Bellflower City Council
February 13, 2023

11-A
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
FROM: Tae Rhee, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Anna Garan, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to 1) adopt Resolution No. 23-06 – A Resolution adopting the development impact fees for public facilities, park facilities, public safety facilities, and transportation facilities in accordance with Chapter 3.40 of the Bellflower Municipal Code; and 2) read by title only, waive further reading, and introduce Ordinance No. 1424 – An Ordinance repealing Chapter 3.24 and Sections 3.36.020 and

3.36.060 of the Bellflower Municipal Code, and adding a new Chapter 3.40, entitled “Development Impact Fees” to Title 3 of the Bellflower Municipal Code for the purpose of imposing fees on applicants seeking to construct development projects.

DATE: February 13, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City currently exacts two development impact fees (“DIFs”) from new development for public and park facilities. In September 2021, the City Council held a study session to consider adjustments to the existing DIFs. After review and discussion, the Council directed staff to work with Willdan Financial Services to add two new DIFs (for public safety and transportation facilities) in Willdan’s fee study. Additionally, the Council created a two-member Subcommittee (Council Members Dunton and Sanchez). At the Subcommittee Meeting in May 2022, the Subcommittee directed staff to make a recommendation to the Council to consider adopting the maximum justifiable fees for all four DIFs as calculated by Willdan. Willdan’s fee study was updated again in January 2023 to factor in new population, dwelling unit, employment, and occupant density information released by the California Department of Finance and U.S. Census Bureau. If adopted, the draft Ordinance would add a new Chapter 3.40 to the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) to collect all four of the proposed DIFs.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1)Open the public hearing; take documentary and testimonial evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 23-06 adjusting existing and adding new development impact fees; and
2)Read by title only, waive further reading, and introduce Ordinance No. 1424 to impose development impact fees for public, park, public safety, and transportation facilities; or 3)Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. - 1 -

Staff Report – Public Hearing - Development Impact Fees February 13, 2023

FISCAL IMPACT

If adopted, the DIFs are estimated to generate approximate additional revenue of $322,000 per year (based on the average of typical/normal development activities in the last four fiscal years). The actual DIF revenue will vary depending on the number and size of the new developments in the City. The following is only an estimate based on historical data.

Facilities Fees
Estimated Annual
Revenue Increase*
Public Facilities / General Government $ 15,000 Parks and Recreation 105,000
Public Safety 10,000
Transportation 192,000
Estimated Total Annual Revenue Increase $ 322,000

* Atypical large development projects in the past four fiscal years are not included in the fiscal impact calculation.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing was published twice in the Los Cerritos Community Newspaper on January 13 and 20, 2023. On January 13, 2023, a notice was provided in accordance with Government Code Section 66016 to Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison pursuant to their written request on file with the City Clerk’s Office (i.e., 14-day notice mailed to anyone who filed a written request for such notice before April 1 of each year), and a Public Hearing Notice was posted at City Hall, Brakensiek Library, Bellflower Substation, Thompson Park, and Simms Park.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

The Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act”) and other applicable law authorize the City to collect DIFs to offset impacts from “development projects.” The Act allows the City to impose DIFs for the purpose of defraying all or part of the costs of public facilities related to a new development. Without such mitigation, the increased demand for public facilities resulting from new development would cause the quality of a community’s public services to decline. DIFs must have a “reasonable relationship” to the impact of the development project upon public services/facilities.1 If the City charges more, then such a fee may be regarded as a special tax.2

1 see e.g., Government Code §§ 66001 and 66005.
2 Cal. Const., Art. XIII(A), § 4. - 2 -

Staff Report – Public Hearing - Development Impact Fees February 13, 2023

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION – Continued

Under the Act, the City may impose DIFs upon new development for “public facilities.” Such facilities are defined as “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.”3 This rather broad language, however, is restricted by Government Code § 65913.8 which states that a DIF “may not include an amount for the maintenance or operation of an improvement….”4 “Facilities” and “improvements” are also defined elsewhere in the Act to include, without limitation, “public buildings” and “[a]ny other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan.”5 In sum, DIFs cannot be used for employee salaries or other fringe benefits; DIF may only be used for equipment or physical improvements to public facilities as set forth in the Act.

To comply with the Act, the DIFs must:

1) Identify the purpose of the fee;
2) Identify the specific use of the fee;
3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; 4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is impose; and 5) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

The City currently collects park and public facilities impact fees for capital facility needs created by new development. These impact fees were originally adopted in 2006 and periodically adjusted using the adjustment factors approved at the time of the initial fee adoption. In 2021, the California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 602 which created new requirements for development impact fees. Most of the provisions of this new law became effective on January 1, 2022 with some provisions deferred to July 1, 2022.

AB 602 generally requires nexus studies adopted after July 1st to calculate development impact fees proportional to the size of a development project. To comply with this law, the “per dwelling unit” fees have been converted to “per square foot” fees. Agencies are also now mandated to update the nexus study every 8 years and large jurisdictions (counties with more than 250,000 people and cities in those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the study. AB 602 also added transparency requirements such as posting the total amount of all fees and exactions for completed projects, schedule of fees and requirements for a development project, and development impact fee reports and nexus studies on the agency’s website.

3 Government Code § 66001(d).
4 Government Code § 65913.8.
5 Government Code § 66002(c). - 3 -

Staff Report – Public Hearing - Development Impact Fees February 13, 2023

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION – Continued

On September 13, 2021, a City Council study session was held to present the updated amounts for the two existing development impact fees: public and park facilities. At that time, the City Council directed staff to work with Willdan Financial Services to add two additional fees for public safety and transportation facilities in Willdan’s nexus study. The City Council also formed a two-member Subcommittee (Council Members Dunton and Sanchez) at the same time to review the updated development impact fee nexus study for all four fees. On May 9, 2022, a Subcommittee Meeting was held and the Subcommittee directed staff to make a recommendation to the City Council to consider adopting the maximum justifiable fees as calculated by Willdan (see table below) after review and consideration of Willdan’s updated nexus study and various related issues.

Willdan’s nexus study was updated in January 2023 to reflect the new population, dwelling unit, employment, and occupant density information released by the California Department of Finance and U.S. Census Bureau. If adopted, the new and adjusted fees would become effective on April 28, 2023; this is 60 days after the second reading of the Ordinance (the Ordinance requires 30 days after second reading to become effective).

Maximum Justifiable Fee Amounts per Willdan’s Nexus Study, dated January 17, 2023 *The fees reviewed by the Subcommittee Members are also shown in Blue below for additional reference.

Land Use
Public/ Gen.

Gov’t
Parks and
Recreation Public Safety Transportation Total
Residential - per square foot
Single Family $ 1.64
*$1.72
$ 21.50
*$22.67
$ 0.13
*$0.14
$ 4.90
*$4.91
$ 28.17
*$29.44
Multi-family $ 1.96
*$1.71
$ 25.73
*$22.46
$ 0.16
*$0.14
$ 3.93
*$3.94
$ 31.78
*$28.25
Nonresidential - per square foot
Commercial $ 0.45
*$0.45
$ - $ 0.55
*$0.56
$ 8.66
*$8.69
$ 9.66
*$9.70
Office $ 0.70
*$0.70
$ - $ 0.85
*$0.86
$ 10.97
*$11.01
$ 12.52
*$12.57
Industrial $ 0.25
*$0.25
$ - $ 0.30
*$0.31
$ 5.17
*$5.19
$ 5.72
*$5.75

The following table was prepared to inform the City Council regarding nearby cities’ fees for the common types and sizes of developments in Bellflower – 1,400 sq. ft. for single family residential unit, 1,000 sq. ft. for multi-family residential unit, and 2,500 sq. ft. for fast-food restaurant with drive thru. Other cities may have a different way of calculating the development impact fees for a similar project so various assumptions have been taken to compare Bellflower’s fees. This comparison is only informational; it does not have a legal effect on the City’s DIF calculations.

Fee Comparison with Neighboring/Nearby Cities (based on common types and sizes of developments)

- 4 -

Staff Report – Public Hearing - Development Impact Fees February 13, 2023

Agency Name
Public/
Gen. Gov’t
Parks and
Recreation
Public
Safety
Transpor-
tation Other* Total
City of Bellflower
Single Family $ 2,296 $ 30,100 $ 182 $ 6,860 $ - $ 39,438 Multi-family 1,960 25,730 160 3,930 - 31,780 Commercial 1,125 - 1,375 21,650 - 24,150 City of Artesia
Single Family $ 5,495 $ 12,052 $ - $ 3,020 $ 7,779 $ 28,346 Multi-family 4,087 8,965 - 2,024 5,537 20,613 Commercial 2,803 - - 11,743 2,068 16,614 City of Downey
Single Family $ - $ 500 $ - $ - $ - $ 500 Multi-family - 380 - - - 380 Commercial - - - - - - City of Paramount
(assumes area of development is in a Multiple Residential or Planned Development with Performance Standards zones for park fees, and fire flow requirement of 0 to 750 g pm per 2 hours for water capital improvement fees ) Single Family
(3 bedrooms) $ - $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 1,320 $ 2,320 Multi-family
(3 bedrooms) - 1,000 - - 1,320 2,320 Commercial
(fast-food with 30
seats in a 32,000
sq. ft. lot) - - - - 1,332 1,332 City of Whittier
Single Family $ 963 $ 5,667 $ - $ - $ 1,063 $ 7,693 Multi-family 803 4,728 - - 886 6,417 Commercial - - - - - -
City of Cypress (transportation includes regional traffic improvement fees) Single Family $ - $ 23,421 $ - $ 647 $ - $ 24,068 Multi-family - 23,421 - 552 - 23,973 Commercial - - - 51,125 - 51,125 City of Long Beach
Single Family $ - $ 4,613 $ 703 $ 1,125 $ 496 $ 6,937 Multi-family - 3,563 537 1,125 378 5,603 Commercial - - 1,105 7,500 668 9,273
City of Lakewood (assumes land cost is $60.38 per sq. ft., 8 single family units per acre and 22 multi-family units per acre; This fee only applies to residential development occurring in subdivisions) Single Family
(per unit) $ - $ 15,774 $ - $ - $ - $ 15,774 Multi-family
(per unit) - 12,257 - - - 12,257 Commercial - - - - - -

City of Cerritos does not have any development impact fees.

