Agenda packet — Bellflower City Council, April 10, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

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

Next CC Resolution No. 23-13 Next CC Agreement No. 992 Next Ordinance No. 1425

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

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

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL

MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2023

BELLFLOWER CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION / 7:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION

5:30 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION

1 CALL TO ORDER

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

Page 1 of 4 ends

AGENDA

Bellflower City Council Agenda
April 10, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

3 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

A CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)

Property: 16824 Bellflower Boulevard
Agency Negotiator: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Jeric Rivera
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

4 RECONVENE FOR OPEN SESSION

7:00 P.M. – OPEN SESSION

5 CALL TO ORDER

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

7 INVOCATION: Council Member Ray Dunton

8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Len Gorecki, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works

9 CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS

A City Council Announcements

B National Law Enforcement Month Proclamation

C Fair Housing Month Proclamation

10 PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

11 PUBLIC HEARINGS

None

Bellflower City Council Agenda
April 10, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

12 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

None

13 CONSIDERATION ITEMS

None

14 CONSENT CALENDAR

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

A Consideration and possible action to receive and file City Council Warrant Register No. 23-101, dated April 10, 2023.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Receive and file Warrant Register No. 23-101; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

B Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 23-12 – A Resolution prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace, and superseding Resolution No. 16-17.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 23-12; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

C Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 2023, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Approve the March 27, 2023, Regular Meeting Minutes; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

D Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 2023, Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Bellflower Financing Authority, Bellflower Parking Authority, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Public Safety Commission.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Approve the March 27, 2023, Special Joint Meeting Minutes; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

E Consideration and possible action to authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to convert the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls on Coke Avenue at Rose Street (C.E.# 23-03).

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to convert the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls on Coke Avenue at Rose Street; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

Bellflower City Council Agenda
April 10, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

14 CONSENT CALENDAR – Continued

F Consideration and possible action to award a contract to R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc. for the Thompson Park Playground Improvements (Specifications No. 22/23-07); and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney.

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

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

G Consideration and possible action to receive and file the 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Receive and file the 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis (no action may be taken on this item; it is for informational purposes only); 2) Authorize the City Manager to update the Parking Analysis based upon changes to California law; 3) conduct an environmental assessment of the various parking options listed in the updated study; and 4) place on a future agenda for consideration and possible action.

15 COUNCIL REPORTS

16 ADJOURNMENT

Adjourn to the next Regular Meeting of the Bellflower City Council at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 24, 2023.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF BELLFLOWER )
I, Dakota Wallace, Management Assistant, of the City of Bellflower, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury, that the Agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Bellflower City Council to be held on Monday, April 10, 2023, at 5:30 p.m., was posted Thursday, April 6, 2023, at the following locations in the City of Bellflower:

City Hall Lobby and Doors, 16600 Civic Center Drive
City Website at www.bellflower.orq
Clifton M. Brakensiek Library
Executed this 6th day of April 2023 at Bellflower, California. - ace, Management Assistant

14-A

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager

FROM: Tae Rhee, Finance Director/City Treasurer

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to receive and file Warrant Register No. 23-101, dated April 10, 2023.

DATE: April 10, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section X.B of the Budget, Financial and Administrative Policies stipulates the City’s process in executing warrants for the payment of goods and services, as well as the requirement to make each warrant register a matter of public record by placing it on the City Council Agenda as a Consent Calendar item.

RECOMMENDATION

1) Receive and file Warrant Register No. 23-101; or

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

FISCAL IMPACT

$1,255,693.04 in expenditures and $6,000,000.00 in inter-account transfers.

ATTACHMENT

Warrant Register No. 23-101 .......................................................................................... 2

Fund No.CITY OF BELLFLOWER:
010 General Fund 730,857.38$
011 General Fund Projects 88,760.16
024 Park Facilities Fund 20,323.35
030 Grant Projects Fund 7,940.00
070 Measure A Fund - Parks 50,427.44
100 Proposition A Fund - Transportation 59,618.49
115 Measure M Fund - Transportation / Streets 3,755.00
125 Measure R Fund - Transportation / Streets 991.26
135 Proposition C Fund - Transportation / Streets 2,277.35 510 Economic Development Fund 253.40
900 Community Development Block Grant Fund 634.50
910 HOME Fund 4,851.00
974 Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund 36,794.11 Total Accounts Payable 1,007,483.44
Payroll Check Payments (Pay Period Ending 03/24/23)248,209.60 Total Expenditures - City 1,255,693.04$
Inter-Account Fund Transfers (Non-Expenditures) 6,000,000.00$ Total - City 7,255,693.04$

