located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the project site. The project is subject to strong ground motion from seismic activity and has potential for liquefaction during strong ground shaking events. The project site is underlain by Holocene age alluvium, which has low potential for paleontological resources.

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant impacts associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault, landslides, soil erosion or loss of topsoil, adverse effects related to unstable soils, or destruction of unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. There would be no impact from alternative wastewater systems because the project would connect to the sewer system. Impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction were found to be potentially significant in the adopted 2020 MND but reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant geology and soils impacts because the project is ocated within the same site evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND, and the geologic and soils conditions of the project site and vicinity have not changed since adoption of the MND. New development of a Retail Commercial building on Parcel A would not increase the potential for adverse effects because the new building would be substantially the same size and would be constructed in compliance with the current version of the California Building Code, which requires construction methods equally or more protective against adverse geologic and soils conditions than the methods used to construct the existing building. The proposed modifications would also be required to be constructed in accordance with standard erosion control practices required by the CBC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit issued bythe Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, as applicable. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be prepared that incorporates best management practices (BMPs) to control water erosion during construction periods. Further, wind erosion would be minimized through soil stabilization measures required bythe SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion would also be reduced by implementation of standard erosion control measures imposed during site preparation and grading activities, as discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Therefore, the potential for adverse effects related to strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure ncluding liquefaction, earthquake fault rupture, landslides, soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and unstable soils or geologic units would not increase due to the proposed modifications. The potential for adverse effects to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features has not increased because the extent and depth of ground and below ground disturbance has not changed. The proposed modifications would connect to the sewer system and not involve alternative wastewater systems. With implementation of required CBC requirements, the modified projectwould not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. No changes in circumstances or new information related to geology and soils has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND concluded that geology and soils impacts would be less than significant, with the exception of impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction, which would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1. The proposed modifications would be required to implement the same mitigation measure from the adopted 2020 MND, which would reduce the mpacts related to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction to less than significant No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

Gty of Bellflower
3-16 Addendum to MND No.20-01
-51-

Environmental Checklist
Ascent Environmental
MM-GEO-1: The proposed project shall comply with the recommendations and requirements contained in the geotechnical investigation in Appendix C1 and C2 (of the adopted 2020 MND).

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant impacts geology and soils impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant geology and soils impacts. No new nformation of substantial importance related to geology and soils has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City o#Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-52-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse as Emissions. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
pages 50-55
No
Would Any New
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
Wherolmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImporlarrtNew
Measures in the
EnvironmentalResourczTopic
wasMaltrzedin
Changeslnvolve
Involve New
Information
Adopted 2020
It. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
theAdopted
NewSignificant
Significant
RequidngNew
MND
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
2020MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysisor
Address/Resolve
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Verification?
Impacts?
Greenhouse as Emissions. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
pages 50-55
No
No
No
N/A
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
It. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
pages 55-60
No
No
No
N/A
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would be consistent with the Climate Ready Development Standards set forth in the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and therefore would be consistent with the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets of the CAP. It also found that implementation of the approved original project would not conflict with the California Air Resources Board's Climate Change Scoping Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), or the City's Green Building Standards Code.

Underthe proposed modifications, the project applicant would construct a new two-story building with 14,258 SF of
Retail Commercial development. The previously approved original project proposed to redevelop the vacant building on Parcel A with 14,450 Sr of development including a Multi -screen Theater (9,350 SF), Retail Commercial/Restaurant (4,750 SF; 50 percent Retail Commercial/50 percent Fast Casual Restaurant); and 350 SF trash area.

The proposed modifications
would not result in new significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions because the proposed modifications do not involve changes to the approved original project that would affect its consistency with the City's Climate Ready Development Standards. Therefore, the proposed modifications would be consistent with the GHG reduction targets of the CAP. Moreover, GHG emissions from vehicle travel would slightly increase under the proposed modifications because ADT would slightly increase by 12 percent, from 1,721 ADT forthe approved original project to 1925 ADT. The 12 percent increase is not considered significant.

During construction, development of a new commercial building would not require a substantial increase in construction equipment use, type of constructlon equipment used, or other construction activities relative to the approved original project. Therefore, GHG emissions resulting from construction of the proposed modifications, ncluding equipment use and truck trips would not substantially increase relative to the approved original project.

The proposed modifications would incorporate features that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vehicle travel consistent with statewide strategies and regulati ons. The proposed modifications do not involve features. that would conflict with applicable Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies, the 2016 RTP/SCS, or the City's Green Building Standards Code. No changes in circumstances or new information related to greenhouse gas emissions has been dentified during the preparation of this checklist.

City of Bellflower
3-18 Addendom to MND No. 20-01
-53-

Environmental Checklist
Environmental

MITIGATION,MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant GHG emissions impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications:

No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant GHG emissions impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant GHG emissions impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to GHG emissions has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-54-

Environmental Checklist

3.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Ascent Environmental
Hazards and Hazardous Mater as, Would the project;
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
pages 61-62
No
No
Any
Do Mitigation
environment through the routine transport, use,
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
WouldArryNew
Substantially
Measuresinthe
or disposal of hazardous materials?
wasMalnedin
ChangeslmoNe
Circumstances
Importanti
Adopted 2020
EnvironmentalResoumeTopic
the Adopted
NewSignificant
Involve New
Information
MND
environment through reasonably foreseeable
20201VIND.

Impacts?
Significant
RequidngNew
Address/Resolve
upset and accident conditions involving the
Impacts?
Analysis or
Impacts?
release of hazardous materials into the
Verification?
Hazards and Hazardous Mater as, Would the project;
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
pages 61-62
No
No
No
Yes
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
h. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
pages 62-63
No
No
No
Yes
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
page 63
No
No
No
Yes
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
pages 63-64
No
No
No
Yes
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use
page 64
No
No
No
N/A
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
page 64
No
No
No
N/A
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
page 64
No
- No
No
N/A
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death Involving wildland fres?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adoptetl 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed. and urbanized and not subject to risk of wildland fires. No schools are present writhin 0.25 mile of the project site. Long Beach Airport is approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site and outside of its land use plan. Bellflower Boulevard, adjacent to the project site, is identified as a disaster movement route in the City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The modified project would not affect disaster movement along Bellflower Boulevard. The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation City of Bellflower
3-20 Addendum to MND Na. 20-01
-JJ-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
of the approved original project would not interfere with use of Bellflower Boulevard as a disaster movement route, as it would not contribute substantial traffic, nor would it be close enough to Long Beach Airport or fire hazard areas to subject people or structures to safety hazards or other significant adverse effects.

The project site is not located on a list (Cortese) of sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, although such a site is located adjacent to the project site, and has contaminated the groundwater underlying the southeast corner of the project site_ The adopted 2020 MND also found that potentially significant hazardous materials impacts related to partial demolition of the existing vacant commercial building and contaminated soil and groundwater underlying the site would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

The approved original project was required to install a soil vapor barrier and a passive ventilation system for the residential portion of the project, and only a vapor barrier for the commercial portion, pursuant to direction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. MM-HAZ-3 from the adopted 2020 MND would protect occupants of the retail commercial building constructed as part of the proposed modifications from exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater and reduce potentially significant hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level. Through compliance with this adopted mitigation measure, the proposed modifications would not create significant hazards to the public
The proposed modifcations would not involve any changes to Bellflower Boulevard that could interference with its use as a disaster movement route, and would not change the project's proximity to Long Beach Airport or any fire hazard areas. No new hazardous material use or storage would occur, nor would the proposed modifications create safety hazards to people, structures, or the disaster movement route. No changes in circumstances or new information related to hazards or hazardous materials has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND concluded that hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant, with the exception of impacts related to partial demolition of the existing vacant commercial building and contaminated groundwater underlying the site, which would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, and MM-HAZ-3. The modified project would only be required to implement Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-3 from the adopted 2020 MND, which would reduce the impacts of contaminated soil and groundwater underlying the site to less than significant. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 related to demolition of the onsite building and no longer apply since they have already been implemented. No new mitigation measures are required.

MM HAZ-3: The project applicant shall install a vapor barrier below the proposed building foundations following grading and before building construction to ensure that TCE contaminated soil/groundwater does not adversely affect project occupants. The vapor barrier shall be designed per the requirements of the project toxicologist and the RWQCB.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would notresult in new significant impacts hazards and hazardous materials impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to hazards or hazardous materials has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that cal I for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower - " _
Addendum to MND No. 20-01 g.21
-56-

Environmental Checklist

3.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Ascent Environmental
Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
Would Any New
Any
SubstantiallyMeasursinthe
Do Mifigaton
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImportantNew
N/A
FmironmentalResou Topic
wasAnatyzedin
ChangeslnvoNe
Involve New
Information
Adopted 2020
L Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
theAdopted
NewSigniflcard
Significant
Requiring New
MND
interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge
2020MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysisor
AddwWResolve
such that the project may impede sustainable
page 66
No
No
Verification?
impacts?
Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
pages 65-66
No
No
No
N/A
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
L Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
page 66
No
No
No
N/A
groundwater management of the basin?
c, Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
pages 66-67
No
No
No
N/A
which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
offsite?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
page 67
No
No
No
N/A
in flooding on- or offsite?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
page 67
No
No
No
N/A
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
page 67
No
No
No
N/A
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, orseichezones,risk
page 67
No
No
No
N/A
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
pages 67-68
No
No
No
N/A
groundwater management plan?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within The limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved. development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The project site is developed with impervious surfaces and therefore not a significant groundwater recharge area. Catch basins along adjacent City streets collect surface runoff from the project site. The project site is relatively flat. It is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard zone or an area subject to risk of tsunami or seiche hazards.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-57-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation; on- or off-site flooding due to changes in surface runoT,, runoff water volumes that exceed stormwater system capacity or contain substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impedance or redirection of flood flows. It found that the project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation because it's not located in an area subject to 100 -year flood hazard or risk of tsunami or seiche, and would not conflict with the Los Angeles Regional Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Under the proposed modifications, the project applicant would construct a new two-story building with 14,258 SF of Retail Commercial development. The previously approved original project proposed to redevelop the existing vacant building on Parcel A with 14,450 SF of development including a Multi -screen Theater (9,350 SF), Retail Commercial/Restaurant (41750 SF; 50 percent Retail Commercial/50 percent Fast Casual Restaurant); and 350 SF trash area.

The modifications would not result in new significant hydrology and water quality impacts because the project site is already disturbed and is vacant. As such, the proposed modifications would not result in additional impervious surfaces or changes to the topography of the site that could substantially alter drainage patterns relative to the approved original project. The development of the new retail center would not increase the amount of runoff water entering the stormwater drainage system and would not involve substantial additional sources of polluted runoff relative to the approved original project. Because the proposed modifications would not increase impervious surface area relative to the approved original project, there would be no increase in interference with groundwater recharge in the surrounding area.

Because the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requires the implementation of post -construction BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution, the proposed modifications would implement site design measures and best management practices for rainfall events, same as the approved original project. The proposed modifications would not conflict with or obstruct the objectives of the Los Angeles Basin Plan for Coastal Watersheds, and no flood, tsunami, or seiche hazards are present nearby the project site. The proposed development would not obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan because the project site is not located in an area subject to such a plan.

The city has required the preparation of an updated Low Impact Development/water Quality Management Plan (LID/WQMP) to reflect the modified project Impacts and mitigation requirements related to groundwater contamination are discussed in Section 3.3.9. Updated LID/WQMP requirements and conclusions are expected to be substantially similar to the approved original project. The applicant will be required to comply with all requirements contained in the updated WQMP.