*Other column includes various types of development impact fees such as fire, community center/aquatic, sewer, storm drain, water capital improvement, library, etc. - 5 -

Staff Report – Public Hearing - Development Impact Fees February 13, 2023

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION – Continued

Staff recommends removing BMC § 3.36.020 and § 3.36.060 governing the parkland dedication fee. BMC § 3.36.060, allows a developer to use an appraisal report to pay lower park fees. Repealing this provision will promote equity among fee payers and prevent larger developers from producing appraisal reports that will always result in lower fees for their developments. BMC § 3.36.020, allows developers to receive a fee discount on the second dwelling unit (the discount is recaptured in the event a third unit is constructed). AB 602 now requires a fee imposed on a housing development project to be calculated “proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.” To satisfy this new legal requirement, the City’s fixed fees were converted into the per square foot-based fees. Accordingly, second dwelling units that are generally smaller in size will now be charged lower fees under AB 602 without the need for BMC § 3.36.020.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 23-06 ................................................................................................. 7

2. Exhibit A to Resolution No. 23-06 – Development Impact Fee Update Study (Nexus Report) dated January 17, 2023 .................................................................. 11

3. Ordinance No. 1424 ................................................................................................. 62

- 6 -

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

RESOLUTION NO. 23-06

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR

PUBLIC FACILITIES, PARK FACILITIES, PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES,

AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHAPTER 3.40 OF THE BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that:

A. New land development generates impacts on public services and public facilities for which revenues generated through property taxes and other means are generally insufficient to accommodate;

B. It is the City’s objective to provide the highest and most efficient level of public services and public infrastructure financially possible;

C. The General Plan for the City of Bellflower requires that adequate urban services be available to meet the needs of new development;

D. It is the City’s intent and desire to have developers pay for their fair share of public costs associated with new development while at the same time facilitating growth that is in the public interest;

E. The imposition of impact fees is one of the preferred methods of ensuring that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities necessary to accommodate such development. This must be done in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare;

F. The City Council may establish development impact fees for public safety, general facilities, transportation, and parks under the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000-66025) and the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477);

G. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) for the purposes of calculating development impact fees;

H. The fees established by this Resolution are derived from, are based upon, and do not exceed the costs of providing capital facilities necessitated by the new land developments for which the fees are levied;

- 7 -

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-06

I. The report entitled “Development Impact Fee Update Study” dated January 17, 2023 (“Fee Study”), prepared by Willdan Financial Services, sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for the determination of the impact of new development on the need for and costs for additional capital facilities improvements in the City. The Fee Study is adopted and attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference;

J. City Council evaluated the Fee Study, and approved the fee schedule identified in Section 3 of this Resolution;

K. Pursuant to Government Code § 66016, the City made data available regarding the cost, or estimated cost, of providing services for the proposed public facility impact fees 10 days before the public hearing held on February 13, 2023;

L. On February 13, 2023, the City Council heard public testimony and considered evidence in a public hearing held and noticed in accordance with Government Code §§ 66016 and 66018 and closed the public hearing;

M. After careful consideration, including a review of the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted during the public hearing, the City Council finds that the imposition of impact fees to finance major public facilities is in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and its residents and workers, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on new development;

N. At the recommendation of the City’s Departments and the City Manager, the City Council believes that it is in the public interest to establish the recommended fees to recover costs;

O. On February 13, 2023, the City Council approved a statutory exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and adopted this draft Resolution; and

P. This Resolution relies on the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted to the City during the public hearing held on February 13, 2023, City Council meeting in addition to such additional information that may be in the administrative record.

SECTION 2. Calculation of Development Impact Fees.

A. The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report (aka “Fee Study”), prepared by Willdan Financial Services calculates fees for public, parks, public safety, and transportation facilities that would fund the fair share cost to new development for additional capital facilities and equipment improvements;

- 8 -

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-06

B. The study is based on a planning horizon of build-out of all available land within the City;

C. The level of development fees in the Fee Study is based on a reasonable methodology to determine the impacts and costs of new development;

D. The City may adopt development impact fees up to the amounts legally justified in the Fee Study;

E. For any change in use or uses, if the new use or uses are in a fee category that has fee amounts greater than the existing use or uses, then the additional impact fees will be an amount equal to the difference between the impact fees for the new use or uses and the impact fees for the former use or uses.

SECTION 3. Schedule of Development Impact Fees. Based upon the methodology identified in Section 2 and City Council direction at the public hearing, the development impact fees are established as follows:

Land Use
Public/ Gen.

Gov’t
Parks and
Recreation
Public
Safety Transportation Total
Residential - per square foot
Single Family $ 1.64 $ 21.50 $ 0.13 $ 4.90 $ 28.17 Multi-family 1.96 25.73 0.16 3.93 31.78
Nonresidential - per square foot
Commercial 0.45 - 0.55 8.66 9.66 Office 0.70 - 0.85 10.97 12.52
Industrial 0.25 - 0.30 5.17 5.72

SECTION 4. Fee Adjustment. Unless otherwise revised, the fees established by this Resolution will be automatically adjusted on an annual basis beginning on July 1, 2025.

SECTION 5. Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance with the Public Resources Code (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; “CEQA”) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14, Code §§ 15000, et seq.; “CEQA Guidelines”), the proposed resolution is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges). CEQA does not apply to the establishment of the public facilities mitigation fees as the fees are for the purpose of a) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; and b) obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. This Resolution, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15273.

- 9 -

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-06

SECTION 6. Effective Date of this Resolution. This Resolution will become effective upon second reading of Ordinance No. 1424. The development impact fees that are established pursuant to Section 3 of this Resolution and imposed upon development projects become effective on April 28, 2023. Building plans that are submitted to the City of Bellflower for plan check and that are determined to be complete by the Planning Director, or designee (that is, detailed architectural plans including dimensioned site plan, floor plans, elevations, and structural plans, and all plan check application fees were paid to the City) submitted before April 28, 2023, are exempt from the regulations contained in this Resolution and are subject to the City’s existing impact fees. Excluding any time extension granted by the City’s Building Official, completed building plans expire within one year unless the City issues a valid building permit. Thereafter, an applicant must submit new building plans and pay all impact fees pursuant to this Resolution. Any dispute regarding the Planning Director’s final determination that (a) building plans are incomplete; or (b) whether complete plans were submitted before April 28, 2023, must be appealed pursuant to the BMC. Any dispute regarding the amount of impact fees due for a project must be appealed pursuant to the BMC.

SECTION 7. City Clerk. The City Clerk will certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

SECTION 8. 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 9. 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 THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023.

________________________________
Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor
ATTEST:

________________________________
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

ATTACHMENT:

Exhibit A – Development Impact Fee Update Study dated January 17, 2023 - 10 -

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
STUDY

FINAL

JANUARY 17, 2023

Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
- 11 -

This page intentionally left blank.

- 12 -

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 Background and Study Objectives 3
Facility Standards and Costs 3
Use of Fee Revenues 4
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 4

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 6
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................. 9 Land Use Types 9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 9
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 11

3. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES............................................ 13 Service Population 13
Existing Facilities Inventory 14
Cost Allocation 14
Fee Revenue Projection 15
Fee Schedule 16

4. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ........................................... 18 Service Population 18
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 18
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 20
Park Facility Standards 21
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 21
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 22
Use of Fee Revenue 22
Fee Schedule 23
Alternative Funding Sources 24

5. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ........................................................ 26 Service Population 26
Existing Facility Inventory 26
Planned Facilities 27
- 13 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
ii

Cost Allocation 28
Existing Level of Service 28
Future Level of Service 28
Fee Revenue Projection 29
Fee Schedule 30

6. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ..................................................... 31 Trip Demand 31
Trip Demand Growth 32
Existing Transportation Facilities Inventory 33
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 33
Use of Fee Revenue 34
Fee Schedule 34

7. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 36 Compliance with AB 602 36
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 36
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 36 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 38

8. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 39 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 39
Inflation Adjustment 39
Reporting Requirements 39
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 41

9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 42 Purpose of Fee 42
Use of Fee Revenues 42
Benefit Relationship 42
Burden Relationship 43
Proportionality 43
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 44 - 14 -

3 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Bellflower through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
• General Government Facilities
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Public Safety Facilities
• Transportation Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.