WARRANT REGISTER FUND SUMMARY

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
(Warrant Register No. 23-101, Dated April 10, 2023)
\\sharepoint\DavWWWRoot\sites\Finance\Shared Documents\Warrant Registers\Warrant Register Cover Page Template

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 001 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: 20434 (20434 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE, LLC)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: ALL12 (ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: ALL22 (ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: AMB02 (AMBROS CONSTRUCTION INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: AME44 (AMERICAN RED CROSS)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 002 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: BEL11 (BELLFLOWER HOME GARDEN WATER COMPANY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: BNY01 (THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: BUR01 (BURKE,WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP)

---- WARRANT ----- --------------------------------------- DISTRIBUTION --------------------------------------- Invoice No Number Date Amount Paid G/L Account No Ctr Description ---------- ------ -------- ------------ -------------- --- -------------------------------------------------- 298147 XXXXXX 03/22/23 26.60 010 42098 1400 02/23 LEGAL SERVICES/GENERAL LITIGATION 7484.54 010 42032 4105 02/23 LEGAL SERVICES/CODE ENFORCEMENT/GENERAL 634.50 900 42032 4152 02/23 LEGAL SERVICES/CODE ENFORCEMENT/CDBG 253.40 510 20503 02/23 LEGAL SVCS/DEV.REIMB/GREEK MRK/16411 BLFR. 1927.00 010 42032 1400 02/23 LEGAL SERVICES/PLANNING/ROSE ST(WASSIF) 217.20 010 42032 1400 02/23 LEGAL SERVICES/GENERAL LEGAL/CBP ADMIN. 298152 XXXXXX 03/22/23 18900.00 010 42032 1400 02/23 LEGAL SERVICES/RETAINER ------------
Vendor's Total = 29443.24
------------

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: BYM01 (GERRIT J. BYMA)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 003 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: CIT25 (CITY NET)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: CRA05 (MICHELE L. CRAVENS-WORLEY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: CRE14 (CRESCENT FOOD BANK)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: CRU01 (SUSAN CRUMLY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: DEL17 (ANA MARIA DELGADO)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 004 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: DIG04 (DIGITAL DOLPHIN SUPPLIES)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: DOD06 (DODGE DATA & ANALYTICS)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: EMP05 (EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: EMP06 (EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION, INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: ERD01 (ESMERALDA ERDELYAN)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 005 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: FAI04 (FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: FIR15 (FIRST VEHICLE SERVICES)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: FRO07 (FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: FUN06 (FUN EXPRESS, LLC)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 006 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: GAT10 (GATEWAY WATER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: GLO07 (GLOBAL CTI GROUP INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: HAA01 (MITCHEL L. HAACK)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: HAR08 (HARTZOG & CRABILL, INC)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: HDL03 (HDL SOFTWARE LLC)

------------
Vendor's Total = 14209.39
------------

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 007 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: IMP05 (IMPACT OVERHEAD DOOR SERVICE, INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: IRS02 (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: ISB01 (I.S. BLUEPRINT SERVICE)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: JDL01 (JDL PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 008 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: JIM06 (ROCIO JIMENEZ-SANCHEZ)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: JOE02 (JOE A GONSALVES & SON)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: KIN07 (KINGDOM CAUSES)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: LCR01 (LCR EARTHWORK & ENGINEERING, CORP)

---- WARRANT ----- --------------------------------------- DISTRIBUTION --------------------------------------- Invoice No Number Date Amount Paid G/L Account No Ctr Description ---------- ------ -------- ------------ -------------- --- -------------------------------------------------- 187 XXXXXX 03/22/23 73250.00 011 47028 9000 PL1 RECONSTRUCT PARK'G LOT/9818 ARTESIA/SPEC.#20/21-03 -3662.50 011 20400 PL1 RETENTION: RECONSTRUCT PARK'G LOT/9818 ARTESIA 188 XXXXXX 03/22/23 20000.00 011 47028 9000 PL1 RECONSTRUCT PARK'G LOT/9818 ARTESIA/SPEC.#20/21-03 -1000.00 011 20400 PL1 RETENTION: RECONSTRUCT PARK'G LOT/9818 ARTESIA ------------
Vendor's Total = 88587.50
------------