No changes in circumstances or new information related to hydrology and water quality have been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result ofthe proposed modifications.

No additional mitigation beyond MM-HAZ-3 from the adopted 2020 MND is required. The city has required the preparation of an updated Low Impact Development/Water Quality Management Plan (LID/WQMP) to reflect the modified project. Impacts and mitigation requirements related to groundwater contamination are discussed in Section

33.9. Updated LID/WQMP requirements and conclusions are expected to be substantially similar to the approved original project The applicant will be required to comply with all requirements contained in the updated LID/WQMP.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant hydrology and water quality impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant hydrology and water quality mpacts. No new information of substantial importance related to hydrology and water quality has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent FIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an FIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND Na. 20-01 3-23
-00-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.11 Land Use and Planning
in Use and Planning. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
page 69
No
Would Airy New
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImpodantNew
Measuresinthe
EnvimnmentalResourceTopic
wasMal}rzedin
Changes[nvoNe
Involve New
Information
Adopted 2020
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
theAdopted
New Significant
Significant
RequidngNew
MND
mitigating an environmental effect?
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Anatysisor
Address/Resolve
Verification?
Impacts?
in Use and Planning. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
page 69
No
No
No
N/A
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
pages 69-70
No
No
No
N/A
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized.

Surrounding land uses include the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment west of Bellflower Boulevard), commercial uses and an associated parking garage are located to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot are located to the northeast the Mayne Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the east; Mayne Street, vacant commercial uses, and a surface parking lot to the south; single and multi -family residential uses to the southwest; and single and multi -family residential uses located immediately to the west.

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation
of the approved original project would not result in physical division of the established community or conflictr with the City of Bellflower General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan.

Under the proposed modifications, the project applicant would construct a new two-story building with 14,258 SF
of Retail Commercial development. The previously approved original project proposed to redevelop the former vacant building on Parcel A with 14,450 SF of development including a Multi -screen Theater (9,350 SF), Retail Commercial/Restaurant (4,750 SF; 50 percent Retail Commercial/50 percent Fast Casual Restaurant), and 350 SF trash area.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant land use and planning impacts because the change in land uses from aMulti-screen theater and Retail Commercial/Restaurant to Retail Commercial would remain consistent with the City of Bellflower General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan. The proposed modifications do not involve any projectfeatures that would result in new conflicts with an adopted land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted forthe purpose of mitigating or avoiding an environmental effect. Moreover, the proposed modifications would be located on the same site as the approved original project and therefore would not result in a new physical division of the established community. No changes in circumstances or new information related to land use and planning has been identified during the preparation of this checklisL City of Bellflower
3-24 Addendum to MND No.20-01
-59-

Environmental Checklist
Ascent Environmental

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant land use and planning impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant land use and
planning
impacts, nor
would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant land use and
planning
impacts. No new
information of substantial importance related to land use and planning has been identified,
and none
of the
conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation
of a subsequent EIR,
subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-60-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.12 Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources. Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral page 71
No
Would Any New
Any
Substaritialty
Do Mitigation
resource that would be of value to the region and
Whemlmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImportantNew
Measuresinthe
ErwironmentalResource Topic
wasMalyiedin
ChangeslmoNe
New
Information
Adopted 2020
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
theAdoptedInvolve
New Significant
Significant
Requiting New
MND
important mineral resource recovery site
2 020MND. ND,
2020
Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysis or
Address/Resolve
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
Verification?
Impacts?
Mineral Resources. Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral page 71
No
No
No
N/A
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
page 71
No
No
No
N/A
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND: The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint,. including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surr ounding area, is developed and urbanized. No mineral
resources are known to occur on or around the project site. The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and residents of the State or a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a land use plan.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to mineral resources because none are located on orwithin the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no changes in circumstances or new information related mineral resources has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant mineral resources impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant mineral resources impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur thatwould result in new significant mineral resources impacts. No new nformation of substantial importance related to mineral resources has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
3 26 Addendum to MND Na, 20-01
-61-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.13 Noise
Noise. Would the Prajed result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Would AnyNew
Any
SubstantiallyMeasuresinthe
Do Mitigation
EnvimnmentalResourceTopic
wasMalyzedin
Changeslrnolve
Circumstances
Involve New
ImpodantNew
Information
Adopted 2020
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
theAdopted
NewSignificant
Significant
Requiring New
MND
established in the local general plan or noise
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysisor
Address/Resolve
ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or
Verification?
Impacts?
Noise. Would the Prajed result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
pages 72 to 76
No
No
No
N/A
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or
federal standards?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
pages 76 to 77
No
No
No
N/A
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. page 77
No
No
No
N/A
or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is currently vacant. Surrounding an uses include the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment west of Bellflower Boulevard), commercial uses and an associated parking garage located to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot are located to the northeast; the Mayne Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the east; Mayne Street, vacant commercial uses, and a surface parking lot to the south; single and multi -family residential uses to the southwest; and single and multi -family residential uses located immediately to the west The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private air strip, an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public airport.

The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent noise or vibration levels during construction or operations, and noise levels would not exceed standards adopted by the general plan or by ordinance, or any other applicable standards. It also found that the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport -related noise levels.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant noise orvibration impacts during operations or construction for the follov�ing reasons. The proposed modifications would develop Parcel A with substantially the same amount of total development as the approved original project and are consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation and underlying zoning designation. The change in uses from Multi -screen Theater and Retail Commercial/Restaurant to Retail Commercial would not result in substantial increases in stationary noise sources during operations, and would not involve new uses that are major noise generators. The proposed modifications to Parcel A City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01 3_27
-62-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
would result in 1,925 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) during operations, which is a 12 percent increase over the 1,721 ADT that would result from the approved development on Parcel A. A 12 percent increase is not considered significant and will not significantly increase project -related operational noise impacts.

Construction of the new building of substantially the same size would not result in a substantial increase in construction equipment use, type of construction equipment used, or other construction activities (e.g., application of architectural coatings) relative to the approved original project. Therefore, noise levels resulting from construction of the proposed modifications, including equipment use and truck trips would not substantially increase relative to the approved original project. The project's modifcations would not result in new significant noise impacts because the long-term operations of the project would have a minimal effect on the change of noise within the proximity of the project area. Construction activities for the proposed modifications would continue to take place during the daytime hours when people are generally not sleeping and would not be disrupted. No new sensitive noise receptors have been identified in the project vicinity since adoption of the 2020 MND. No changes in circumstances or new nformation related noise has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant noise and vibration impacts, except for exposure to airport -related noise, which was found to have no impact No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the approved original project would not result in new signifcant impacts related to noise or vibration, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant impacts related to noise or vibration. No new information of substantial importance related to noise or vibration has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
3-28 Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-63-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.14 Population and Housing
Population and Housing. Would the Project
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Would Any New
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
Measures in the
ErnimnmentalResourceTopic
wasAnalycedin
Changeslrnolve
Circumstances
InvoNeNew
ImporhantNew
Information
Adopted 2020
proposing new homes and businesses) or
theAdopted
NewSignificant
Significant
Requiring New
MND
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Anafysisor
Address/Resolve
or other infrastructure)?
Vedfieation?
Impacts?-
Population and Housing. Would the Project
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
page 78
No
No
No
N/A
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
page 78
No
No
No
N/A
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is currently vacant. The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not nduce substantial unplanned population growth because it would be located on a developed site that is served by existing infrastructure. It also found that no existing housing or people would be displaced by the project because the project site does not contain any housing.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant population and housing impacts because there are no existing people or housing unitr on Parcel A that could be displaced. Add tionally, the proposed modifications would not induce substantial unplanned population growth because they are consistent with the land use designation of the City's General Plan and Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan. t. No changes in circumstances or new nformation related to population and housing has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in a less than significant impact related to unplanned population growth inducement and no impact related to displacement of people or housing. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSIOIV
The proposed modifications to the project would not result. in new significant impacts related to population and housing, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant population and housing mpacts. No new information of substantial importance related to population and housing has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplementto an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
- 3.29
-64-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.15 Public Services
Public Sery ces. Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical Impacts
Bellflower, including the project site and
surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is WouldAnyNew
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
associated with the provision of new or physically
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImpodantNew
Measuresinthe
Environmental ResourceTopic
wasMayzedin
ChangeslmoNe
InvolveNew
Information
Adopted 2020
physically altered governmental facilities, the
th
NeImpacts?
Significant
Reguidngi
MND
construction of which could cause significant
20IVIND,Adopted
2020 MND.

Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysisor
Address/Resolve
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
Verification?
Impacts?
Public Sery ces. Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical Impacts
Bellflower, including the project site and
surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is developed
with a vacant commercial building and a
paved surface
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any the public services:

I. Fire protection?
pages 79-80
No
No
No
N/A
ii. Police protection?
page 80
No
No.

No
N/A
iii. Schools?
page 80
No
No
No
N/A
iv. Parks?
page 80
No
No
No
N/A
v. Other public facilities?
page 80
No
No
No
N/A

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of
The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACED) provides fire Bellflower, including the project site and
surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is developed
with a vacant commercial building and a
paved surface
parking lot.
protection and emergency medical services to the
City of Bellflower and the project site and has two stations located within the City: Station 23, located at 9548 East Flower Street, approximately 0.32 miles southwest of the project site; and Station 98, located at 9814 Maplewood Avenue, approximately one -mile northeast of the project site. Police protection for the City and the project site is provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), with the nearest station being the Bellflower Sheriff Substation Sub Station located at 16615 Bellflower Boulevard. The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not result in increased demand for public services such that provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities would result.

The proposed modifications
would not result in new significant impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered public services because the proposed modifications would not increase the amount of development on Parcel A relative to the approved original project. Therefore, the proposed modifications, including the change in uses from Multi -screen theater and Retail Commercial/Restaurant to Retail Commercial, would not increase demand for police protection services, fire protection services, school facilities and services, parks, or other public facilities. No changes n circumstances or new information related to public services has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

City of Bellflower
3-30 - Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-65-

Environmental Checklist
Ascent Environmental

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant public services impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.

No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant public services impar s, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant public services impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to public services has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent FIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.16 Recreation
Recreation. Would the Project
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
page 81
No
WouldAnyNew
Any
SubstantiallyMeasumsinthe
Do Mitigation
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
Where Impact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
Importa rtNew
EnvironmentalResourceTopic
wasMalyiedin
Changes Involve
Involve New
Information
Adopted 2020
facility would occur or be accelerated?
NeImpacls9
Significant
RequirIngNew
IVND
It. Include recreational facilities or require the
2020theAdND,ptad
2020 MND.

Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysisor
Address/Resolve
ss/R
construction or expansion of recreationalfacilities
Verification?
Impacts?
Recreation. Would the Project
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
page 81
No
No
No
N/A
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
It. Include recreational facilities or require the
page 81
No
No
No
N/A
construction or expansion of recreationalfacilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
-

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the protect site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is currently vacant. The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not ncrease use of existing parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would result or be accelerated, would not include recreational facilities, and would not result in increased demand for parks and recreation such that construction of new or expanded facilities would be required.