The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches commonly used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements in this study.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s two- year CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the general government and transportation facilities fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. This approach is also used to support a specific demand standard identified by policy in a City’s General Plan. This approach is used for the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of - 15 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

4 facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. This approach is used to calculate the public safety facilities fees this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur during the 18-year planning horizon assumed in this study, the City may need to update and revise the project lists funded by the fees documented in this study. Any substitute projects should be funded within the same facility category, and the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to new development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates the CIP. The impact fees could also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
General
Government
Parks and
Recreation Public Safety Transportation Total
Residential - per Square Foot
Single Family 1.64$ 21.50$ 0.13$ 4.90$ 28.17$ Multifamily 1.96 25.73 0.16 3.93 31.78 Nonresidential - per Square Foot
Commercial 0.45$ -$ 0.55$ 8.66$ 9.66$ Office 0.70 - 0.85 10.97 12.52 Industrial 0.25 - 0.30 5.17 5.72 Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.8, 5.7 and 6.6.
- 16 -

5 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Bellflower. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
▪ Public Facilities Financing in California;
▪ Study Objectives;
▪ Fee Program Maintenance;
▪ Study Methodology; and
▪ Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
▪ The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ▪ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
▪ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projecti ons. The maximum justified fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands.

The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.

Bellflower is forecast to see moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Bellflower has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and - 17 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

6 facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 8.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 8.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule. Calculate fees per square foot of residential by dividing fee per unit by average unit square footage; and

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
▪ Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. - 18 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

7 ▪ Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
▪ Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilit ies required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
Several approaches can be used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.

This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs in this study: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantag es of each method is summarized below:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. The existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through a biennial CIP and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the general government and transportation facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. This approach is also used to support a specific demand standard identified by policy in a City’s General Plan. This approach is used for the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report. = cost per unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
- 19 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

8 System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in Comprehensive Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.

This approach is used to calculate the public safety facilities fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 6 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
• General Government Facilities
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Public Safety Facilities
• Transportation Facilities
Chapter 7 describes how this nexus study complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9. = cost per unit of demand
- 20 -

9 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2022 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development in 2022 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ▪ The estimate of total development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. ▪ Estimates of growth from 2022 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Single family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings (Includes single family homes and townhomes).
▪ Multifamily: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes and condominiums. Also includes detached units on multifamily zoned lots. ▪ Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, lodging, and service development. ▪ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. ▪ Industrial: All warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, and other industrial development.

Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. If a project results in the intensification of use, at its discretion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legislature recently amended requirements on local agencies for the imposition of development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU) with Assembly Bill AB 68 in 2021. The amendment to California Government Code §65852.2(f)(2) stipulates that local agencies may not impose any impact fees on ADU less than 750 square feet. ADU greater than 750 square feet can be charged impact fees in proportion to the size of the primary dwelling unit. - 21 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

10 Calculating Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units For ADUs greater than 750 square feet, impact fees can be charged as a percentage of the single family impact fee. The formula is:

𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑐 𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑝
𝑃𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑦 𝑅𝑐𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑐 𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑝 × 𝑅𝑖𝑙𝑔𝑙𝑐 𝐹𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑝 𝐹𝑐𝑐 = 𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝐼𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑝 𝐹𝑐𝑐

In the case of an 800 square foot ADU and a 1,600 square foot primary residence, the impact fees would be 50 percent (800 square feet / 1,600 square feet = 50%) of the single family dwelling unit fee.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Bellflower, both in 2022 and in 2040. The base year estimates of household residents come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of residents is based on the increase in dwelling units identified in the City’s 2021 ‐ 2029 Housing Element, multiplied by average existing residents per dwelling unit from DOF data.

Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude local government (public administration) employees. Total projected workers were estimated by assuming that the jobs/housing balance remains constant. - 22 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

11 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2022 2040 Increase
Residents 1 76,490 88,033 11,543
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 14,586 16,743 2,157
Multifamily 10,675 12,253 1,578
Total 25,261 28,996 3,735
Employment 3
Commercial 5,735 6,600 865
Office 10,053 11,570 1,517
Industrial 1,370 1,577 207
Total 17,158 19,747 2,589
1 Current population from California Department of Finance. Projection based on increase in dwelling units from 2021 ‐ 2029 Housing Element (3,735), multiplied by average existing residents per dwelling unit from American Community Survey data (3.0906).
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap.

Excludes public administration employees. Projection based on maintaining jobs: housing ratio to 2040.

Sources: City of Bellflower 2021-2019 Housing Element; California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Base year from CA DOF. Increase based on Quantified Objectives identified in the City's Housing Element. Assumes proportion of single family to multifamily units remains constant.

Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

This conversion is done with average household size factors that vary by dwelling unit square footage, shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Bellflower from the 2021 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
- 23 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

12 Table 2.2: Occupant Density Assumptions
Residential
Single Family 3.31 Residents per dwelling unit
Multifamily 2.83 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

- 24 -

13 3. General Government Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of general government facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing standard of general government facilities in the City of Bellflower to ensure that new development provides adeq uate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
General government facilities serve both residents, visitors, and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents, visitors, and workers.

Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general government facilities. Residents and visitors are assumed to create an equal amount of demand for general government facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31- weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non- work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for general government facilities.

Table 3.1: General Government Facilities Service
Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2022)76,490 1.00 76,490
New Development 11,543 1.00 11,543
Total (2040)88,033 88,033
Workers 1
Existing (2022)17,158 0.31 5,319
New Development 2,589 0.31 803
Total (2040)19,747 6,122
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2022)81,809
New Development 12,346
Total (2040)94,155
Note: Service population is rounded to the nearest whole number.

Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour work week out of a possible 128 non-work hours in a week (40/128 = 0.31)

- 25 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Study Update
14 Existing Facilities Inventory
The City’s general government facilities inventory is comprised of the City Hall, City Yard, Mayne Events Center and Regional Transit Center. The value of these facilities is the assumed replacement cost. The land value is based on the weighted average of land sales in Bellflower provided by CoStar for the past 3 years. In total the City owns approximately $55.6 million worth of general government facilities. Table 3.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of general government facilities.

Table 3.2: Existing General Government Facilities Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
City Hall 2.15 2,630,000$ 5,654,500$
City Yard 1.86 2,630,000 4,891,800
The Mayne Events Center and Fire Museum 0.28 2,630,000 733,635 Regional Transit Center and Parking Structure 0.68 2,630,000 1,777,725 Subtotal - Land 4.96 13,057,660$
Buildings (square feet )
City Hall 30,569 370$ 11,310,530$ City Yard
Administration 2,360 185 436,600$ Operations 14,079 185 2,604,615 Yard Center 3,356 185 620,860 Central Equipment 10,093 185 1,867,205 Water Warehouse 1,951 185 360,935 The Mayne Events Center and Fire Museum 22,190 498 11,055,000 Regional Transit Center and Parking Structure 103,461 114 11,759,500 Subtotal - Buildings 188,059 40,015,245$
Vehicles & Equipment 2,502,818$
Total Facilities 55,575,723$
Sources: City of Bellflower; Appendix Table A.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Table 3.3 shows the calculation of the existing facilities standard per capita for general government facilities. This cost is calculated by dividing the total existing value of all general government facilities by the existing service population. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the cost per worker. - 26 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Study Update
15 Table 3.3: General Government Facilities
Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 55,575,723$
Existing Service Population 81,809
Cost per Capita1 679$
Facility Standard per Resident 1 679$
Facility Standard per Worker1, 2 210
1 Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
2 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use general government facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add capacity to the City’s general government facilities to serve new development. Table 3.4 shows the projected fee revenue based on the growth in service population identified in Table 3.1.

Table 3.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 679$
Growth in Service Population (2022- 2040)12,346
Fee Revenue 8,382,934$
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3.

The City should program fee revenue to capacity expanding projects through its CIP and budget process. The City’s current facilities CIP is shown in Table 3.5. Note that the costs in Table 3.5 do not drive the fee calculation. Rather, the costs shown in the table indicate the initial uses of impact fee revenue. Additional projects will need to be identified to meet the City’s facility standards as new development occurs.
- 27 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Study Update
16 Table 3.5: General Government Facilities CIP
Project Name Description FY 21-22 FY 22-23 Total
Belmont Theater Miscellaneous
Improvements
As needed improvements at
Belmont Theater property 10,000$ 10,000$ 20,000$ City Hall A/V System Upgrades A/V system upgrades at City Hall 90,000 - 90,000
City Hall Miscellaneous
Improvements
As needed improvements at
City Hall 10,000 10,000 20,000
Maintenance Yard
Miscellaneous Improvements
As needed improvements at
Maintenance Yard 10,000 10,000 20,000
Maintenance Yard Office
Construction
Construction of offices at City
Maintenance Yard 1,530,000 - 1,530,000 The Mayne Events Center A/V
System Upgrades
A/V system upgrades at The
Mayne Events Center 60,000 - 60,000 Arkansas St. Parking Lot Parking lot improvements - 770,000 770,000 Artesia Blvd. Parking Lot Parking lot improvements - 600,000 600,000 Total 1,710,000$ 1,400,000$ 3,110,000$
Source: City of Bellflower Operating Budget 2021-2023.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the maximum justified general government facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment dens ities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage for each type of dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
- 28 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Study Update
17 Table 3.6: Maximum Justified General Government Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Avg.

Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family 679$ 3.31 2,247$ 45$ 2,292$ 1.64$ Multifamily 679 2.83 1,922 38 1,960 1.96 Nonresidential
Commercial 210$ 2.12 445$ 9$ 454$ 0.45$ Office 210 3.26 685 14 699 0.70 Industrial 210 1.16 244 5 249 0.25 3 Assumes average single family unit is 1,400 square feet and average multifamily unit is 1,000 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.3.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
1 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. - 29 -

18 4. Parks and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the parks and recreation facilities impact fee is to fund the parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the City’s identified General Plan standard for parks.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in Bellflower primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities.