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 009 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: LIN02 (LINDSAY LUMBER COMPANY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: LOS18 (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: LOS50 (LOS CERRITOS COMMUNITY NEWS)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: MER05 (MERCY HOUSE LIVING CENTERS)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: MOR11 (ALLAN MORSE)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 010 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: NOR16 (BARBARA NORBUT)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: NOR18 (NORWALK LA MIRADA PLUMBING HEATING)

---- WARRANT ----- --------------------------------------- DISTRIBUTION --------------------------------------- Invoice No Number Date Amount Paid G/L Account No Ctr Description ---------- ------ -------- ------------ -------------- --- -------------------------------------------------- 4043JESUS XXXXXX 03/29/23 3997.82 010 46000 3100 REPAIR WATER LEAK/PUBLIC WORKS YARD 4044JESUS XXXXXX 03/29/23 1670.16 010 46011 3900 REPAIR GAS LEAK/THOMPSON PARK 4849EMILI XXXXXX 03/29/23 215.00 010 46012 3900 REPAIR PLUMBING/CARUTHERS PARK 4993EMILI XXXXXX 03/29/23 215.00 010 46011 3900 REPAIR PLUMBING/THOMPSON PARK ------------
Vendor's Total = 6097.98
------------

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: PAC23 (PACIFIC PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: PAR01 (LIBERTY UTILITIES/PARK WATER COMPANY)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 011 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: PERS0 (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: PRE26 (PRETTY SMART)

------------
Vendor's Total = 50427.44
------------

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: PSO01 (PSOMAS)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: RAY01 (RAYVERN LIGHTING SUPPLY COMPANY, INC)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: RES03 (RESOURCE BUILDING MATERIALS,INC.)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 012 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: ROM02 (MARGARET ROMERO)

------------
Vendor's Total = 100.00
------------

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SCS02 (S.C. SIGNS & SUPPLIES LLC)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SIM06 (J R SIMPLOT COMPANY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SMA01 (SMART AND FINAL)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SOU01 (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 013 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SOU01 (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON) ..Continue..

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SOU03 (THE GAS COMPANY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SOU29 (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: SOU70 (SOUTHWEST PATROL, INC.)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 014 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: STA26 (STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: TRA09 (JERRY TRAUTMAN)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: TRI08 (TRIPEPI, SMITH & ASSOCIATES)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: URB02 (URBAN RESTORATION GROUP US INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: VOY02 (VOYA RETIREMENT INS & ANNUITY CO - 457)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 015 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: VOY03 (VOYA RETIREMENT INS & ANNUITY CO - 401a)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: VOY04 (VOYA RETIREMENT INS & ANNUITY - 457 ROTH)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: WEH01 (LARRY LEE WEHAGE)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: WES09 (WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 016 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: WIL01 (WILLDAN ENGINEERING)

---- WARRANT ----- --------------------------------------- DISTRIBUTION --------------------------------------- Invoice No Number Date Amount Paid G/L Account No Ctr Description ---------- ------ -------- ------------ -------------- --- -------------------------------------------------- 00418084 XXXXXX 03/22/23 2412.00 030 47011 9000 011 12/22 CONST.MGMT.&INSP.SVCS/CP STORMWATER PROJECT 00418120 XXXXXX 03/22/23 15490.50 024 47922 9000 015 12/22 CONST.MGMT.,INSP.SVCS/BUTTERLY GARDEN 00418186 XXXXXX 03/22/23 3097.00 030 47011 9000 011 01/23 CONST.MGMT.& INSP.SVC/CP STORMWATER PROJECT 00418222 XXXXXX 03/22/23 3529.00 024 47922 9000 015 01/23 CONST.MGMT.,INSP.SVCS/BUTTERFLY GARDEN 00624948 XXXXXX 03/22/23 1638.00 010 42054 3000 12/22-1/23 DESIGN SVC/SOLAR LIGHT FIXTURES 00625083 XXXXXX 03/22/23 1620.00 010 42054 3000 2/23 DESIGN SVC/SOLAR FIXTURES/PALM PARK,BIKE TRL. ------------
Vendor's Total = 27786.50
------------