The proposed modifications would
not result in new significant impacts related to recreation because the modifcations do not include construction o, expansion of pa ks or recreational facilities. In addition, demand for parks and recreational facilities would not increase because the proposed modifications would not increase the amount of development on Parcel A relative to the approved original project. No changes in circumstances or new nformation related to recreation has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than signiflcant recreation impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new signiflcant recreation impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant recreation impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to recreation has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent ER, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.
crty of Bellflower
3-32 - Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-67-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.17 Transportation

17. Transportation: Would the project
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
pages 82-85
No
Would Any New
Any Substantially
Do Mitigation
addressing the circulation system, including
Where Impact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImportantNew
Measuresinthe
EnuironmentalResouroeTopic
wasAnalyzedin
Changeslnvolve
Involve Nett
Information
Adopted2020
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
theAdopted
New Significant
significant
Sig
RequidngNew
MND
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
2020MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysis or
Address/Resolve
c Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
page 85
No
No
Verification?
Impacts?

17. Transportation: Would the project
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
pages 82-85
No
No
No
N/A
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
page 85
No
No
No
N/A
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
page 85
No
No
No
N/A
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
page 85
No
No
No
N/A

DISCUSSION
This section describes the regulatory setting related to analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as well as new analysis elated to trip generation of the proposed modifications. Because Level of Service (LOS) is no longer an appropriate metric for analyzing transportation impacts on the environment under CEQA, analysis and mitigation measures related to LOS are not included in this discussion.

The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The site is develoV ed with a vacant commercial building and a paved surface parking lot The adopted 2020 MND used. automobile delay or level of service (LOS) as the primary metric to evaluate the
projects CEQA transportation impacts, consistent with industry standards and the City General Plan goals and policies at the time. The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not generate vehicle trips such that it would result in unacceptable LOS at any project area intersections during the opening year (2023). It also found that the project would promote the effectiveness of the pedestrian circulation system and would not physically affect the bicycle system. The adopted 2020 MND found that the projects demand for transit service would not adversely affect the provision of transit service in the project area. Therefore, the adopted 2020 MND determined that the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and the impact was less than significant. Additionally, the adopted 2020 MND found that the project's on-site improvements to circulation and vehicular ingress/egress would not result in substantial hazards or inadequate emergency access during operations, Thus, the impacts to hazards and emergency access were determined to be less than significant.

Senate Bill 743 and Related State CEQA Guidelines Amendments On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law and started a process to change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA SB 743 directed the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to revise the CEQA Guidelines to modify the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts to promote the reduction of City of Bellflower '
Addendum to MND No. 20-0
1 - 3-33
-00-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity ortraffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any." Section 15064.3 ofthe CEQA Guidelines, adopted in December 2018, provides thatvehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts" and mandates analysis of WMT impacts effective July 1, 2020; according to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.3), VMT replaces congestion as the metric for determining transportation mpacts. The guidelines state that "[b]eginning July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide." Additionally, as detailed under Public Resources Code Section 21009(b)(2), LOS, or other measures of automobile delay, are no longer considered significant environmental impacts under CEQA Thus, the adopted 2020 MND did not address conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 because it was released for public review and adopted before July 1, 2020.

As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, "amendments to the guidelines apply prospectively only," and CEQA documents must meet the "content requirements in effect when the document was sent out for public review," and "shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved."
Governor's Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts
In December of 2018, OPR published the most recent version of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts (technical Advisory) (December 2018) which provides guidance and recommendations for VMT analysis. The guidance provided thus far relative to VMT significance criteria.is focused on residential, office, and retail uses.

However, as noted in the updated guidelines, agencies are directed to choose metrics that are appropriate for their jurisdiction to evaluate the potential impacts of a project in terms of VMT.

New retail development typically redistributes vehicle trips rather than creating new trips; and thus, estimating the total change in VMT is the best wayto analyze a retail project's transportation impacts (OPR 2018). Additionally, the OPR Technical Advisory states that a net increase in total VMT for a retail project may indicate a significant transportation impact However, by adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local -serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT (OPR 2018). Therefore, the OPR Technical Advisory states that lead agencies generally may presume that local -serving retail development would result in a less -than -significant transportation impact. Regional -serving retail development, on the other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact (OPR 2018). The OPR Technical Advisory notes that generally, retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional -serving, and so lead agencies should undertake an analysis to determine whether the project might increase or decrease VMT. In defining local -serving retail, the OPR Technical Advisory states that because lead agencies will best understand their own communities and the likely travel behaviors of future project users, they are likely in the best position to decide when a project will likely be local -serving.

The adopted 2020 MND was made available for public review in May of 2020 and adopted in June of 2020, after the amendment to the CEQA Guidelines adding VMT as the primary measure of transportation impacts but before the requirement for analysis of VMT going into effect (i.e., July 1, 2020) as detailed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. In addition, information was known, or could have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, about the VMT generation of the approved original project at the time the adopted 2020 MND was prepared. As directed by Section 15007, the adopted 2020 MND did not need to be revised to conform to the new VMT requirements. In addition, the change in law (replacement of the LOS standard with VMT) does not constitute significant new nformation under CEQA (PRC 21166 or CEQA Guidelines 15162) as it does not constitute a new impact caused by the changes proposed in the project or changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken.

Under the proposed modifications, the applicant would construct a new two-story building with 14,258 SF of Retail Commercial development. The previously approved original project proposed to redevelop the existi ng vacant
building on Parcel A with 14,450 SF of development including a Multi -screen Theater (9,350 SF), Retail Commercial/Restaurant (4,750 SF; 50 percent Retail Commercial/50 percent Fast Casual Restaurant); and 350 SF trash City of Bellflower
3-34 - Addendum to MIND
No. 20-07
-69-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
area. There would be no changes to the project as approved for Parcel B which is currently under construction. The change in potential uses associated with the proposed modifications would result in a 12% increase in the number of daily trips relative to the approved original project A 12 percent increase is not considered significant and air quality impacts will remain below significance thresholds.

Under the proposed modifications, the project location would remain the same and no changes to the surrounding circulation network would occur. Therefore, consistent with the approved original project, the proposed modifications would not disrupt or preclude construction or use of any planned bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, consistent with the approved original project, the proposed modifications would provide sidewalk improvements along Mayne Street and Oak Street and bicycle racks. Therefore, no new significant impacts bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities would occur. The circulation improvements associated with the approved original project would not change as part of the proposed modifications; and thus, would not result in any substantial changes to roadway design and would not introduce any new incompatible uses. In addition, the proposed modifications would not change the circulation in the project area as compared to the approved original project and would result in the same ingress and egress access points as were evaluated under the adopted 2020 MND. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in any substantial changes to roadway design such that nadequate emergency access would occur.

Regarding VMT generated by the proposed modifications, the Technical Advisory defines regional -serving retail as development that includes stores larger than 50,000 square feet (OPR 2018:17); therefore, local -serving retail would be considered to be retail land uses of less than 50,000 square feet. Parcel A of the approved original project ncluded 14,450 square feet of commercial development whereas the proposed modifications include 14,258 square feet of retail commercial development Therefore, both the approved and modified projects would not exceed 50,000 square feet of retail; and thus, would be considered locally serving retail. Additionally, the proposed modifications are located on the same site in the City's denser downtown area improving proximity to retail destinations. The proposed modifications also consist of a mix of land uses differing from that of the approved original project; and thus, would result in a change in the number of daily trips generated. Table 17-1 presents the difference between the estimated trip generation for the approved and proposed modifications. This trip generation is provided for information only as the project is exempt from WIT analysis.

Table 17-1 Parcel A Trip Generation —Proposed Modifications Relative to Approved Original Project Approved Project Land Use Code (ITE Code) Daily Rate Quantity Metria Daily Tri ' Previously referred to as "Commercial Retail" in Bellflower Mlxed-Use Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) completed January ps
(2020TIA)
Movie Theater (444)
220
4 MS
880
Shopping Center' (820)

37.75 3.025
TSF
114
Fast Casual Restaurant (930)
315.17

2.375
TSF
749
Internal Capture and Pass -By Reductions'
-22
Total .
1,721
Modified Project
land Use Code OTE Code)
Daily Rate
Quantity
Metria
Daily Trips
Shopping Centers (820)

37.75 9.258
TSF
349
Fast Casual Restaurant (930)
315.17
5,000
TSF
1,576
Total°
1,925
Net Change in Daily Trips
+204
Percent Change in Daily Trips
+12%
21, 2020
� TSF =Thousand Square Feet
3 Internal capture and pass -by reductions aggregated based on trip generation reductions shown in Table 2 of the Bellflower Mixed -Use Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) completed January 21, 2020 ° Does not account for internal capture or pass -by reduction to provide conservative estimate of net change in dally trips Source: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 2021
City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20
-01
3-35

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
As shown in Table 17-1,
the proposed modifications would
increase the number of estimated daily trips
by 12 percent
when compared to the
approved original project.

Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) provides that projects located within 1h mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less -than -significant impact on VMT. The project site is located approximately Ya mile from the proposed Downtown Bellflower station that would service the future West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor, a 19 -mile light rail transit line that would connect the City of Artesia and downtown Los Angeles. The transit line is forecasted to open in 2041; however, the project could potentially be accelerated (Metro 2021).

Therefore, proposed modifications would be considered to be local -se ving retail; and thus, would be exempt and presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact The location of the project site relative to the proposed Downtown Bellflower light rail station would also support a less -than -significant VMT impact. Finally, the land use mix of the proposed modifications would result in only 12 percent more total daily vehicle trips than the approved original project and thus, would not result in a substantial increase in VMT. Therefore, no new significant VMT impact would occur. No other changes in circumstances or new information related to transportation has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant transportation impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.

No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new signifcanttransportation impacts nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant transportation impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to transportation has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01

Environmental Checklist - Ascent Environmental

3.3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed ore g e for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
WouldAnyNew
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
Measuresinthe
EnvironmentalResourceTopic
wasMa
Changeslnvolve
Circumstances
Involve New
ImportantNew
Information
Adopted 2020
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
theAdlyrzedin
NeImpacts?
Significant
Requiring New
MND
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
2020 IND,ptDd
2020 MND.

Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysis or
Address/Resolve
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
Verification?
Impacts?
Tribal Cultural Resources: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed ore g e for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
page 86
No
No
No
N/A
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
page 86
No
No
No
N/A
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would. be located within Parcel A, which is within the limitr of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The. City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The entire project site has been previously disturbed. The site is currently vacant. There are no historical resources on the project site.

The closest building to the project site with historical significance is the Pacific Electric Railway Depot building, which s located approximately 95 feet to the northeast of the project site, across Mayne Street The adopted 2020 MND complied with SB 18 and AB 52 tribal consultation requirements and found that mplementation of the approved original project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historic resources. The adopted 2020 MND found a tribal cultural resources impact would be less than significant with mitigation because previously unknown subsurface artifacts that could be encountered during ground -disturbance activities would be protected from substantial adverse changes by requiring that specified measures be taken in the event tribal cultural resources are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources because the
project boundary and area of disturbance is the same as evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND, and no known tribal cultural resources are located within the vicinity of the project site. The potential to encounter previously unknown tribal cultural resources would not increase because the proposed modifications would not increase the extent or depth of ground or below ground disturbance associated with project construction. No changes in circumstances or new nformabon related to tribal cultural resources has been identified during the preparation of this checklist City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-Ot 3-37
-72-

Environmental Checklist
Ascent Environmental

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND concluded that tribal cultural resources impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1. The proposed modifications would be required to implement this mitigation measure from the adopted 2020 MND, which would reduce tribal cultural resources impacts to less than significant. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.