Table 4.1: Park and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2022)76,490
Growth (2022 to 2040)11,543
Total (2040)88,033
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Bellflower maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table

4.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2022. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 52.34 acres of City-owned improved parkland, and 0.26 acres of City-owned unimproved land.
- 30 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
19 Table 4.2: Parkland Inventory
Facility
Owned
Acres
Improved
Acres
Undeveloped
/ Passive
Community Parks
Caruthers Park 20.67 20.67 -
Simms Park 12.53 12.53 -
Thompson Park 13.83 13.83 -
Riverview Park 1, 2 3.90 15.00 -
Subtotal 50.93 62.03 -
Neighborhood Parks
Constitution Park 2 - 3.00 -
Friendship Square - - 0.26
Pirate Park 0.12 0.12 -
Zinn Park2 - 3.00 -
Subtotal 0.12 6.12 0.26
Pocket Parks
Hanwell Ave. at Brightly St.0.05 0.05 -
McNab Ave. South of Foster Rd.0.02 0.02 - Bixby Ave. Island 0.09 0.09 -
Artesia Blvd. At Passage Ave.0.01 0.01 -
Palm and Clark Streets 2 - 0.20 -
Library Garden 0.57 0.57 -
Civic Plaza 0.55 0.55 -
Subtotal 1.29 1.49 -
Total - All Park Facilities 52.34 69.64 0.26 2 The City leases these parks, but has paid for the improvements. 1 City owns 3.9 acres of 15.0 acre site.

Sources: City of Bellflower.

Table 4.3 displays the City’s inventory of special use facilities, including pools, community centers, and recreation support facilities. The total cost of these facilities is divided by the existing park acres to determine an existing special use facilities cost per improved park acre. - 31 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
20 Table 4.3: Special Use Facilities Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost
Total
Replacement
Cost
Community Centers
Simms Park Social Hall 4,800 Sq. Ft.370$ 1,776,000$ Caruthers Park Activity Building 2,100 Sq. Ft.370 777,000 Subtotal 6,900 2,553,000$
Special Use Facilities
Aquatic Center (Thompson Park)18,425 Sq. Ft.370$ 6,817,250$ Pools 2 Pools 2,957,000 5,914,000
Thompson Park Gymnasium 14,500 Sq. Ft.370 5,365,000 Simms Park Gymnasium 26,495 Sq. Ft.370 9,803,150 Simms Park Concession Facility 1,280 Sq. Ft.370 473,600 Simms Park Outdoor Fitness Center1 4,690 Sq. Ft.93 436,200 Caruthers Park Concession Facility 4,800 Sq. Ft.370 1,776,000 Caruthers Park Outdoor Fitness Center1 1,260 Sq. Ft.60 75,500 Subtotal 71,452 30,660,700$
Recreation Support Facilities
Maintenance Garages and Shops 4,322 Sq. Ft.185$ 799,570$ Thompson Park Announcer's Building/Ballfield Stands 1,296 Sq. Ft.185 239,760 Subtotal 5,618 1,039,330$
Vehicles and Equipment 253,021$
Total 83,970 34,506,051$
Improved Park Acres 69.64
Special Use Facilities per Improved Park Acre 495,492$
1 Unit cost calculated by dividing total cost by square footage. Unit cost rounded to nearest whole dollar.

Sources: City of Bellflower; Appendix Table A.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 4.4 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Bellflower. The land cost assumption was based on an analysis of recent land sales within the City of Bellflower using data from CoStar. An estimate of $440,000 per acre for standard parkland improvements is based on the City’s prior impact fee study and has been adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars. The land value is based on the weighted average of land sales in Bellflower provided by CoStar for the past three years. In total, it costs approximately $3.6 million to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in Bellflower.
- 32 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
21 Table 4.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost per
Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Improvements
Standard Park Improvements1 440,000$
Special Use Facilities 495,492
Total - Improvements 935,492$ 26%
Land Acquisition 2,630,000 74%
Total Cost per Acre 3,565,492$ 100%
Sources: Table 4.3, Willdan Financial Services.
1 Standard park improvement costs are conservatively estimated at $440,000 per acre for basic park and field amenities such as basketball or tennis courts, parking, outdoor restrooms, tot lots, irrigation, turf, open green space, pedestrian paths, and picnic tables. Cost estimates based on Willdan experience with other clients. Excludes special use facilities, calculated separately.

Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded park facilities. The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. This study uses the parkland standard of

2.5 acres per 1,000 residents adopted in the City’s most recent General Plan to calculate a fee to be imposed under the Mitigation Fee Act.1
The City will also use the Quimby Act to impose a parkland dedication requirement. The Quimby Act would allow for a minimum standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents to be used for parkland dedication and/or in lieu fee calculations if that standard was supported by an adopted standard in either a general or specific plan. Consequently, the City of Bellflower General Plan standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents constrains use of the Quimby Act to the General Plan standard.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 4.5 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the General Plan standard. In this case, the standard under the Mitigation Fee Act and under the Quimby act is the same. To maintain the standard by the planning horizon new development must fund the purchase and improvement of 28.86 parkland acres, at a total cost of $102.9 million.

1 City of Bellflower General Plan: 1995-2010, December 2004; Goals, Policies, Implementation Programs.

Open Space/Recreation Element, page 3.
- 33 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
22 Table 4.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total
Parkland (Quimby Act or Mitigation Fee Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita)A 2.50 2.50 Service Population Growth (2022 to 2040)B 11,543 11,543 Facility Needs (acres)C = A x B/1000 28.86 28.86 Average Unit Cost (per acre)D $ 2,630,000 $ 935,492 Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $75,901,800 $ 26,998,299 $102,900,099 Sources: Tables 4.1.

Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 4.6 shows the cost per capita of providing new park facilities at the Quimby standard, and the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.

The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of parkland dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland acquisition. This fee is payable by residential development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act Fees for park improvements.

Table 4.6: Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Cost per
Acre
Park
Standard1
Cost per 1,000
Residents
Cost per
Resident
Fee Category A B C = A x B D = C / 1,000
Land (Quimby)2 2,630,000$ 2.50 6,575,000$ 6,575$ Land (Mitigation Fee Act)2 2,630,000 2.50 6,575,000 6,575 Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)935,492 2.50 2,338,700 2,339 1 Acres per 1,000 residents.

Sources: Table 4.4.
2 Quimby Act applies to subdivisions. Mitigation Fee Act applies to infill development. A development project either pays the Quimby Fee in lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for park improvements.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park and recreation facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland and open space and construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage - 34 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
23 of existing facilities needed to serve new development. The City should program fee revenue to capacity expanding projects through its CIP and budget process. The City’s current parks CIP is shown in Table 4.7. Note that the costs in Table 4.7 do not drive the fee calculation. Rather, the costs shown in the table indicate the initial uses of park impact fee revenue. Additional projects will need to be identified to meet the City’s park standards as new development occurs.

Table 4.7: Park Facilities CIP
Project Name Year Cost
Thompson Park Improvements FY 2022-23 175,000$
Caruthers Park Improvements FY 2022-23 110,000
Youth and Senior Center FY 2022-23 10,719,000
Total 11,004,000$
Source: City of Bellflower Operating Budget 2021-2023.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for parkland acquisition, and parkland improvements. These investment factors (shown in Table 4.6) are based on the unit cost estimates and the City’s existing facility standards.

Table 4.8 shows the maximum justified park and recreation facilities fee based on the existing standard per capita under the Quimby Act and under the existing park standard under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factors from Table 2.2. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage for each type of dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
- 35 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
24 Table 4.8: Maximum Justified Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Avg.

Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee Charge 1 Total Fee Sq. Ft.2 Single Family
Parkland 6,575$ 3.31 21,763$ 435$ 22,198$ Improvements 2,339 3.31 7,742 155 7,897 Total 8,914$ 29,505$ 590$ 30,095$ 21.50$ Multifamily
Parkland 6,575$ 2.83 18,607$ 372$ 18,979$ Improvements 2,339 2.83 6,619 132 6,751 Total 8,914$ 25,226$ 504$ 25,730$ 25.73$ 2 Assumes average single family unit is 1,400 square feet and average multifamily unit is 1,000 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.6, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Alternative Funding Sources
The analysis contained in this report uses the General Plan standard of 2.5 acres for parkland, a higher standard than the standard that the City currently provides. The City’s existing parkland standards (for land and park improvements) and the General Plan standard are shown in Table

4.9 below. Note that the City currently provides 52.60 acres of land and 69.64 acres of improved parkland.

Table 4.9: Existing and Quimby Standards
Land Improvements
Park Acreage 52.60 69.64
Service Population (2022)76,490 76,490
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 0.69 0.91 Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.50 2.50 Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

In order for the City to achieve the desired General Plan standard for existing development, it will need to purchase and/or otherwise provide approximately 138.63 additional acres of parkland and improve 121.59 acres with park improvements. These calculations are shown in Table 4.10 below.
- 36 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
25 Table 4.10: Park Facilities Needed to Achieve General Plan Standard for Existing Service Population
Land Improvements
Park Acreage Standard 2.50 2.50
Existing Service Population 76,490 76,490
Total Acreage Needed 191.23 191.23
Existing Acreage 52.60 69.64
Acreage Needed to Meet Standard 138.63 121.59 Source: Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.9.