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: WIL23 (ANIYAH WILLIAMS)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: ZUM01 (ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC.)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \ADA0 (ARIAL ADAMS)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 017 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \AHU3 (BRIAN AHUMADA)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \AN35 (BELIA V. ANDALON)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \DRA3 (AARON DRAKE)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \FED4 (FEDEX )

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \GR67 (TANAYA GREEN)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 018 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \H033 (HARRY WALKER AGENCY, LLC)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \HEL2 (HELLENIC LIBRARY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \KAO1 (JADEN KAO)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \LEA3 (LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \MIY2 (ANNIKA MIYASHIRO-RUIZ)

REPORT.: 04/03/23 City of Bellflower PAGE: 019 RUN....: 04/03/23 Cash Disbursement Report by Vendor ID #: PYVP Run By.: Deserie Stanley CTL.: BEL

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \MIY2 (ANNIKA MIYASHIRO-RUIZ) ..Continue..

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \MOR0 (JAMES MORTLEY)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \MYE0 (GEORGE LARRY MYERS)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \RI09 (ANDREW RICARD)

....................................................................................................................................

VENDOR.: \ZAM1 (WILLIAM ZAMORA)

Report's Grand Total = 7007483.44
============

14-B
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 23-12 – A Resolution prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace, and superseding Resolution No. 16-17.

DATE: April 10, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed Resolution amends, in its entirety, Resolution No. 16-17 (adopted April 11, 2016) to update the City’s Policy prohibiting harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Adopt Resolution No. 23-12; or

2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to these items.

BACKGROUND

In preparation for the City-wide training on Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation being conducted on April 11th and 13th, the City’s labor attorneys with Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore (“LCW”) reviewed the current policies governing these subjects. The last update to the City’s policy occurred in 2016 which was before the City retained LCW as labor counsel.

Because of changes in federal and state law, LCW and the City Attorney recommend that the City’s policies be updated as reflected in the draft resolution. In sum, the draft Resolution implements changes in the law since 2016; clarifies to whom the policy applies; establishes objective methods of investigation allegations of policy violations; and ensures that the City’s employees and other affected persons receive regular training regarding the City’s policy. The training sessions on April 11th and 13th will provide such mandatory training.

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

ATTACHMENT

Resolution No. 23-12 ....................................................................................................... 2

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

RESOLUTION NO. 23-12

A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND

RETALIATION IN THE WORKPLACE, AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 16-17

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Purpose. This Resolution is adopted to establish a Citywide policy 1) prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace; and 2) establishing a complaint procedure to investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The City Council finds as follows:

A. The City of Bellflower (“City”) is committed to preventing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace.

B. The City has zero tolerance for any conduct that violates this policy.

Conduct need not violate either federal or state law to constitute a violation of this policy.

C. A single act by a City employee may constitute a violation of this policy and provide sufficient grounds for the City to discipline the employee, up to and potentially including termination of employment.

D. This Resolution establishes a complaint procedure by which the City will investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by and against City covered individuals. Such an investigation will be fair, timely, and thorough. The City will provide all parties appropriate due process and reach reasonable conclusions based on the evidence collected. The City encourages all covered individuals to report any conduct they believe violates this policy as soon as possible.

E. The City expressly prohibits any retaliation against an employee because they filed or supported a complaint or because they participated in the investigation or complaint resolution process. Individuals found to have retaliated against an employee in violation of this policy will be subject to appropriate sanction or disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

SECTION 2. Covered Individuals and Scope of Policy. This policy governs the following individuals: applicants for employment at the City; City employees regardless of rank or title; elected or appointed officials of the City (which are additionally governed by Resolution No. 16- 87, adopted December 12, 2016); interns; volunteers; and contractors. This policy applies to all terms and conditions of employment, internships, and volunteer opportunities including, without limitation, selection, hiring, placement, promotion, disciplinary action, layoff, recall, transfer, leave of absence, compensation, and training. This policy prohibits harassment of a covered individual because of the individual’s actual or perceived protected classification. This policy prohibits discrimination, harassment, or retaliation because of an individual’s protected classification. This policy prohibits discrimination, harassment, or retaliation for the following reasons:

Page 1 of 8 ends

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-12

Page 2 of 8 ends

A. An individual’s protected classification;

B. The perception that an individual has a protected classification; or

C. The individual associates with a person who has or is perceived to have a protected classification.

SECTION 3. 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 Resolution:

A. “Adverse action” may include, without limitation, the following actions: (1) disciplinary action; (2) counseling; (3) taking sides because an individual has reported harassment or discrimination; (4) spreading rumors about a complainant or about someone who supports or assists the complainant or who participates in the investigation; (5) shunning or avoiding an individual who reports harassment or discrimination; or (6) making real or implied threats of intimidation to prevent or deter an individual from reporting harassment or discrimination.