MM -CUL -1: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, the project contractor halt or redirect ground -disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to determine whether or not the find is significant If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the City and appropriate Native American monitor(s) and group(s) (if the find is a prehistoric or Native American resource), shall develop a treatment plan. Construction activities shall be redirected to other work areas until the treatment plan has been implemented or the qualified archaeologist determines that work can resume in the vicinity of the find.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant tribal cultural resources impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant tribal cultural resources impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to tribal cultural resources has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur. . City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-01
-73-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

19. Util ties and Service Systems. Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction
Whereimpact
WouldProposed
WouldAtryNew
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
Measuresinthe
FltvironmentalResounxTopic
wasMalyzedin
ChangeslnvoNe
Circumstances
InvolveNev
ImpodardNew
Information
Adopted 2020
or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural
the Adopted
NewSignificant
Significant
RequlringNew
MND
gas, or telecommunication facilities, the
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Anaysisor
Address/Resolve
construction of which could cause significant
Verification?
Impacts?

19. Util ties and Service Systems. Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction
pages 87-88
No
No
No.

N/A
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunication facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
page 88
No
No
No
N/A
the projectfrom existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements.
needed?
c Result in a determination by the wastewater
pages 88-89
No
No
No
N/A
treatment providerwhich serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
page 89
No
No
No
N/A
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impact the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
page 89
No
No
No
N/A
regulations related to solid waste?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower will provide water service to the project site. Water service is provided by the Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company (BSMWC) and customer needs are served through local groundwater with supplemental quantities coming from recycled water. The project site is entirely disturbed and not used as a local groundwater recharge facility as the area is mostly built outwith a relatively high impervious condition.

Los Angeles County Sanitati
on District provides wastewater service. Perthe adopted 2020 MND, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment facilities. Due to the minor increase (12 percent) solid waste generation, and through compliance with existing regulations, the adopted 2020 MND concluded that the approved original project would not generate solid waste in conflict with State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Waste generated in Bellflower is sent to the CR Transfer and Material Recovery Facility in Stanton, Southeast Resource Recovery Facility in Long Beach, with most of the loads going to the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility (DART) in Downey.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND Na ZO-01 - 3-39
-74-

Environmental Checklist
Ascent Environmental
The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to utilities and service systems because the proposed modifications would not increase the amount of development on Parcel A relative to the approved original project. Therefore, the proposed modifications, including the change in uses from Multi -screen theater and Retail Commercial/Restaurant to Retail Commercial, would not increase demand for utilities and service systems relative to the approved original project. No changes in circumstances or new information related to utilities and service systems has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant utilities and utility services. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant wildfire impactr, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant utilities and utility service impacts. No new information of substantial importance related to utilities and utility services has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur, City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No. 20-07
-75-

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

3.3.20 Wildfire
Vfildfire.

If located in or near state responity areas or l
sibilands
classified as very high
Would Any New
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
response plan for emergency evacuation plan?
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImpodantNew
Measuresinthe
FsuimnmentalResourceTopic
wasMal}rzedin
Changes Involve
InvolveNew
Information
Adopted 2020
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
theAdopted
New Significant
Significant
RequidngNew
MND
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
2020 MND,
Impacts?
Impacts.

Analysis or
Address/Resolve
form a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
Vedfiration?
Impacts?
Vfildfire.

If located in or near state responity areas or l
sibilands
classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the
project;
N/A
response plan for emergency evacuation plan?
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
page 90
No
No
No
N/A
response plan for emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
page 90
No
No
No
N/A
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
form a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c. Require the installation ormaintenance of
page 90
No
No
No
N/A
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
page 90
No
No
No
N/A
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications would be located within Parcel A, which is within the limits of the project site previously described and evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no changes to the approved development on Parcel B that was evaluated in the adopted 2020 MND. The approved five (5) story, mixed-use, 91 -unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint, including 650 square feet of commercial retail, is currently under construction on Parcel B.

The City of Bellflower, including the project site and surrounding area, is developed and urbanized. The entire project site has been previously disturbed. Parcel A is currently vacant and is not near an Urban Wildland Interface (UWI) area. The project area is not located in or near a state responsibility area and is not classified as a high fire severity zone. The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would no wildfire impacts because the approved original project is not located in an area that is at risk of wildfire.

The proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to wildfires because the project site is not located within an area designated by CAL FIRF as a fire hazard severity zone or a local responsibility area. No changes in circumstances or new information related to wildfire hazards has been identified during the preparation of this checklist.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would result in less than significant wildfire impacts. No new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No mitigation is required.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No.20-Ot - 3-4t
-ID-

Environmental Checklist

CONCLUSION
Ascent Environmental
The proposed modifications to the project would not result in new significant wildfire impacts, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant wildfire impacts. No new information of substantial mportance related to wildfires has been identified, and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, or supplement to an EIR would occur.

City of Bellflower
3-42 Addendum to MND No. ZO-01

Environmental Checklist

3.3.29 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Ascent
Mandatory ngs of Significance:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
page 91
No
WouldArryNew
Any
Substantially
Do Mitigation
the quality of the environment, substantially
Wherelmpact
Would Proposed
Circumstances
ImportantNew
Measuresinthe
EnvironmenfalResourceTopic
wasMahrzedin
Changes Involve
Involve New
Infomation
Adopted 2020
cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below
the Adopted
Ne
Significant
RequirngNew
MND
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
2020MND,
Impacts?
Impacts?
Analysis or
Address/Resolve
or animal community, reduce the number or
Verification?
Impacts?
Mandatory ngs of Significance:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
page 91
No
No
No
Yes
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
page 91
No
No
No
Yes
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means
that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when view in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c Does the project have environmental effects
page 91
No
No
No
Yes
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The adopted 2020 MND found that implementation of the approved original project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, would not have cumulative considerable impacts, and would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. As described in the preceding sections of the checklist, the proposed modifications evaluated in this addendum would not change any of the impact conclusions of the adopted 2020 MND such that new significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. As described in this MND Addendum, the proposed modifications would result in no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation for all environmental resource topics. Based on the analysis presented above in the checklist, the proposed modifications to the project would not result in any new significant impacts that would change the mandatory findings of significance found in the adopted 2020 MND.

City of Bellflower
Addendum to MND No.20-01
-78-

Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental
City of Bellflower
3-44 Addendum to MND No.20-07
-I0-

4 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Bellflower
Elizabeth Corpuz.................. ........ ...............:.:...:.:.:A ......... ,,..... :..:.:...:.,.; :....::..:_:.... _... Director of Planning and Building Services Rowena Genilo-Concepcion. ..................-..........._................__.._....,.._......._...-...;._.........._.....................................Planning Manager JasonP. Clarke . ..... ........................ .................. .... ........... ad .... ................... .... ........ .........:........................ a ................... ad ................Senior Planner JimDellalonga............................ ..................... ....... .... ..................... I .... ........ ........ ..... .................. ....... Director of Economic Development Jerry Stock ad.1._.........City Engineer
DuaneMorita, ...... ._.............._......:.::....:...::.,........:._.::.....„....a.......................--...................._.....---........................._......__........Consultant Ascent Environmental
EricRuby............................................................................................................................. Principal -in -Charge .................................................

AndrewMartin .... .--- .......... ..... .... ..... ...... ._..... ..... ............................ ...... ...................... .......... ............... add ... ............. ................ Project Manager SabaAsghary .... ...:............:.::_.. ad. ..:::.._:........... ad. ................................................. ..........._......... ..... .... a ....... ...--- add ...... Environmental Planner Zach Miller ......... .........I.add ....._....Transportation JazminAmini-..... _ ..d ..... ................... add ................. ...... _... ................... ...... .. _............,...................Transportation City of Bellflower _ -
Addendum to MND No. 20-Ot q_t

ist of
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental
City of Bellflower
4-2 Addendwn to MND No.20-01

5 REFERENCES
Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2018 (December). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: http://c)pr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743-Technical-Advisory.pdf . Accessed December 3, 2021.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2021. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. Web page.

Available: https://www.metro.net/projects/West-santa-ana/ . Accessed: December 6, 2021.

Metro. See Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority OPR. See Governor's Office of Planning and Research
City of Bellflower _
Addendum to MND No. 2o-01 5.1
-82-

References
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental
City of Bellflower
5-2 Addendwn to MND No, 20-ot
-83-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
ORDINANCE NO, 1418

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FILE NO. 837.1, IN A FORM APPROVED

BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BELLFLOWER AND 16411 BELLFLOWER, LLC, TO MODIFY AND

RECONFIGURE THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN

THE DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER TOD SPECIFIC PLAN ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16411 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD;
APPLICANT AND DEVELOPER: 16411 BELLFLOWER, LLC
THE CITY COUNCIL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

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

A. On July 13, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1391 approving Development Agreement File No. 837.1 ("Agreement"), in a form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the City of Bellflower and 16411 Bellflower, LLC ("Owner"), to facilitate development of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Mixed -Use Project ("Project"), including parking license agreements for some of the required off-street parking, on property located at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard, 9735 Oak Street, and 9742 Mayne Street;
B. On June 29, 2022, the Owner filed an application to reconfigure the portion of the Project formerly referred to as the Theater, Theater Retail, and Theater Component to facilitate a greater range of retail tenants located on Parcel A (16411 Bellflower Boulevard);
C. The City and Owner desire to amend the Agreement ("Amendment") affecting the movie theater use;
D. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the revised Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, etseq., "CEQA"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). As a result, an addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MND 20-01 was prepared;
E. On August 8, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution approving an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project modifications (identified by the City as Case No. TODPR 5-22-13051) including, without limitation, all applicable conditions of approval;
F. For the reasons set forth below and in the Amendment att ached as Exhibit "A,"
and incorporated by reference, the City Council found that the City would glean additional public benefits from the revised Project;
G. It is in the public interest to approve the proposed Project; and

—84—

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1418

H. The City Council considered the information provided by City Staff and public testimony, and the Applicant. This Ordinance, and its findings were made based upon the entirety of the administrative record including without limitation, evidence presented to the City Council at its August 8, 2022, hearing.

SECTION 2. General Plan Findings. Pursuant to Government Code § 65867.5, the City Council finds the following:

A. For the same reasons set forth in the addendum to the MND and Resolution No. 22-13, which is incorporated by reference into these findings, the Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Bellflower. The Amendment furthers the goals of the General Plan and is in the interest of the general community welfare in that the Amendment will, among other things, facilitate the development of the subject site that is currently vacant and underutilized, which is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

1. General Plan Land Use Element General Goal 1: "Discourage disjoint land use patterns';

2. General Plan Land Use Element General Goal 2: "Create a City that functions efficiently, is aesthetically pleasing, and makes the best use of its various resources";

3. General Plan Land Use Element General Goal 5: "Provide incentives for reinvestment in aging built -out developments and encourage consolidation of properties for higher quality land uses and designs";

4. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 1.1: "Provide land use designations which match actual viable uses";

5. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 1.2: "Encourage opportunities to sensitively integrate different, but compatible, land uses";

6. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.1: "Create opportunities wherein a population diverse in terms of income, age, occupation, race, lifestyle, values, interest, and religion may interact, exchange ideas, and realize common goals'

7. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.2: "Provide commercial facilities to meet the retail and service needs of the community;

8. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.12: "Develop strong themes identifying Bellflower as a city of visual and community quality'; and
—85—

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1418

9. General Plan Land Use Element Mixed Use Policy 1: "Allow for innovative and/or neo -traditional uses in established areas." B. The Amendment also provides certainty in planning and construction as well as orderly development, while providing assurance to the Applicant that it may construct the Project.