The City will need to identify funding sources other than fee revenue from new development to increase the supply of parkland to achieve the desired stan dards. If alternative funding is not obtained new development will have contributed more than existing development towards park and open space facilities and would have paid too high a fee. Alternative funding sources could include but are not limited to General Fund revenue, grants, or donations. Any new or increased tax would require two-thirds voter approval. Any new or increased assessment would require a majority property owner approval.
- 37 -

26 5. Public Safety Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of public safety facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the system standard of public safety facilities in the City of Bellflower to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 5.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for public safety facilities.

Workers are weighted at 4.70 of residents based on an analysis of call data from October 2020 to September 2021.

Table 5.1: Public Safety Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2022)76,490 1.00 76,490
New Development 11,543 1.00 11,543
Total (2040)88,033 88,033
Workers 1
Existing (2022)17,158 4.70 80,643
New Development 2,589 4.70 12,168
Total (2040)19,747 92,811
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2022)157,133
New Development 23,711
Total (2040)180,844
Note: Service population is rounded to the nearest whole number.

Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are weighted at 4.7 times the demand of residents based on an analysis of City of Bellflower calls for service from October 2020 through September 2021.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s public safety facilities inventory is comprised of various vehicles and equipment. The City contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department for police services and does not own any public safety buildings or lan d at this time. Table 5.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of public safety facilities, including equipment and vehicles. - 38 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
27 Table 5.2: Existing Public Safety Facilities Inventory Equip #Year Type of Equipment Quantity Unit Cost
Original/
Replacement
Cost
Equipment
N/A N/A Portable Radios 11 1,538$ 16,918$
N/A N/A Mobile Radios 5 1,694 8,470
N/A 2017 SAO Vests 5 2,120 10,600
N/A 2020 CSO Vests 8 641 5,128
N/A 2021 Detective Vests 9 1,514 13,626
Subtotal 54,742$
Vehicles
125 2008 Ford Ranger 15,718$
126 2020 Ford Police Explorer 4 Door SUV 38,167
127A 2013 Stalker Solar Powered Radar Feedback Trailer 9,419 130 2011 Ford Ranger 18,778
131A 2013 Ford Fusion 31,142
133 2002 Ford Ranger 16,079
134A 2013 Ford Fusion 27,840
136 2020 Ford Police Explorer 4 Door SUV 38,167
137 2020 Ford Police Explorer 4 Door SUV 38,167
138 2006 Ford Ranger 14,141
139 2007 Ford Ranger 15,000
140 2022 Ford F250 54,908
Subtotal 317,526$
Total 372,268$
Source: City of Bellflower.

Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned public safety facilities needed to serve the City, as identified by City staff. The City plans to build a police substation, purchase surveillance equipment and install license plate reader cameras throughout the City to add capacity to accommodate new development. The total cost of the identified facilities is $9.5 million. - 39 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
28 Table 5.3: Planned Public Safety Facilities
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Police Substation1 12,000 767$ 9,200,000$
Electronic Surveillance Equipment 205,000
License Plate Reader Cameras 72,000
Total Cost 9,477,000$
Source: City of Bellflower.
1 City estimate. Includes construction, design, construction management fixtures, furnishings and equipment.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.” Table 5.4 expresses the City’s current public safety facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can provide adequate public safety services throughout the City.

Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 372,268$
Existing Service Population 157,133
Cost per Capita1 2$
Facility Standard per Resident 1 2$
Facility Standard per Worker1, 2 9
1 Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
2 Based on a weighting factor of 4.70.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for public safety facilities. The planned facilities will serve both existing and new development, so the costs of the planned facilities are allocated to both existing and new development using this methodology.

This cost standard is calculated by dividing the total value of all public safety facilities in 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting - 40 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
29 factor of 4.70 to determine the value per worker. The resulting standard is the cost standard that will be achieved when all the facilities are realized, and new development has come online.

Table 5.5: Public Safety Facilities - System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 372,268$
Value of Planned Facilities 9,477,000
Total System Value (2040)9,849,268$
Future Service Population (2040)180,844
Cost per Capita1 54$
Facility Standard per Resident1 54$
Facility Standard per Worker1, 2 254
1 Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
2 Based on a weighting factor of 4.70.

Sources: Tables 5.1,5.2 and 5.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use public safety facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of public safety facilities to serve new development. Table 5.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 5.1. The City should program public safety facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue approximately $8.2 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned public safety facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.

Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 54$
Growth in Service Population (2022- 2040)23,711
Fee Revenue 1,280,394$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 9,477,000
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified (8,196,606)$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5.
- 41 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
30 Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified public safety facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage for each type of dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 5.7: Public Safety Facilities Fee - Maximum Justified Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Avg.

Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family 54$ 3.31 179$ 4$ 183$ 0.13$ Multifamily 54 2.83 153 3 156 0.16 Nonresidential
Commercial 254$ 2.12 538$ 11$ 549$ 0.55$ Office 254 3.26 828 17 845 0.85 Industrial 254 1.16 295 6 301 0.30 3 Assumes average single family unit is 1,400 square feet and average multifamily unit is 1,000 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.
1 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

- 42 -

31 6. Transportation Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for transportation facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.

Trip Demand
The need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.

The two types of trips adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
▪ Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. ▪ The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system.

These adjustments allow for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose and length into account for fee calculation purposes.

Table 6.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The trip rates come from ITE. The pass-by trip assumptions and trip length assumptions come from SANDAG. The surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses.
- 43 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
32 Table 6.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors
Primary
Trips1
Diverted
Trips1
Total
Excluding
Pass-by1
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjust-
ment
Factor3 ITE Category
PM Peak
Hour
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B C = A + B D E = C x D F G = E x F
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 86%11%97%7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing (210)0.99 1.10 Multifamily 86%11%97%7.9 1.11 Multifamily Housing (220)0.57 0.63 Nonresidential - per Employee
Commercial 47%31%78%3.6 0.41 Shopping Center (820)1.80 0.74 Office 77%19%96%8.8 1.22 General Office Building (710)0.45 0.55 Industrial 79%19%98%9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial (110)0.49 0.63 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 47%31%78%3.6 0.41 Shopping Center (820)3.40 1.39 Office 77%19%96%8.8 1.22 General Office Building (710)1.44 1.76 Industrial 79%19%98%9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial (110)0.65 0.83 Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips with no midway stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips whose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. 4 Trips per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. From ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate. 2 In miles. Based on SANDAG data.
3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemwide average trip length of 6.9 miles.

Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 6.2 lists the 2022 and 2040 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and employment to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new development.

Table 6.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Demand
Trip
Land Use
Demand
Factor
Units /
Employees Trips
Units /
Employees Trips
Units /
Employees Trips
Residential
Single Family 1.10 14,586 16,045 16,743 18,417 2,157 2,372 Multifamily 0.63 10,675 6,725 12,253 7,719 1,578 994 Subtotal 25,261 22,770 28,996 26,136 3,735 3,366 Nonresidential
Commercial 0.74 5,735 4,244 6,600 4,884 865 640 Office 0.55 10,053 5,529 11,570 6,364 1,517 835 Industrial 0.63 1,370 863 1,577 994 207 131 Subtotal 17,158 10,636 19,747 12,242 2,589 1,606 Total 33,406 38,378 4,972
87%100%13%
Note: Trips rounded to the nearest whole number.

Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.1.
2022 2040 Growth 2022 to 2040

- 44 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
33 Existing Transportation Facilities Inventory
The City of Bellflower has made considerable investments in its transportation infrastructure.

Table 6.3 summarizes the City’s existing transportation inventory in 2022. As new development occurs, that development will need to fund these same types of facilities to ensure that the City can maintain its existing level of service. In total, the City owns $204.1 million worth of worth of transportation facilities.

Table 6.3: Existing Transportation Facilities Inventory Infrastructure
Type
Length
(Feet)1
Avg.

Width
(Feet)Area Units Unit Cost2
Total
Replacement
Cost
Roadways
Arterials 213,840 34 7,184,746 Square Feet 3.50$ 25,146,611$ Collectors / Local 448,272 32 14,186,877 Square Feet 2.85 40,432,599 Total 65,579,210$
Curbs and Gutters 1,119,360 NA NA Linear Feet 65$ 72,758,400$ Sidewalks 1,381,883 Square Feet 10.67$ 14,744,688$ Drive Aprons 1,232,939 Square Feet 13$ 16,028,203$ Curb Ramps 1,473 Curb Ramps 5,266$ 7,756,818$ Signals NA NA 74 Intersections 350,000$ 25,900,000$ Streetlights 147 Streetlights 9,000$ 1,323,000$
Total Traffic Facilities Replacement Cost 204,090,319$
1 40.5 miles of arterials and 84.9 miles of collector streets. 5,280 lineal feet per mile. 2 Roadway unit costs based on data from 2021 Update of Pavement Management Program. Curb and gutter replacement costs based on data from 2015 ADA Transition Plan. Sidewalk, drive apron and curb ramp costs based on data provided by the City from the most recent on-call concrete bids. Signals and streetlight unit costs based on data from other recent Willdan clients.