B. “Discrimination” means treating a covered individual differently and adversely because of the individual’s actual or perceived protected classification; because the individual associates with a person who is or is perceived to be a member of a protected classification; or because the individual participates in a protected activity as defined in this policy.

C. “Harassment” includes, without limitation, the following conduct:

1. Derogatory, offensive or inappropriate speech, such as epithets, slurs or stereotypical comments, or verbal propositions made on the basis of the individual’s protected classification. This includes, without limitation, comments, stories, and jokes about appearance, dress, physical features, gender identification, and race.

2. Physical acts, such as assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching, or physical interference with normal work or movement. This includes, without limitation, pinching, grabbing, patting, or making explicit or implied job threats or promises in return for submission to physical acts.

3. Visual acts, such as derogatory, offensive or inappropriate, posters, cartoons, emails, pictures or drawings related to a protected classification.

4. Unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other acts of a sexual nature, where submission is made a term or condition of employment, where submission to or rejection of the conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions, or where the conduct is intended to or actually does unreasonably interfere with an individual’s work performance or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-12

Page 3 of 8 ends

5. Conduct that is not intended as to harass. Conduct may violate this policy if the conduct is directed at or implicates a protected classification and the recipient finds the conduct to be offensive or inappropriate, even if it is well-intentioned conduct (e.g., gifts, over- attention, endearing nicknames, and hugs).

6. Conduct to which the recipient appears to have consented. The City does not recognize as a defense that the recipient appeared to have consented to the conduct at issue by failing to protest about the conduct. A recipient may not protest offensive or inappropriate conduct for many legitimate reasons, including, without limitation, the need to avoid being perceived as insubordinate or to avoid being ostracized or subjected to retaliation.

7. Conduct about which no employees previously complained. The fact that no employee previously complained about the same or substantially similar conduct does not mean that the conduct is inoffensive or appropriate nor does that fact preclude an employee from complaining about such conduct if it is repeated.

8. Conduct witnessed by a third party or about which a third party learns, even if they did not witness such conduct. Visual, verbal, or physical conduct between two people who do not find such conduct to be offensive or inappropriate may constitute harassment if a third party witnesses such conduct or learns about the conduct later and finds the conduct to be offensive or inappropriate. Conduct can constitute harassment even if it is not explicitly or specifically directed at a particular individual.

9. Conduct can constitute harassment even if the individual has no intention to harass. Conduct that may be well-intentioned conduct (e.g., gifts, over-attention, endearing nicknames, and hugs) may nevertheless constitute harassment if the conduct is directed at, or implicates a protected classification, and if the individual finds such conduct inappropriate or offensive.

10. Harassment includes conduct that another individual who is a member of the protected classification would find unwelcome or unwanted.

D. “Protected classification” includes race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and over), sexual orientation, or veteran or military status, or any other basis protected by law.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-12

Page 4 of 8 ends

E. “Protected activity” includes, without limitation, the following activity: (1) making a request for an accommodation for a disability; (2) making a request for accommodation for religious beliefs; (3) making a complaint under this policy; (4) opposing violations of this policy; or (5) participating in an investigation under this policy. This policy prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of an individual’s protected activity.

F. “Retaliation” occurs when an employer takes adverse action against a covered individual because of the individual’s protected activity as defined in this policy.

SECTION 4. Proactive Approach. The City takes a proactive approach to potential policy violations and will conduct an investigation if its supervisory or management employees become aware that harassment, discrimination, or retaliation occurred or may be occurring, regardless of whether the recipient or third party reports a potential violation.