SECTION 3. Environmental Review Findings. The City Council finds as follows:

A. An Initial Study was previously prepared for the TOD Mixed -Use Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15063 which showed that, if mitigated, the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project would not cause any significant environmental impacts.

B. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b), the City previously prepared and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impacts for the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project and a Notice of Determination was filed.

C. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15164, the City as the lead agency determined that the proposed revisions to the Project are minor and an addendum to the MND was prepared.

D. The addendum analyzed the Project modifications and it was determined that the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact not previously considered in the MND.

SECTION 4. Notice of Determination. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA §§ 211523 21167(f); CEQA Guidelines § 15094; and any other applicable law.

SECTION 5. General Plan and Zoning. The revised Project conforms to the Bellflower General Plan, as set forth in Section 2. I"a on, the revised Project conforms to the Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan No. 8 (TODSP), and Title 17 (Zoning) of the BMC in that the zoning classification for the Project site is Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan (TOD SP), and includes the Town Center (TC -1) District, Area 1 and the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ-N) and are included in Planning Area 3, which allows for commercial and mixed-use development.

SECTION 6. Use of Public Parking Facility Findings. Pursuant to Resolution No. 17-52, adopted August 28, 2017, the City Council still finds the following facts exist:

A. The proposed development is located in the BVOZ-N of the TODSP.

B. The site plan for the proposed development is consistent with neighboring development. The submitted plans were evaluated and have been determined to be in compliance with the development standards of the TOD SP. The proposed uses are compatible with the various existing businesses —86—

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1418

which currently provide retail/restaurant/alcohol service and a comedy theater.

C. There are four public parking facilities within 300 feet of the proposed development (totaling 503 parking spaces) and one public parking facility within 500 feet of the proposed development (totaling 93 parking spaces).

D. With the completion of the City's parking structure, there are approximately 1,093 public parking spaces available within the vicinity. A parking survey was conducted in June 2019, which indicated that during peak demands of evenings and weekends, there were 283 parking spaces available on public parking lots. The number of parking spaces proposed to be transferred to the public parking lots could be accommodated based on the available parking observed at the time the survey was conducted.

SECTION 7. Public Benefits. The Amendment provides for public benefits including, without limitation:

A. The Project is part of City's downtown and its revitalization is crucial for the economic revitalization of the downtown;
B. The Project is located on underutilized property. Improving the property through private investment is a critical component of City's overall plan for a thriving downtown;
C. Providing fiscal benefits to City's general fund in terms of increased property and sales taxes;
D. Providing short-term construction employment within City; E. Enhancing access to City's public recreational facilities by providing a transit -oriented development Project within walking distance to a Class III bikeway, the future Downtown Bellflower Station for the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Light Rail, Pirate Park, and the Mayne Events Center; and
F. The Project prevents the spread of blight in the downtown by reusing and repurposing the currently vacant former Greek Market building. The project enhances the appearance of the community through creative design of buildings, structures, and facilities.

SECTION 8. Incorporation of Amended Development Agreement; Changes,- approves
hanges;approves the Amendment in substantially the form attached as Exhibit 'A," and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

A. The Amendment may be changed before execution as authorized by the City Council during the public hearings for the Project. —87—

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No, 1418

B. The Amendment may be changed before execution for minor clarifications and technical, clerical, corrections as approved by the City Attorney including, without limitation, completion of references, status of planning approvals, and completion and conformity of all exhibits to the Amendment.

C. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute the Amendment on the City's behalf. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute amendments or operative memoranda as permitted by the Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

SECTION 9. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 10. Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the Bellflower Municipal Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 11. Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Ordinance are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the matter. The 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 12. Limitations. The City Council'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 City Council'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. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 13. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance 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 provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

SECTION 14. 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. —88—

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1418

SECTION 15. Publications. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 16. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be entered into the City of Bellflower's book of original ordinances, make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting, and, within fifteen days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 17. Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective on the 30th day following its passage and adoption.

ORDINANCE NO. 1418 HAD ITS FIRST READING ON AUGUST 8, 20229 ITS SECOND READING ON 2022, AND WAS DULY PASSED,

APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER AT ITS REGULAR MEETING OF , 2022.

Ray Dunton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A —First Amendment to Development Agreement File No. 837.1 -89-

EXHIBIT A
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FILE NO. 837.1 -90-

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
16600 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
BELLFLOWER. CA 90706

EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
P iminnt to Gnvernment Code S 6103

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

BELLFLOWER TOD MIXED-USE PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Development Agreement (the "First Amendment") is made as of 2022 by and between 16411 Bellflower, LLC, a California limited liability company "Owner") and the City of Bellflower, a general law city and municipal corporation (the "City") the City together with Owner referred to as the "Parties"). The Parties agree as follows:

1. Recitals. The Parties execute this First Amendment with reference to the following:

A. City and Owner executed a Development Agreement effecfive August 12, 2020 (the "Agreement") and recorded November 9, 2020 as Document No. 20201419960 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County regarding development of the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use project ("Project") on that real property identified in attached Exhibit "1" (the "Property"), which is incorporated by reference. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this First Amendment.

Words and phrases not given a meaning by this First Amendment have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.

B. Section 6.03 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended from time to time upon the mutual written consent of City and Developer.

C. The Agreement included provisions related to development of the Project, including the Theater Component and Residential Component. The Residential Component is now under construction.

D. Developer has submitted an application for TOD Project Review modifications (No. 5-22-13051) that would reconfigure the portion of the Project formerly referred to as the Theater, Theater Retail, and Theater Component to facilitate a greater range of retail tenants in the approximately 14,258 square foot retail portion of the Property as shown in Exhibit A . Consistent with Section 3.13 of the Agreement, approval of the Project Review modifications continues to constitute the Project Approvals as referenced in the Agreement.

E. The application for TOD Project Review modifications has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et.

-91-

seq.). An addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and determined that the TOD Project Review modifications would not result in a significant environmental impact not previously considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. On August 8, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and approved TOD PR 5-22-13051, the addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the amendments incorporated in this First Amendment.

F. The Parties desire to amend the provisions related to the Theater, Theater Retail, and Theater Component of the Project.

2. Replacement of Theater and Theater Retail with General Retail. As a broader range of retail tenants are now expected to occupy the portion of the Project previously referred to as the Theater Component, references to the "Theater" and "Theater Retail" are replaced with "Retail" and "Theater Component" is replaced with the "Retail Component" as shown in Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference.

3. Entertainment Tenant. Within one year after City issues a temporary certificate of occupancy on the Retail Component, Owner must have executed a lease with an Entertainment Anchor for at least four thousand (4,000) square feet of the Retail Component and provide notice of such proposed lease execution to the City Manager. The City Manager must respond within thirty days of Owner's notice of proposed Entertainment Anchor tenant to provide consent or denial to the proposed tenant, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Entertainment Anchor must be open for business within nine months of lease execution ("Entertainment Anchor Deadline"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Entertainment Anchor Opening Deadline may be tolled and extended for any cause as described in Section 7.08 [Impossibility of Performance; Extensions] in the Agreement. An "Entertainment Anchor" means one of the following: theatre, live music venue; brewery, art gallery, bowling; or other retail that provides the customer with an entertainment experience. For the sake of clarity, the obligation to lease a portion of the Retail Component to an Entertainment Anchor provided in this Section 3 replaces the best efforts obligation to complete the Theater as provided in Section 4.01.01 of the Agreement and the obligation as provided in Section 4.02.02 of the Agreement to have a qualified entity operating the Theater. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Laemmle Theaters, LLC or its affiliate is a pre -approved theater tenant.

4. Liquidated Damages. The Parties agree that satisfaction of the Entert ainment
Anchor Deadline is a material teen in this Amendment. Among other things, satisfaction of the Entertainment Anchor Deadline represents a significant increase in sales tax revenue to City. Any delay or failure to satisfy the Entertainment Anchor Deadline will result in a financial loss to City.

A. The Part
ies also recognize that it will be impracticable to determine actual damages which City will sustain in the event of or by reason of the delay.

Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, City and Owner agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty) of the Entertainment Anchor Deadline, Owner must pay City the amounts below as specified. It is further agreed that the amount stipulated for liquidated damages is a reasonable estimate of the

-92-

damages that would be sustained by City, and Owner agrees to pay such liquidated damages as herein provided. If Owner neglects, refuses, or fails to pay City as provided in this Section, any amounts are deemed a debt to City, will accrue interest at the statutory rate, and City may use any legal means to recoup such debt at Owner's cost including, without limitation, attorneys fees.

B. If Owner fails to satisfy the Entertainment Anchor Deadline in accordance in Section 3, above, and has not cured such failure within 90 days after written notice of such failure, Owner must pay the damages ("Damages") to the City in accordance with the payment schedule below. The Damages are payable within 30 days after an uncured default, and every year thereafter that there is no Entertainment Anchor tenant in business, subject to Section 4(C) below:

Year
Payment
1 $
19,653.19
2 $
21,618.51
3 $
23,780.36
4 $
26,158,40
5 $
28,774.24
6 $
311,212.95
7 $
31,723.64
8 $
33,309.78
9 $
34,975.27
10 $
361724.03
11 $
36560.24
12 $
40,488.25
13 $
42,512.66
14 $
44,638.29
15 $
46,87(1.21
C. Should Owner not secure an Entertainment Anchor by the Entertainment Anchor Deadline, but secures an Entertainment Anchor thereafter, the Owner is not obligated to pay the damages for the next year and years thereafter. At the end of the term of the Agreement, the Owner will have no further obligation to pay Damages.

D. Owner's obli
gation to pay the foregoing damages is subordinate to any Deed of Trust now or hereafter encumbering the Property that secures a permanent loan for the Project.

—93—

5. Retail Parking. Consistent with Section 4.02.03 and 4.02.04 of the Agreement, off-street parking for the Retail may continue to be transferred to designated off-site parking locations, consistent with Section 4.10.3(E)(3) of the Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan authorizing the transfer of commercial parking to designated off-site parking locations by a Parking License Agreement with City. For the sake of clarity, the Form of the Parking License Agreement for the Retail attached as Exhibit B to this Amendment replaces Exhibit E.1 [Form of the Parking License Agreement for Theater] and Exhibit E.2 [Form of the Parking License Agreement for Theater Retail] as further described in Section 4.02.07 of the Agreement. During the term of the Parking License Agreement no additional parking or in lieu fees will be required for the Retail use other than as required by New Other Laws,

6. No Other Change, Except as expressly clarified
by
this First Amendment, all of
the terms
and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and
in
full force and effect.

7. Miscellaneous. Terms and conditions of this First Amendment may not be waived, amended or modified except in a writing executed by the Parties. This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which are deemed an original and all of which constitute one and the same First Amendment.

8. Recordation. The parties
will record
this First Amendment in the Office of the Los
Angeles
County Recorder in the manner
set forth in
Government Code § 65868.5.
[SIGNATiIRES ON NEXT PAGE]

-94,-

CITY:

CITY OF BELLFLOWER,
a municipal corporation
Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
City Manager
ATTEST:

Mayra Ochiqui,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
OWNER:
16411 BELLFLOWER, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:

Jason Tolleson, Manager
Vice President

—95—

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.

COUNTY OF )
before me,
there insert name and title of officer]
personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument, I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
-96-
(Seal)

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.