Sources: 2021 Update of Pavement Management Program; 2015 ADA Transition Plan; City of Bellflower; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a replacement cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet) fees by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 6.4 displays the calculation of the cost per trip demand unit. The existing facilities replacement cost is divided by the growth in trip demand from Table 6.2 to determine the cost per trip needed to accommodate new development. This figure drives the fee calculation. - 45 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
34 The table also shows a projection of fee revenue. The cost per trip is multiplied by the projected growth in trips to calculate the total fee revenue generated by the fee.

Table 6.4: Cost per Trip to
Accommodate Growth
Value of Existing Inventory 204,090,319$
Existing Trip Demand 33,406
Cost per Trip 6,109$
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use transportation facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add capacity to the system of transportation facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. The City should program fee revenue to capacity expanding projects through its CIP and budget process. The City’s current transportation CIP is shown in Table 6.5.

Projects that are rehabbing or retrofitting existing facilities have been excluded from this list. Note that the projects shown in the CIP are not intended to be fully funded with transportation facilities impact fee revenue; rather, they are capacity expanding projects that are eligible for impact fee revenue. The exact amount of impact fee revenue programmed to a given project will be determined though the City’s capital planning process.

Table 6.5: Transportation Facilities CIP
Project
Total Project
Cost
Citywide Annual Concrete Improvements 2,842,544$
Lakewood Blvd. Traffic Signal Improvements 1,450,000
Pavement Management System 38,000
Traffic Signal Improvements at Lakewood Blvd. and Alondra Blvd.1,002,000 Total 5,332,544$
Source: City of Bellflower CIP FY 2021 to 2023.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.6 shows the maximum justified transportation facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to these amounts. The maximum justified fees are based on the cost per trip identified in Table 6.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 6.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage for each type of dwelling unit.
- 46 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
35 The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 6.6: Maximum Justified Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Avg.

Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential
Single Family 6,109$ 1.10 6,720$ 134$ 6,854$ 4.90$ Multifamily 6,109 0.63 3,849 77 3,926 3.93 Nonresidential
Commercial 6,109$ 1.39 8,492$ 170$ 8,662$ 8.66$ Office 6,109 1.76 10,752 215 10,967 10.97 Industrial 6,109 0.83 5,070 101 5,171 5.17 1 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 3 Assumes average single family unit is 1,400 square feet and average multifamily unit is 1,000 square feet.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

- 47 -

36 7. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to, the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Three key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are general government and transportation facilities. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita or per trip is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For park facilities fees, which are calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that new development funds park facilities at the General Plan level of service, 2.50 acres per 1,000 residents. The City’s existing level of service is shown in Table 4.9.

3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The public safety facilities fees calculated under this methodology. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified by the City as necessary to serve the entire City. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities.

The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the increase level of service through any other funding source. The public safety facilities fee chapter includes a table that shows the existing level of service a nd future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Table 7.1 reviews the key assumptions from the original 2006 study and compares them to the assumptions used in this 2023 fee study. The table compares the studies’ planning horizons, projected growth, and facility standards per capita.
- 48 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
37 Table 7.1: Review of 2006 Study Assumptions
2006 Study 2023 Study
Planning Horizon 2025 2040
Projected Growth
Projected Increase - Residents 7,850 11,543 Projected Increase - Employment 7,710 2,589 Facility Standards
Cost per Capita - General Government Facilities 201$ 679$ Cost per Capita - Park Facilities 4,819$ 8,914$ Sources: City of Bellflower Public Facilities Fee Study, 2006; Tables 2.1, 3.3 and 4.7, Willdan Financial Services.

Table 7.2 displays annual park and general government facilities impact fee revenue collected between 2006 and 2022. The table also displays the average annual revenue during this time.

Table 7.2: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
Park Facilities
General
Government
Facilities
2021-22 495,634$ 133,843$
2020-21 344,985 27,875
2019-20 210,278 20,285
2018-19 335,857 53,865
2017-18 331,944 43,912
2016-17 132,676 16,296
2015-16 242,211 34,122
2014-15 50,284 10,978
2013-14 63,505 18,561
2012-13 19,631 6,266
2011-12 3,949 5,993
2010-11 25,533 6,889
2009-10 52,548 7,845
2008-09 63,600 8,001
2007-08 84,789 22,470
2006-07 53,941 8,757
Total 2,511,365$ 425,958$
Annual Average 156,960$ 26,622$
Source: City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee FY 2021-22 Annual and FY 2016-21 Five-Year Reports.
- 49 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
38 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP and City staff. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study. - 50 -

39 8. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires th e City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index ( https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division- Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation. The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California.

The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2022).

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Table 8.1 summarizes the annual and five-year reporting requirements identified in the Mitigation Fee Act.
- 51 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study

40 Table 8.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and thepurpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated tocomplete financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees.
(F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any).

Inflationary
Adjustment
1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description.

Sources: California Government Code §66001 and §66006.
- 52 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
41 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects if those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities and provide benefit to new development. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. - 53 -

42 9. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
▪ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees documented by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
▪ Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees documented in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: general government facilities, parks and recreation facilities, public safety facilities and transportation facilities.

Benefit Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities, infrastructure and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.

Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. - 54 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
43 Burden Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted differently than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standard sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
▪ Determine how there is a r easonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the maximum justified facilities fees.
- 55 -

44 Appendix

Table A.1: General Government Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Equip #Year Type of Equipment
Original/
Replacement
Cost
806 2004 Ford F-150 $ 26,564
807 2004 Ford F-150 26,564
808 2020 Ford Police Explorer 4 Door SUV 40,859 809 2020 Ford Police Explorer 4 Door SUV 40,859 23 2018 Toyota Highlander 47,429 132 2001 Ford Van 19,872
201 2012 Ford F-450 Paint Truck 101,627 202A 2013 Cat-Loader B-920 148,934 204 1996 Essick Vibrating Roller V-30-3EH 8,700 205 1995 Le-Roi Compressor Q185DJE 12,000 206 1998 Wacker Ride-On Roller RD880 12,000 207 1998 Wacker T4000 Trailer 2,894 209A 2013 Vibratory Walk Behind Roller 10,411 211 2000 Carson Box Trailer 1,472 212 1999 VonArx FR200 Concrete Grinder 1,808 213A 2015 Ford F550 Graffiti Truck 144,970 214 2004 Roadline Paint Striper Model 8900 759-892 5,858 216 2008 SASE Concrete Grinder SC10E 7,724 220 1998 Honda 3" Water Pump WT30XK2C 1,610 225 2006 Landa Water Blaster on TrailerPG630221 3,500 226 2006 Zipper Asphalt Grinder 73,556 227 2013 Asphalt Zipper Hitch Mounted Water Tank & Pump 4,672 228 2018 America Water Works Pressure Washer with Trailer AWW-503537E/G 11,087
300 2004 Ford F-150XL Lightbar 27,917 301 2004 Ford F-150XL 27,917
302 2004 Ford F-150XL Lightbar 27,917 303 2009 Ford F-250 SD 42,576
304 2004 Ford F-150XL With Rack and Arrowboard 27,917 305A 2016 Ford F-250 Lightbar 47,588 306B 2020 Stihl Weed Trimmer FS111R 350
307 1997 Ford F-800 Dump 48,200 308A 2014 Ford F-250 46,723
309A 2014 Stihl Hedge Trimmer HL 100A 0-135-CA 412 311A 2014 Ford F-250 Light Bar, Rack 46,723 312 2008 Ford 12' BedDump Truck 38,000 313B 2020 Echo HandBlower PB2620 190 Source: City of Bellflower.

- 56 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
45 Equip #Year Type of Equipment
Original/
Replacement
Cost
317 2009 Ford F250-SD $ 42,576
319 1998 MK9000 Concrete Saw 1,825 320 1997 Paint Striper Trailer 600 321 2011 ExMark 36" Mulch Mower 5,277 322A 2014 Honda MowerHRC-216 975 323 1994 Flex-O-Lite Arrowboard Trailer 4,300 324 1995 Hotsy Steam Cleaner 2,967 325 2019 Stihl BR450 Back Pack Blower 385 326 1972 Essick Concrete Mixer SE-6979 1,500 327A 2019 Stihl Back Pack Blower BR450 385 328B 2019 Power Trim Edger 4HP Honda 750 329 2000 Honda Lawnmower 944 330A 2020 Stihl Weed Trimmer FS 111R 350 332A 2018 Power Trim Edger 308-H 685 333 2005 SDI/TargetSprayer Trailer 6,865 334 1979 Kelco Sand Blaster K2250 5,700 335A 2014 Stihl Hedge Trimmer HS81 R30 390 337A 2017 Stihl Hedge Trimmer HL 94 478 338A 2018 Stihl Hedge TrimmerHS82R 30" 448 340 2002 Ford F-150 Lightbar 23,503 341 2002 Ford F-150 23,503
342 2002 Ford F-150 23,503
343A 2019 Ford F-250 44,230
345 2003 Ford F-150 18,190
347 2003 Ford F-150 Direction Light Bar 18,190 350 2019 Ford F-250 Light Bar 44,230 351 2008 Chevrolet Silv / 2500 HD Service Body 27,999 352 2017 Ford F250 49,667
353 2010 Sthil Weed Trimmer 345 355 1986 Homelite Generator E2250-1 700 356 2012 Stihl Back Pack Blower BR430 325 357A 2019 Ex-Mark Turf Tracer S-Series TTS481CKA36300 5,541 358 2013 Exmark Turf Tracer S-Series 5,479 Source: City of Bellflower.

Table A.1: General Government Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Continued

- 57 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
46 Equip #Year Type of Equipment
Original/
Replacement
Cost
361 2018 Solar-Tech Arrowboard Trailer AB-0525 $ 5,194 362 2019 Ford F650 Dump Truck 91,200 363 2020 Ford F350 Steel Body Dump 51,634 412 1998 Gravely Pro-Vac Turf-Vac Model 992001 6,820 416 2007 Kubota Utility Vehicle RTV-900 12,517 423 2012 Echo Handheld Blower PB255CLN 155 432A 2015 Toro Groundmaster 360 Riding Mower 26,129 434 2011 Honda Hydostatic Commercial Mower HRC-216HXA 1,065 435 2012 Stihl Weeder FS100RX 275 440 1996 Competative Trailer Flatbed Model U/T RP0400 731 442A 2013 Taylor Dunn Electric Cart Model B0-T48-48 12,052 456 1998 Honda Quad A.T.V. 4,547 457 1987 Ariens Roto-Tiller Model 901016 1,400 501 2008 Ballfield Pro Groomer 3,712 502 1999 Clark Floor Buffer 1,500 504A 2014 Kubota Utility Vehicle 14,000 505 2018 Stihl Portable Pressure Washer RB 400 602 512 1994 Gravely Pro Vac Turf Vac 942001 10,400 513 2006 Blue Bird Aerator 25" 2,680 518 1999 Triple S Floor Machine Model SSS-
19A1Spec#36J191X814G1 480
520A 2018 Stihl Hedge Trimmer HS82R 491 522A 2018 Stihl BR700 Back Pack Blower 482 523B 2020 Echo Hand Blower PB255LN 208 530 2012 Echo Hand Blower PB255LN 155 531 1997 Genie AWP-30S Platform 6,200 Source: City of Bellflower.

Table A.1: General Government Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Continued

- 58 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
47 Equip #Year Type of Equipment
Original/
Replacement
Cost
533 2012 Stihl Weeder FS100RX $ 275 535 2008 Exmark Triton 60" Rotary Mower LXS25KD605 11,949 539B 2019 Stihl Weeder FS111R 367 604 2004 Ford F-150XL With Rack 27,917 613 2004 Gravely Pro Vac Turf Vac 1050 10,774 616 2005 Kubota Utility Vehicle 12,313 618 2004 SDI Sprayer 5.5/GX160 Model 11254200/KGXX 4,500 621 2012 Echo Hand Blower PB255CLN 155 623 2012 Stihl Weeder FS100RX 275 624 1998 Lincoln Ranger 9 250 amp Portable Wire Feed Welder U1960908438 4,950
625 2009 Honda Trash/Water Pump Model WT20XXK3A 1,028 630 1995 Competative 14" Flatbed w/ramp trailer 1,407 637 1987 American Trailer Box Trailer 1,200 639 2014 Power Trim Edger 308-H 654 642 2011 Taylor Dunn Electric Utility Vehicle B0-T48-48 12,024 706 2001 Campbell & Housfeld Compressor Model WL650001AJ Pump WL390001AJ 200
710 2004 Toro Aerator Model 44850 5,806 712B 2018 Stihl 30" Hedge Trimmer HS-82R 491 716 2014 Kubota Utility Vehicle 13,853 720A 2018 Honda Mower HRC216K3HXA 1,094 722 2012 Echo Hand Blower PB255CLN 155 725 1997 Big-TexTrailer Tilt 421 726 2000 Sidewalk Vac 28,598
Source: City of Bellflower.

Table A.1: General Government Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Continued

- 59 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
48 Equip #Year Type of Equipment
Original/
Replacement
Cost
727A 2020 Carson Box Trailer Model BL101 5X10 $ 2,091 728 2007 Carson Box Trailer 1,929 732A 2014 Toro Groundmaster 360 Riding Mower 25,154 733 2013 Toro Groundmaster 5910 Rotary Mower 100,027 742 2005 Taylor Dunn Electric Utility Vehicle Model B2-48-TT 9,756 800 2004 Ford F-150XL 27,917
804 2004 Ford F-150XL 22,902
903 2001 Ford 550 Aerial Tower 75,900 905 1997 Ford Tractor 545 42,567 906 1999 Chevrelot 3500HD Flatbed Dump Removed Lift Gate 39,282 907 2006 Chevrolet 3500 w/Lift Gate 29,133 908 2008 Ford F-350 SD 42,576
909 2009 Ford F-350 SD 42,576
910 2020 Ford F-350 SD 58,529
921 1987 GMC 6000 Flatbed Dump 39,000 925A 2020 Stihl Chain Saw MS-261CM 534 926 2010 Stihl Chain Saw MS260 390 927A 2018 Stihl Chain Saw MS251 18" Bar 307 928 2012 Sthil Chain Saw MS261-20 459 929A 2019 Stihl Chain SawMS251 307 931 2010 Stihl Chain Saw 390 936 2012 Stihl Chain Saw MS 261 427 939 2009 Stihl Small Chain Saw 532 940 2020 Stihl Small Chain Saw TOP-HDL 25CC 349 1101 1987 John Deere Generator G0659600 W/Disco Trlr 38,000 1108 2008 Honda Portable Generator Model EU6500ISA 3,211 1109 2009 Honda Portable Generator Model EB6500XA 2,332 1110 2013 Honda Portable Generator EU2000i 1,003 Total $ 2,502,818
Source: City of Bellflower.

Table A.1: General Government Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Continued

- 60 -

City of Bellflower Development Impact Fee Update Study
49 Table A.2: Park and Recreation Vehicle and Equipment Inventory Equip #Year Type of Equipment
Original/
Replacement
Cost
Trolley 1990 Chance Coach $ 40,000
120 1996 Ford Ranger 16,195
135 2002 Whisper Watt Light Tower Model DA-70000SS 8,046 550 1999 Ford E-350 Econoline Van 27,782 551 1995 Pace American Trailer Boxed/Brim 6,161 552 2000 BRIM Trailer 6,553
553 2001 Ford E-350 Cargo Van 25,680 633 1998 Ford E-350 20 Passenger Bus 42,115 1103 2004 MQ Generator Model DCA-45SSIU3 23,684 1104 2005 Whisper Watt 7KW/Generator 14,803 1105 2005 Whisper Watt Generator 14,000 1106 2007 Whisper Watt Generator 14,000 1107 2007 Whisper Watt Generator 14,000 Total $ 253,021
Source: City of Bellflower.
- 61 -

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

ORDINANCE NO. 1424

AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 3.24 AND SECTIONS 3.36.020 AND 3.36.060 OF THE BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 3.40, ENTITLED “DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES”
TO TITLE 3 OF THE BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE

PURPOSE OF IMPOSING FEES ON APPLICANTS SEEKING TO

CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

THE CITY COUNCIL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

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

A. New land development generates impacts on public services and public facilities for which revenues generated through property taxes and other means are generally insufficient to accommodate;

B. Impact fees are desirable and necessary for the City to more fully pay for the public costs of new growth and development;

C. It is the City’s intent and desire to have developers pay for their fair share of public costs associated with new development while at the same time facilitating growth that is in the public interest;

D. The City is mindful of the constitutional limitations and restrictions verified by cases such as City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., et al. (1999) 526 U.S. 687, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, and Nolan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n (1987) 483 U.S. 825, and Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. This Ordinance is intended to, and does, comply with such constitutional limitations on the City’s police powers;

E. The Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000, et seq.) enables and encourages the City to enact appropriate development impact fees;

F. The imposition of impact fees is one of the preferred methods of ensuring that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities necessary to accommodate such development. This must be done in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare; and

G. The fees established by this ordinance are derived from, are based upon, and do not exceed the costs of providing capital facilities necessitated by the new land developments for which the fees are levied;

H. The City assumes the responsibility for and is committed to providing public facilities at levels necessary to cure any existing deficiencies in already developed areas. Impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter will not be used to cure existing deficiencies in public facilities; and

- 62 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

I. To the extent that new development in designated benefit areas places demands upon public facilities, those demands should be satisfied by shifting the responsibility for financing the provision of such facilities from the public to the development creating the demands; and

J. The report entitled “Development Impact Fee Update Study” dated January 17, 2023, (and as may be revised from time to time) sets forth reasonable methodology and analysis for the determination of the impact of new development on the need for and costs for additional capital facilities improvements in the City.

K. After careful consideration, including a review of the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted during a public hearing on February 13, 2023, the City Council finds that the imposition of impact fees to finance specified major public facilities in designated benefit areas is in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and its residents, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on new development.

L. It is in the public interest to adopt this ordinance for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.

SECTION 2: A new Chapter 3.40, entitled “Development Impact Fees,” and consisting of §§ 3.40.010 to 3.40.130, is added to Title 3 of the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) to read as follows:

“Chapter 3.40

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

§ 3.40.010 PURPOSE.
§ 3.40.020 APPLICABILITY.
§ 3.40.030 EXEMPTIONS.
§ 3.40.040 DEFINITIONS.
§ 3.40.050 NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS.
§ 3.40.060 IMPOSITION OF FEES/AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENT.
§ 3.40.070 IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS.
§ 3.40.800 USE OF IMPACT FEE PROCEEDS.
§ 3.40.090 REFUNDS.
§ 3.40.100 PROTESTS, APPEALS, AND AUDITS.
§ 3.40.110 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES.
§ 3.40.120 CREDITS.
§ 3.40.130 CONFLICTS.