COUNTY OF )
On before me,
iltere insert name and title of officer]
personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
(Seal)
-97-

Exhibit A
[Retail Component Site Plan — First Floor]
MAYNE ST.
-98-

Exhibit A
[Retail Component Site Plan— Second Floor]
-ss-
i
I
I
i I
�
I
I
I
I
3D 2801M
PAM
�
I
I
�
I
,,,1tr
Pro
-ss-

Exhibit B
Form of Parldng License Agreement for Retail
LICENSE AGREEMENT FILE NO. BETWEEN TIDE

CITY OF BELLFLOWER AND
16411 BELLFLOWER, LLC
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") iSM C and executed this day of in the year between the CITY OF BELLFLOWER, a
municipal corporation ("City"), and 16411 Bellflower, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company ("Developer"). The Parties agree as follows:

1. LICENSE; DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. City licenses for Developer to use, on the terms and conditions in this License, the public parking lots and facilities ("Public Parking") located within the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ-N) for approximately square feet of space located at Bellflower Blvd., which is part of the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project development ("Project") at 16411 Bellflower ("Property").

The intended use of the space will be a [update to identify specific use, e.g. General Commercial, Specialty Commercial or Restaurant/Bar]("Retail") use within the BVOZ-N. The location of the Project Property is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "1," and the specific location of the Retail within the Project Property is shown in Exhibit "2," both of which are incorporated by reference. The Public Parking is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "3," and incorporated by reference. City's action is not, and should not be construed to be, a conveyance of a property interest or a lease; it is a license to enter the Public Parking solely for meeting parking requirements set forth in Section 4.10.3(E)(3) of the TOD SP and as contemplated by Development Project Review No. 1-2040630 adopted by Resolution No. 20-29 on June 22, 2020, as further described in that certain Development Agreement between City and Developer on August 12, 2020 recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County on November 9, 2020 (Document Number 20201419960) ("Development Agreement").

2. USE OF PROPERTY. Developer may utilize the Public Parking for the use of its patrons 24 hours per day (except that patron use may be limited by maximum number of parking hours, street sweeping or other applicable restrictions) in order to meet the parking requirement set forth in the BMC at no cost to Developer. Such use is nonexclusive, i.e., other members of the public may also use the Public Parking for any legal purpose. At time of execution of this Agreement, Developer does not assume responsibility for the security, policing, and maintenance of the Public Parking.

3. TERM. This Agreement will become effective upon issuance of the temporary cert ificate of
occupancy for the Retail. Unless terminated at least 30 days before the anniversary date of this Agreement, the term will automatically renew on the anniversary date for successive one-year terms. Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will terminate as stated in Section 4.
—100—

4. TERMINATION.

A. Upon a change of use from [update to identify specific use, e.g. General Commercial, Specialty Commercial or Restaurant/Bar] use within the BVOZ to a use that requires an equivalent or less parking than one space per 400 square feet, as determined by the Planning Director, then the term of this Agreement will be extended for such use. If a change of use requires more parking, the term of this Agreement may be terminated and a new parking license agreement will be considered by the City Council. The same determination will be made by the Planning Director to determine if a subsequent use requires equivalent or less parking, in which case the term of the Agreement will be extended, or if a new use requires more parking, in which case the a new parking license will be considered by the City Council,
B. By executing this document, Developer waives any and all claims for damages that might otherwise arise from City's termination under this Section.

C. Upon termination,. the parties will have no further obligations other than those expressly stated to survive.

5. ALTERATIONS. Developer will not make, or cause to be made, any alterations to the Public Parking, or any part thereof, without City's prior written consent.

6. SIGNS. Developer will not place any sign upon the property without City's prior written consent. Developer will pay for all costs of any approved signage and comply with all applicable sign codes and ordinances.

7. ASSIGNMENT. Assignment of the rights in this Agreement may occur consistent with the terms of Section 8 of the Development Agreement during the term of the Development Agreement. After the term of the Development Agreement, City will not object to the assignment of the Agreement except for good cause. Upon City approval of assignment, the assignee may select whether the assignment is documented in either (a) an assignment agreement in the form of Exhibit 4 to this Agreement between Developer and assignee or (b) a parking license agreement in the form of this Exhibit A to the Development Agreement between City and assignee.

8. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. Developer will
hold City harmless and free from any and all liability arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, except for such loss or damage arising from City's sole negligence or willful misconduct. Should City be named in any suit, or should any claim be against it, by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of use of this license or breach of this Agreement, or its performance, pursuant to this Agreement, Developer will defend City (at City's request and with counsel satisfactory to City) and will indemnify it for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. —101—

B. For purposes of this section "City" includes City's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers.

C. Developer expressly agrees that this release, waiver, and indemnity agreement is intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and that if any portion is held invalid, it is agreed that the balance will, notwithstanding, continue in full legal force and effect.

D. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive termination of this Agreement.

E. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Developer as required by Section 9 below, and any approval of said insurance by City, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by Developer pursuant to this Agreement, including without limitation to the provisions concerning indemnification.

9. INSURANCE.

A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is effective, Developer will procure and maintain the following types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits set forth below:

Type of Insurance Limits (combined sin¢le
Commercial general liability: $2,0005000
Workers' compensation Statutory requirement
Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of the most current ISO -CGL Form. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Liability policies will be endorsed to name City, its officials, and employees as "additional insureds" under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed "primary" such that any other insurance that may be carried by City will be excess thereto. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence," not a "claims made," basis and will not be cancelable except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to City.

B. Developer will famish to City duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement and such other evidence of insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required by City from time to time. Insurance must be placed with -102-

insurers with a current A.M.

Best Company
Rating
equivalent to
at least a Rating of
"A:VII."

10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Developer will, at its sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all federal, state, and local authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Property and will faithfully observe in the use of the Property all applicable laws. The judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, or the admission of Developer in any action or proceeding against Developer, whether City be a parry thereto or not, that Developer has violated any such ordinance or statute in the use of the Property will be conclusive of that fact as between City and Developer.

11. NOTICES. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to either party to this Agreement by the other party will be in writing and will be deemed served when personally delivered to the party to whom they are directed, or in lieu of the personal service, upon deposit in the United States Mail, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

Developer at:
16411 Bellflower, LLC
500 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 2120
Glendale, CA 91203
Attn: Jason Tolleson
City at:

City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706
Wn: City Manager
Either party may change its address for the purpose of this Section by giving written notice of the change to the other party.

12. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that agreements ancillary to this Agreement and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile transmission. Such facsimile signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

13. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement has been made in and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and exclusive venue for any action involving this Agreement will be in Los Angeles County.

14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The Development Agreement, this Agreement and its Attachments constitute the sole agreements between City and Developer respecting the subject -103-

matter, the use of the Public Parking by Developer, and the specified Agreement term, and correctly sets forth the obligations of City and Developer. Any agreement or representations respecting the subject matter or its licensing by City to Developer not expressly set forth in this instrument are void.

15. CONSTRUCTION. The language of each part of this Agreement will be construed simply and according to its fair meaning, and this Agreement will never be construed either for or against either party.

16. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written agreement. City's City Manager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of City.

17. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number or counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one instrument executed on the same date.

IN WITNESS WIIEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY:

CITY OF BELLFLOWER,
a municipal corporation
Jeffrey L. Stewart,
City Manager
ATTEST:

Mays Ochiqui,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger,
City Attorney
-104-
DEVELOPER:
16411 BELLFLOWER, LLC a
California Limited Liability Company
Jason Tolleson
Manager

n
Harvard St
Olive S2
Mayne St
Ook Sl
3 D
m Belmont Sr
it
3 Maple St
Parldng License Agreement
Exhibit 1
Property Location
£
m
Harvard St n
m
m
0 m
a
Be//ho
er
a
n m
a m F/o
c/f�9oe B a�!
£ a rd Sr
m N,
Mayne St MayneSt m e`BP

0. SITE
B�
Oak St Oak St
s
M
m 3
0 8
£ q
Belmont St
m
a Belmontst
taarel sr
a
Flower St
Maple St
Flower St
Meplo Sl
m
m
Flower St
Maple St
a B/4e 1`41,
k!
-105-
3 Flower St
3 D
k!
-105-

Parking License Agreement
Exhibit 2
Enlarged Site Plan — First Floor
MAYNE ST.
-106-

Parking License Agreement
Exhibit 2
Enlarged Site Plan — Second Floor
—lo�—
i
PAW
11W
�
I
I
1 I
i
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
}
I
I
—lo�—

Harvard S
& /,ff0Ap
> P4
.t 3 4pe mmol
odne s
Mayne 51
Ora u.
o
Moyne Sl �
Oak St Oik Sl
3 n eehrvint Sr eelmmmt SI
'l 3
Maple St
-108-
yaerei r
Flower SI
Parking License Agreement
Exhibit 3
Public Parking
Haim St m
4 6
a}
Maple Sf Maple St Maple St
SITE
BVOZ-N Zone
® PUBLIC PARKING LOTS & STRUCTURES
Flower St
.Y

Parking License Agreement
Assignment Agreement
Exhibit 4
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the day of 20, by and among
"Assignor") and a ("Assignee"),

RECITALS
A. 16411 Bellflower, LLC ("Assignor") entered into an Parking License Agreement No. ("License") with the City of Bellflower ("City") on for the purposes utilizing public parking lots and facilities ("Public Parking") located within the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ-N) for the located at .

B. Assignor desires to assign to Assignee and Assignee desires. to assume, without qualification, all rights and obligations of Assignor under the License. Upon execution of this Agreement and transfer to Assignee of the License, Assignor desires to be released from any and all obligations under the License.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, Assignor and Assignee hereby agree as follows:

1. Assignment by Assignor. Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and grants to Assignee, and its successors and assigns, all of Assignor's rights, interests, obligations, duties, responsibilities, conditions and restrictions under the License from and after the Effective Date (defined in Section 10 below).

2. Substitution
of
Assigrior.

Assignee hereafter will be substituted for and
replace Assignor
in the
License. Whenever the
term "Developer" appears in the License, it means
Assignee.

3. License in Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically provided herein with respect to the assignment, all the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of the License are hereby ratified and remain in full force and effect.

4. Assignee Address for Notices, The address of Assignee for the purpose of notices, demands and communications under are:

Attention:

Telephone:

With a copy to:

Attention:

Telephone:

Facsimile:
-109-

5I Apnlicable Law/ venue. This Agreement will be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to choice of law provisions. Any legal actions under this Agreement may be brought only in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

6. Interpretation. All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement, and this Agreement will be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting parry will not be employed in interpreting this Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) the plural and singular numbers will each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders will each be deemed to include the others; (c) "must," "will," or "agrees" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive; (d) "or" is not exclusive; and (e) "includes" and "including" are not limiting.

7. Headines. Section headings in this Agreement aze for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement.

8. Severability. Except as otherwise provided herein, if any provisions) of this Agreement is (are) held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement will not be affected, except as necessarily required by the invalid provisions, and remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties.

9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed to constitute an original, but all of which, when taken together, constitutes one and the same instrument, with the same effect as if all of the parties to this Agreement had executed the same counterpart.

10. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement is the date upon which Assignee obtains fee title to the Property and delivers evidence of the transfer to City ("Effective Date").