- 63 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

3.40.010 PURPOSE. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the city’s police powers and the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000, et seq.) for the purpose of imposing fees on applicants seeking to construct development projects. The purpose of such fees is to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the impact that new development has on the city’s public services and public facilities. Toward that end, the city intends that development projects pay their fair share of the costs of providing such public services and public facilities.

3.40.020 APPLICABILITY. Unless expressly excepted or exempted, this chapter applies to all fees imposed by the city to finance public facilities attributable to new development, including without limitation:

A. General Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment;

B. Community, Activity and Sports Facilities, Centers and Equipment;

C. Public Safety Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment;

D. Road Project Construction, Right-of-Way Acquisition, and Engineering;

3.40.030 EXEMPTIONS. This chapter does not apply to:

A. Taxes and special assessments;

B. Fees for processing development applications;

C. Fees for enforcing regulations;

D. Fees collected under development agreements;

E. Fees imposed pursuant to a reimbursement agreement between the city and a property owner for that portion of the cost of a public facility paid for by the property owner which exceeds the need for the public facility attributable to, reasonably related to, and roughly proportional to the development;

F. Certain accessory dwelling units identified by California law;

G. Fees to mitigate impacts on the environment; or

H. Fees imposed, levied or collected by other governmental agencies including subdivisions of the state and federal government.

- 64 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

3.40.040 DEFINITIONS. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions will govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:

A. “Benefit area” means the geographic area within which impact fees are collected and expended for a particular type of capital improvement serving development projects within such area.

B. “Capital improvement” means land or facilities for the collection and disposal of stormwaters and for watershed preservation purposes; for purposes of transportation and transit, including without limitation, streets, street lighting and traffic-control devices and supporting improvements, roads, overpasses, bridges, airports, and related facilities; for parks and recreational improvements; for public safety, including police and fire facilities; for schools and child care facilities; for libraries and public art; for public buildings of all kinds; and for any other capital project identified in the city's Capital Improvements Plan. Capital improvement also includes design, engineering, inspection, testing, planning, legal land acquisition and all other costs associated with construction of a public facility.

C. “Capital Improvements Plan” means the long-term plan for capital improvements, adopted by the City Council, describing the estimated cost of capital improvement projects and identifies sources of funding for capital improvement projects.

D. “Capital Improvements Project List” means the list attached to a Council resolution setting the base fee amount for each specific impact fee.

E. “Collection” means the point in time at which the impact fee is actually paid over to the City.

F. “Commitment” means earmarking impact fees to fund or partially fund capital improvements serving new development projects.

G. “Dwelling unit” means one or more rooms in a building or a portion of a room, designed, intended to be used, or actually used for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping quarters, and containing one kitchen only, and includes a mobile home, but not hotel or motel units.

H. “Impact fee” means any monetary exaction imposed by the City as a condition of or in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or some of the cost of or repayment of costs previously expended from other City funds for capital improvements relating to the project.

- 65 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

I. “Impose” means to determine that a particular development project is subject to the collection of impact fees as a condition of development approval.

J. “New development” or “development project” means and includes any project undertaken for the purpose of development including, without limitation a project involving requiring a permit for construction, reconstruction, or change of use, but not a project involving a permit for operating, remodeling, rehabilitating, or improving an existing structure, nor the rebuilding of a structure destroyed or damaged through natural disaster, nor the replacement of one mobile home with another on the same pad if no dwelling unit is added.

K. “Nonresidential development project” means all development other than residential development projects.

L. “Residential development project” means, except as provided by applicable law, any development undertaken to create a new dwelling unit or units.

3.40.050 NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS.

A. Any legislative action adopting an ordinance, resolution, or other legislative enactment adopting a new impact fee or approving an increase in an existing fee must be accomplished in accordance with Government Code § 66018.

B. Any costs incurred by the City in conducting public hearings required by this section may be recovered as a part of the impact fees which are the subject of the hearing.

3.40.060 IMPOSITION OF FEES/AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENT.

A. Except as otherwise provided, persons submitting applications seeking approval for new development projects must pay the City impact fees, in an amount set by city council resolution, as a condition for the City to approve such development projects.

B. Except as otherwise provided by law, no tentative or final subdivision map, parcel map, grading permit, building permit, final inspection, or certificate of occupancy, or other development permit, may be approved unless the provisions of this section are fulfilled.

C. Impact fees will be imposed by including substantially the following language in any document of development approval:

“All fees imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of the Bellflower Municipal Code must be paid to the City before this project is approved.”
- 66 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

D. Except for residential development projects, the City’s Planning Director or designee will collect impact fees before the City issues a building permit, except that the connection fees are collected at the time an applicant seeks to connect to the City’s utility system. For residential development projects, the City’s Planning Director or designee will collect impact fees upon final inspection or the date that a final certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever comes last.

E. Unless otherwise provided by city council resolution, the impact fees established by this chapter will be automatically adjusted on an annual basis at the beginning of each fiscal year with a maximum annual increase of 5% by applying the percentage change of the Los Angeles Construction Cost Index (CCCI) for the prior 12 month period ending on April 30 published by Engineering News-Record (ENR). The first impact fee adjustment cannot be made before a minimum of 10 months after the effective date of this Section.

3.40.070 IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS.

A. The City must establish an impact fee account for each benefit area and for each type of capital improvement for which an impact fee is imposed.

Impact fees collected must be deposited in each such account according to type of improvement and benefit area. The funds of the account cannot be commingled with the City’s other funds. Any account previously established for the deposit of funds which would have been developer impact fees under this chapter are deemed an impact fee account for the purposes of this chapter.

B. Each impact fee account must be interest-bearing and the accumulated interest will become a part of the account.

C. The funds of each account will be expended within the benefit area exclusively for the capital improvements for which the impact fees were collected.

3.40.080 USE OF IMPACT FEE PROCEEDS. Impact fees may be expended only for the type of capital improvements for which they were imposed, calculated, and collected and according to the time limits and procedures established in this chapter. Impact fees may be used to pay the principal, interest and other costs of bonds, notes and other obligations issued or undertaken by or on behalf of the City to finance such improvements.

3.40.090 REFUNDS.

A. Except as described in this section, upon application of the property owner, the City must refund that portion of any impact fee which has been on deposit over five years and which is unexpended and uncommitted. The refund will be made to the then-current owner or owners of lots or units of - 67 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

the development project or projects, provided that the then-current owner submits an application for a refund to the City within 180 days before the five-year period expires.

B. If fees in any impact fee account are unexpended or uncommitted, starting with the fifth fiscal year after the first deposit into the account or fund, and every subsequent five years, the City Council must make the findings required by Government Code § 66001(d) for maintaining funds on deposit.

If the Council makes such findings, the fees are exempt from the refund requirement.

C. The City may issue refunds through direct payment; offsetting the refund against other impact fees due for development projects by the owner on the same or other property; or otherwise by agreement with the owner. If the costs of refunding the impact fees would exceed the amount refunded, the City may instead comply with Government Code § 66001(f).

3.40.100 PROTESTS, APPEALS, AND AUDITS. All protests, appeals, and audits must be conducted in accordance with the procedures contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (commencing at Government Code §§ 66020 et seq.).

3.40.110 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES. Before the City Council's adoption of the budget and revisions to the Capital Improvements Project List, the city manager, or designee, must report to the City Council with:

A. Recommendations for amendments to this chapter and to other parts of this code and to resolutions establishing impact fees;

B. Proposals for changes to the Capital Improvements Project List, identifying capital improvements to be funded, in whole or in part, by impact fees;

C. Proposals for changes in the boundaries of benefit areas; and

D. Proposals for changes to impact fee rates and schedules.

3.40.120 CREDITS.

A. A property owner who dedicates land or agrees to participate in an assessment district or otherwise contributes funds for capital improvements, as defined in this chapter, may be eligible for a credit for such contribution against the impact fee otherwise due.

B. The Planning Director must determine: (1) whether the contribution meets capital improvement needs for which the particular impact fee has been imposed; (2) whether the contribution will substitute for or otherwise reduce the need for capital improvements anticipated to be provided with impact fee funds; and (3) the value of the developer contribution. In no event, - 68 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

however, will the credit exceed the amount of the otherwise applicable impact fee.

C. Any application for credit must be submitted at or before the time of development project approval on forms provided by the city. The application must contain a declaration of those facts, under oath, along with the relevant documentary evidence which qualifies the property owner for the credit.

3.40.130 CONFLICTS. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of any other ordinance or resolution establishing or amending impact fees, the provisions of this chapter govern.”

SECTION 3: BMC Chapter 3.24, Public Facilities Fee, is repealed in its entirety; BMC § 3.36.020 and 3.36.060 are repealed in their entirety.

SECTION 4: Repeal of any provision of the BMC, or any other City resolution or ordinance herein will 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 5: This ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes fees and charges for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. This Ordinance, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under Cal. Code Regs. Title 14, § 15273.

SECTION 6: 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 7: This Ordinance 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 8: 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 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 9: This Ordinance will take effect on the 30th day following its final passage and adoption.

- 69 -

City of Bellflower
Ordinance No. 1424

ORDINANCE NO. 1424 HAD ITS FIRST READING ON FEBRUARY 13, 2023, ITS SECOND READING ON _____________, AND WAS DULY PASSED, APPROVED,

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER AT ITS REGULAR MEETING OF ___________.

Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

- 70 -