For the purposes of this Section, the evidence of transfer consists of a duly recorded deed and title report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have entered into this Agreement as of the date first above written.
[Signatures follow on separate page]
Dated: _
Assignors
16411 BELLFLOWER, LLC a
California Limited Liability Company
-110-

Jason Tolleson
Manager
Assignee:

—111—

BEL LWL04b
e st 5eport 11=A
TO:

The history
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION:

Jeffrey L. Stewart; City Manager
FROM:

Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning and Building Services Jason P. Clarke, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:

Consideration and possible action to 1) conduct a public hearing to consider a Mixed -Use Project at properties located at
16411 Bellflower Boulevard, 9735 Oak Street, and
9742 Mayne Street, within the Downtown Bellflower TOD
Specific Plan including, without limitation, residential and commercial buildings with a movie theater; 2) adopt
Resolution No. 20-29 - A Resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MND 20-01 and approving. a Mixed -Use
Development at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard, 9735 Oak Street, and 9742 Mayne Street within the Downtown Bellflower TOD Specific Plan which include residential and commercial uses including, without limitation, a movie theater (TOD PR 1-20-10630; VTM No. 82987; ACU 20-01; and CU 20-02); and 3) read by title only, waive further reading, and introduce Ordinance No. 1391 - An Ordinance approving Development Agreement File No. 837. 1, in a form approved by the City Attorney, by and between the
City of Bellflower and 16411 Bellflower, LLC, to facilitate development of the Property, including parking license agreements for some of the required off-street parking; Applicant and Developer:
16411 Bellflower, LLC.

DATE:

June 22, 2020

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
of the proposed Project is set forth in the accompanying draft Resolution and Ordinance. Approving the Project would allow redevelopment of City property that has been vacant since May 2008. The City Council previously selected the Applicant's parent company to develop the property into a Mixed -Use Project that includes (1) renovation of the existing vacant commercial building to a movie theater and retail/restaurant spaces with alcohol sales; and (2) the construction of a five -story, 91 residential condominium building. Adopting Ordinance No. 1391 would approve the Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant to facilitate development of the subject property, including parking license agreements. Adopting the Resolution would provide all other approvals for this Project.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Open the public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 20-29 and read by title only, waive further reading, and introduce Ordinance No. 1391; or
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

—112—

Staff Report — TOD Mixed -Use Project
AND 2041, TODPR 1-20-106301 CUP 20-01, ACU 20-01, VTM 82987 and AFN 837.1 June 22, 2020

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved, the project would create economic opportunity, as defined by Government Code § 52200.2 by creating jobs and increasing property tax revenues by at least 15%.

In addition to the land sale proceeds of $1,590,000, this Project at completion is estimated to generate property tax revenue at approximately $20,000 annually and sales tax revenue at approximately $30,000 annually,

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Herald American (Bellflower Edition) newspaper on June 11, 2020. Public hearing notices were sent on June 10, 2020, to 58 property owners within a 300' radius of the Project site. Public hearing notices were posted at City Hall, Bellflower Substation, Thompson Park, Simms Park, and Caruthers Park on June 10, 2020. Public notices were also posted on the subject site on June 8,. _ 2020, As of the writing of this staff report, the City has not received any correspondence.

CEQA STATUS
An initial study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15063 which showed that, if mitigated, the proposed Project would not cause any significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA § 21091, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impacts for the proposed Project.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND was published in the Herald American Bellflower Edition on May 7, 2020, and mailed to other appropriate public agencies. The 20 -day public review period for the MND began on May 7, 2020 and closed on May 27, 2020.

BACKGROUND
Pro ert Owner:

Ci
of Bellflower
General Plan Land Use
"NtU'" Mixed Use
Desi nation:

Zoning 'Classification:

Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development
Specific Plan (TOD SP), and includes the Town Center
(TC -1) District, Area 1 and the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North BVOZ-N
Property Size:
69,469 SF or 1.59 acres - (Parcel A: 20,736 SF + Parcel B:
48,733 SF
Current Development:
16411 Bellflower Boulevard —Vacant Building
9735 Oak Street — Parking Lot
9742 Mayne Street—Vacant Lot
Surrounding Land Uses
and Zoning:

North
City Parking Structure TODSP
South
Ci Parkin Lot and Commercial Businesses TODSP
West '
Multifamily Residential ODSP
.

East
Los Angeles County Fire Museum and Event Center
TODSP
—113—

Staff Report —TOD Mixed -Use Project
MND 20-01, TODPR 1-20A0630, CUP 20-01, ACU 2041, VTM 82987 and AFN 837.1 June 22, 2020

Previous Action
In April 2018, the City selected the Applicant/Developer's parent company (Serrano Development Group) following a competitive process as the best entity to develop the subject site to promote economic development in the downtown area. On July 81 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-59, to act as the Planning Agency for the Project.

On August 12, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-61 authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Applicant for the acquisition of the subject properties (Agreement File No. 837). On October 14, 2019, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1378, adopting The Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development Specific Plan ("TOD SP") / Specific Plan No. 8 to allow for mixed-use Transit -Oriented developments within the subject vicinity. This Project is the first project to be considered under the TODSP.

The following entitlements are being requested per the Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development Specific Plan (TODSP) and the Bellflower Municipal Code (BMC):

Transit -Oriented Development Project Review
Per Chapter 8.4 and Table 4.16 of the TODSP, the proposed Project involves a Transit Oriented Development Project Review to allow the construction of a Mixed -Use no ground floor residential) development. The proposed development consists of two parcels to be developed as:
o Parcel A (16411 Bellflower Boulevard) —Improvements include remodel/partial demolition of an existing commercial building into a 14,450 square -foot commercial space for a 9,350 -square foot movie theater (4 -room, 278 seats) and 5,100 -square foot commercial space, with a 4,750 -square foot leasable area for future retail/restaurant uses. Portions of the northeast corner of the building will be demolished for a 680 -square foot public plaza in front of the movie theater.

Portions of the building along the east property line will be removed and opened into a colonnade feature. In addition, outside seating/dining area with landscaping, adjacent Bellflower Boulevard is proposed.
o ParcelB (9735 Oak Street and 9742 Mayne Street) — Improvements include 91 residential condominium units, 139 parking spaces, and 650 square feet of commercial space. The residential component of the Project has a density of 57.2 dwelling units per acre and includes the following:
• Level 1 includes 139 at -grade parking spaces (131 spaces within the enclosed garage and 8 open parking spaces), the main lobby, and storage spaces, including bike storage. A 1,950 -square foot dog walk is also proposed on the ground level. Lastly, a 650 -square foot commercial space is proposed at the northeast comer of the building.
3 Level 2 includes 22 residential units, a leasing office, business center, game/recreation room, club room, and a podium deck with a swimming pool.

Level 3 includes 24 residential units, a roof garden, and a gym.

Level 4 includes 24 residential units and the roof access.

Level 5 includes 21 residential units.
—114—

Staff Report —TOD Mixed -Use Project
MND 20-01, TODPR 1-20406301 CUP 20-01, ACU 20-01, VTM 82987 and AFN 837.1 June 22, 2020

Transit -Oriented Development Project Review - Continued Overall, there are 39 2 -bedroom residential units and 52 1 -bedroom residential units, with several floor plan options. The floor areas of the residential units range from 650 square feet to 1,060 square feet. A total of 23,354 square feet of open space is proposed, in the form of 14,350 -square feet of common open space, 2,080 square feet of public open space and 6,924 -square feet of private patio decks for the residences. A total of 3,614 -square feet of landscaping is proposed throughout the development.

Both of the buildings on Parcel A and B will be designed with contemporary architectural features, incorporating various building materials on all four sides of the buildings.

Conditional Use Permits
A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow a public assembly use (278 -seat. movie theater).on Parcel A. Additionally, a -Conditional -Use Permit -is-requested-to=allow- for a five -story building height (56'4" without projections, and 59'-0" with projections), which exceeds the maximum building height, permitted by right, of 4 stories or 55 feet height.
• Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Public Convenience or Necessity An Administrative Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow ancillary on-site sale of alcohol. The alcohol sales are associated with the movie theater (Type 41 License:

On -Sale Beer and Wine — Eating Place) and future restaurant uses (Type 47 Licenses:

On -Sale General — Eating Place). Per the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) requirements, the Applicant requests that a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) would be served by allowing the requested alcohol licenses.

Information from ABC indicates that the subject site is located within a high crime district.

However, Staff has reviewed the proposed use with the Bellflower Public Safety Department and there are no concerns with the proposed alcohol sales. Additionally, the site is located within Census Tract No. 5542.04, where ABC allows up to four on -sale alcohol licenses. According to ABC data (Attachment C; Table 1.0), there are currently seventeen on -sale alcohol licenses (plus, one on hold due to construction) within the subject census tract.

Vesting Tentative Map
A vesting tentative map is requested to create two lots: Lot A -for the theater and retail useI and Lot B for creating 91 residential condominium units. The 650 -square foot ground floor retail space on Lot B will be a common area owned by the association and will not be a separate commercial condominium unit. The Fire Department and City Engineer reviewed the proposed Vesting Tentative Map, including access, and provided recommended conditions of approval and comments. Should the Vesting Tentative Map be approved, a Final Map would also be required to be submitted for City Council approval (Condition No. 64 of Resolution No. 20-29).
—115—

Staff Report —TOD Mixed -Use Project
AND 20-01, TODPR 1-2040630, CUP 2041, ACU 20-01, VTM 82987 and AFN 837 June 22, 2020

Development Agreement
Approval of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Bellflower and the Applicant is requested to facilitate development of the subject property, including parking license agreements that would allow transfer of the required 97 parking spaces for the commercial component and 9 guest parking spaces for the residential component. • Mitigated Negative Declaration
A gated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project. Per the MND, recommended mitigation measures are provided in "Section 5, Cultural Resources", "Section 7, Soils and Geology", and "Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials." • Parking
The following table summarizes the parking for the Project:

Parr -el A Parkinn Tahle
Use
Re uired
Provided
Notes
Use
Re uired
Provided
BMC § 17.48.125(A) Public Assembly
Uses. A parking license agreement is
Theater—Public Assembly
part of the DA to transfer parking to
278 fixed seats
70 0
public lots.

Residential Units
130*
130*
BMC § 17.48.210. A parking license
Theater — Non -Public Assembly
agreement is part of the DA to transfer
3,890 square feet in area
10 0
parking topublic lots.

BMC § 17.48.210. A parking license
Retail/Restaurant
9*
9*
agreement is part of the DA to transfer
4,750 square feet In area
12 1 0
1 parkingto public lots.

Parcel B Parkin Table
Parking for the Project is provided in three forms: covered parking spaces, guest/open parking spaces, and off-site parking spaces (with the approval of the DA). The parking spaces provided onsite include ADA spaces, tandem parking spaces, single stall parking spaces and open guest parking spaces adjacent to the one-way drive aisle. Per TODSP § 4.10.3(E)(3), some or all of the required off-street parking spaces may be transferred to designated off-site parking locations pursuant to an agreement approved by the City Council. Should the Development Agreement be approved, no additional parking or in lieu fees will be required for the Project.
—116—
Use
Re uired
Provided
Notes
*A ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit, inclusive
of guest parking, for the entire project is
required per the DA. A parking demand
Residential Units
130*
130*
studV was prepared,
*9 guest parking spaces are required on-
site per the DA. A parking license
agreement is part of the DA to transfer
Guest
9*
9*
additional quest parking to public lots.

Retail
BMG § 17.48.210. A parking license
(650 square feet in
agreement is part of the DA to transfer
area)
2 .0
parkingto public lots.

Parking for the Project is provided in three forms: covered parking spaces, guest/open parking spaces, and off-site parking spaces (with the approval of the DA). The parking spaces provided onsite include ADA spaces, tandem parking spaces, single stall parking spaces and open guest parking spaces adjacent to the one-way drive aisle. Per TODSP § 4.10.3(E)(3), some or all of the required off-street parking spaces may be transferred to designated off-site parking locations pursuant to an agreement approved by the City Council. Should the Development Agreement be approved, no additional parking or in lieu fees will be required for the Project.
—116—

Staff Report —TOD Mixed -Use Project
AND 20-01, TODPR 1-20-10630, CUP 20-02, ACU 20-01, VTM 82987 and AFN 837.1 June 22, 2020

Two documents were provided and reviewed: (1) a parking survey that addresses the availability of public parking within the vicinity; and (2) the parking demand study submitted by the Applicant, which addresses the parking demand for the residential component. The parking survey supports the request to transfer commercial and residential guest parking spaces to public parking lots and the parking demand study supports the provided parking for the residential component of the Project.

Recreational Facilities Credit
The Residential Component includes recreational facilities suitable to address the park and recreational needs of the tenants and residents. Up to 50% of the value of the private open space developed for active recreational facilities provided for the Project may be partially credited against the total Parkland Fees due, as authorized by BMC § 3.36.030 "Recreational Facilities Credit." The total Parkland Fees due is $689,586. The value of the private open space has been determined to be $1,732,800, of which 50% is eligible to be credited against the Parkland fees due. The Applicant is seeking a credit against the Parkland Fees due of 20°/b instead -of the maximum 50%of the valu-e of the private open space, which is $346,560. If approved, the Parkland Fees due to the City is $343,026.

Conclusion
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and findings can be made to approve the Project, as discussed in Resolution No. 20-29 and Ordinance No. 1391. (Attachments A & B) In addition, the proposed Project will not be detrimental to the existing community or surrounding neighborhood and will create additional housing and commercial opportunities. The Project helps with the City's vision to revitalize underutilized commercial areas or deteriorated commercial areas.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
No. 20-29 (Refer to attachment E for the MND 20-01, Initial Study & Appendices)......? B. Ordinance No. 1391 (Includes the Development Agreement)....................................30 C. ABC Correspondence, List of ABC Licenses (Table 1.0) and ABC Map.................145 D. Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity............................................................148 E. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MND 20-01 (See binder with attachments) F. Applicant's Application Submittal, Parking Demand Study and Project Plans —117—

DocuSign Envelope ID: F60E51DF-OBB3-476F-B01E-2C14461752A9

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. 20-29

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO, MND 20-01 AND APPROVING A MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT AT 16411 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD, 9735 OAK
STREET, AND 9742 MAYNE STREET WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN

BELLFLOWER TOD SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, A
MOVIE THEATER (TOD PR 1-20-1 0 6 3 0; VTM NO. 82987; ACU 20-01; AND CU 20-02); APPLICANT: 16411 BELLFLOWER, LLC

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:

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

A. In 2016, the City purchased 16411 Bellflower Boulevard and 9742 Mayne Avenue to assist in the revitalization of the Downtown. The City has owned the parking lot at 9735 Oak Street since approximately 1967; B. On April 24, 2018, the City issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the disposition and development of the Property. Serrano Development Group, Inc. ("Serrano"), an affiliate of Developer, prepared a proposal and responded to the RFP on June 14, 2018. City received five responses to the RFP and, through a competitive review process, selected Serrano's response; C. On October 22, 2018, the City selected Serrano via Agreement File No. 820, following a competitive process as the best entity to develop the subject properties with a mixed-use transit -oriented development that would enhance economic development and public welfare in the City;
D. On July 8, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-59, opting to act as the Planning Agency for the Project;
E. On August 12, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-61, authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement for Acquisition of real properties (Agreement File No. 837) between 16411 Bellflower, LLC (a related company to Serrano formed to complete the Project), and the City for the disposition of the subject properties;
F. On December 23, 2019, 16411 Bellflower, LLC ("Applicant"), filed a project application for the Bellflower TOD Mixed -Use Project (the "Project"), which includes (a) Transit -Oriented Development Project Review for the mixed-use development, (b) a Vested Tentative Map to create lots for condominium and commercial purposes, (c) an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales as an accessory use, along with a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity for the issuance of the requested alcohol licenses, (d) a Conditional Use Permit for the 278 -seat theater use, and (e) a Conditional Use Permit for the 5 -story building height (condominiums). The application was initially deemed incomplete. Revised plans were submitted on May 18, 2020, and deemed complete;

-118-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 20-29

G. The Director completed review and scheduled the public hearing before the City Council for June 22, 2020;
H. The application was reviewed by the Director for, in part, consistency with the General Plan, the Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development Specific Plan and conformity with the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC"); 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"); J. Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law;
K. On June 22, 2020, the City Council held a public hearing to receive and consider public testimony and other evidence regarding the project including, without limitation, Information provided to the City Council by Serrano; and L. The City Council considered the information provided by City Staff and public testimony, and Serrano. This Resolution, and its findings were made- based upon the entirety of the administrative record including without limitation, evidence presented to the City Council at its June 22, 2020, hearing.

SECTION 2. Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the following facts exist:

A. The Project includes: (1) remodel/
partial demolition of an existing commercial f
building into a 14,450 -square foot commercial space for a 9,350-0quare foot movie theater, and 5,100 -square foot commercial space, with a 4,750 -square foot leasable area for future retail/restaurant uses at 16411 Bellflower Boulevard ("Project Site"); and (2) a new, 5 -story, 138,600 -square foot mixed- use building with 91 residential condominium units, 650 square feet of commercial space, and 139 parking spaces at 9742 Mayne Street and 9735 Oak Street (included with the "Project Site");
B. The Project also includes subdividing three existing parcels to create two: 3 Parcel A - for the theater and retail use, and Parcel B - for creating 91 residential condominium units and retail use;
C. The Project Site is within Area 3/BVOZ-N area of the TOD SP, with a General Plan land use designation of "MU" (Mixed Use);
D. The Project Site is accessible from Bellflower Boulevard, an 80'-0" wide right-of-way secondary arterial street; from Mayne Street, a 50'4" wide right-of-way local street and from Oak Street, a 50'4" wide right -of -way -local street. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicated that the Project will generate j 2,207 new vehicle trips per day for both weekdays and weekends, including 39 trips during the AM peak hour and 115.trips during the PM peak hour; c
f

City of Bellflower
Resolution No, 20-29

E. The Project Site is bounded to the north by a City parking structure; to the south by commercial businesses and a City parking lot; to the west by multifamily residential units; and to the east by Los Angeles County Fire Museum and Event Center;
The Project Site is approximately 69,469 square feet (1.59 AC) in area and is comprised of three parcels: Parcel 1 (16411 Bellflower Boulevard) is a 20,736 - square foot lot that is developed with a one-story, 21,125 -square foot commercial building that has been vacant since May 2008; Parcel 2 (9742Mayne Street) is a 15,033.95 -square foot vacant lot; and Parcel 3 (9735 Oak Street) is a 33,699.05 -square foot site that is comprised of 11 lots, and is developed as a public parking lot with approximately 56 parking spaces.

There is currently an existing 15 -foot wide by 111 -foot long access easement between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2;
G. The proposed uses are compatible with the various existing businesses Iecated in the Downtown Area and the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone — North (BVOZ- N) area of the Downtown Bellflower Transit -Oriented Development Specific Plan (TOD SP) which include retail, restaurant, alcohol services and future comedy theater uses; .

H. Both of the proposed buildings on
contemporary architectural features,
on all four sides of the buildings.;
Parcel A -and B will be designed with
in
various building materials
I. The Properties are part of the City's gateway into the downtown and its revitalization is crucial for the economic revitalization of the downtown; J. Currently, the Properties on Bellflower BoulevardandMayne Street are vacant.

Improving all three Properties through private investment is a critical component of the City's overall plan for a thriving downtown; and K. The City Council's efforts in fulfilling the community's expectations for an inviting and attractive downtown is demonstratmd in a number of actions including, without limitation, the design and construction of a new Mayne Events Center and Fire Museum; complete refurbishment of downtown Bellflower Boulevard; the development and construction of the Regional Transit Center and Parking Structure; the Bellflower Business Assistance Program; and adoption of zoning overlays that incorporate various incentives for aesthetics and the development of existing and new businesses.

SECTION 3. Environmental Review.

Findings. The City Council finds as follows:

A. An Initial Study of Environmental Impacts and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA § 15063. -120-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 2049

B. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is deemed appropriate if it is determined that though a project could result in a significant effect, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant effects to less than significant levels. Pursuant to the .MND, recommended mitigation measures are provided in "Section 5, Cultural Resources", "Section 7, Soils and Geology", and "Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials."
C. The
MND was
made available
to
the
public for review and comment from
May
7, 2020, to
and including, May
27,
2020,
D. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 22, 2020, at which time evidence was heard on MND and staff report. At the hearing, the City Council fully reviewed and carefully considered the MND, together with any comments received during the public review period, and determined that the MND was consistent with CEQA.

E. When considering the whole record for the draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, there is no evidence that: the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends, because the project is in a built -out urban environment.

F. Accordingly, based upon the evidence presented to the City Council, the City need not prepare an environmental impact report for the proposed project.

Consequently, the City Council adopts the draft mitigated negative declaration.

SECTION 4. Notice of Determination. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with Pub. Res. Code §§ 21152, 21167(f); 14 CCR § 15094; and any other applicable law.

SECTION 5. General Plan and Zoning. The Land Ute Designation of the Project site is "MU" (Mixed Use). The Project conforms to the City's General Plan, TODSP and Title 17 (Zoning) of the BMC as follows:

A. The Land Use Designation of the Project is "MU" (Mixed Use). The project is
consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Land .Use Element:
1,
General Plan Land Use Element General Goa; 1: "Discourage disjoint land use patterns";
General Plan Land Use Element General Goal 2: "Create a City that functions efficiently, is aesthetically pleasing, and makes the best use of its various resources'

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 20.29

3. General Plan Land Use Element General Gcal 5: "Provide incentives for reinvestment in aging built -out developments and encourage consolidation of properties for higher quality land uses and designs'

4. General Plan an Use Element General Policy 1.1: "Provide land use designations which match actual viable uses";

5. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 1.2: "Encourage opportunities to sensitively integrate different, but compatible, land uses";

6. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.1: "Create opportunities wherein a population diverse in terms of income, age, occupation, race,' lifestyle, values, interest and religion may interact, exchange ideas, and realize common goals';

7. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.2: "Provide commercial facilities to meet the retail and service needs of the community';

8. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.12: "Develop strong themes identifying Bellflower as a city of visue." and community quality';

9. General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 2.15: "Encourage a, g: mater proportion of home ownership and owner occupancy of multi -family developments";

10. General Plan Land Use Element Mixed Use Policy 1: "Allow for innovative and/or neo -traditional uses in established areas';

11. General Plan Housing
"
types, including
residential/commercial
RHNA";
Element Policy 5.1: Provide a range of housing
higher density 11 family units, and
mixed-use in order to address the City's share. of

12. General Plan Housing Element 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 interactions";

3. General
Plan Housing Element Policy 5.3: "Encourage infill development and reuse of underutilized land, where reuse is consistent with desired neighborhood character'; and

14. General Plan Housing Element Policy 5.8: "Explore
opportunities for new
residential development within those areas of the Cify occupied by I:acant or underutilized obsolete commercial or industrial uses," -122-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 20-29