SECTION 5. Complaint Procedure. A covered individual who believes they have been subjected to discrimination, harassment, or retaliation may make a complaint, either orally or in writing, to any supervisor, manager, department head, or to the Personnel Officer, without regard to any chain of command. Any supervisory or management employee who receives a complaint under this policy must immediately notify the Personnel Officer. Upon receiving notification of a complaint regarding discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, the Personnel Officer will complete and/or delegate the following steps:

A. Authorize and supervise the investigation of the complaint and/or investigate the complaint. The investigation will usually include interviews with the following individuals: (1) the complainant; (2) the accused (i.e., the subject of the investigation); (3) witnesses to the conduct at issue in the complaint; and (4) other persons who have relevant knowledge concerning the allegations in the complaint.

B. Review the factual information gathered during the investigation to determine whether the alleged conduct violated this policy giving consideration to all factual information, the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred.

C. Prepare a summary report of the determination as to whether the conduct violated this policy and provide such report to the City Manager, or designee. If discipline or sanctions are imposed, the level of discipline or sanctions will not be communicated to the complainant or to any other individual who does not have a legitimate need to know the information.

D. If conduct in violation of this policy occurred, take or recommend to the City Manager prompt and effective remedial action. The remedial action will be commensurate with the severity of the offense.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-12

Page 5 of 8 ends

E. Take reasonable steps to protect the complainant from further harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.

F. If the Personnel Officer is accused, or is a witness to the events at issue, an individual with higher authority will complete and/or delegate the above enumerated steps.

G. If the City Manager is accused, or is a witness to the events at issue, the complaint may be filed with the City Attorney or the Mayor; if the City Attorney is accused, or is a witness to the events at issue, the complaint may be filed with the City Manager or the Mayor.

SECTION 6. Right to File Report with Outside Administrative Agencies.

An individual possesses the right to report workplace discrimination, harassment, or retaliation to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC”) and/or the state Civil Rights Department (“CRD”). These administrative agencies provide a complaint process as well as certain legal remedies if the applicable agency determines that a violation of the law occurred. The nearest EEOC and CRD offices are listed on the internet. Employees may also check the posters that are located on City bulletin boards for EEOC and CRD office locations and telephone numbers.

SECTION 7. Confidentiality. The City will make every effort to ensure the confidentiality of complaints made under this policy to the greatest extent allowed by law.

However, complete confidentiality may not be possible because of the City’s need to investigate the complaint and provide the subject of the complaint their due process rights, which include providing the subject of the investigation a copy of the complaint after the initial investigatory interview, if requested.

A. The City expressly prohibits an employee who is interviewed during the course of an investigation from attempting to influence other employees, including employees who may have witnessed the underlying conduct at issue, while the investigation is open and ongoing.

B. An employee may discuss their interview with a designated representative from the employee’s employee organization and/or the employee’s legal representative. The City will not disclose a completed investigation report except as it deems necessary to support a disciplinary action, to take remedial action, to defend itself in adversarial proceedings, or to comply with the law or court order.

SECTION 8. Responsibilities.

A. Each non-supervisor or non-manager is responsible for the following:

1. Treating all individuals in the workplace or on City worksites with respect and consideration.

2. Modeling behavior that conforms to this policy.

3. Participating in periodic trainings on personnel matters.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-12

Page 6 of 8 ends

4. Cooperating with the City’s investigations pursuant to this policy by responding fully and truthfully and in a timely manner to all questions posed during the investigation.

5. Taking no actions to influence the complainant or any potential witness while the City’s investigation is ongoing.

6. Reporting any act they believe in good faith constitutes harassment, discrimination, or retaliation as defined by this policy, to their immediate supervisor or manager, department head, or to the Human Resources and Risk Manager.

B. In addition to the responsibilities listed above, each supervisor and manager is also responsible for:

1. Informing employees under their supervision of this policy.

2. Taking all steps necessary to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation from occurring, including, but not limited to, monitoring the work environment and taking immediate and appropriate action to stop violations (e.g., removing inappropriate pictures of correcting inappropriate language).

3. Receiving and responding to complaints in a uniformly fair and serious manner.

4. Documenting the steps taken to resolve such complaints.

5. Following up with those who have complained to ensure that the offensive conduct about which they complained has stopped and that there have been no reprisals or retaliation or threats of reprisals or retaliation.

6. Informing those who complain about harassment and/or discrimination of their option to contact the EEOC or CRD and file a complaint about such activity.

7. Assisting and/or advising employees regarding this policy.

8. Assisting in the investigation of complaints involving subordinate employee(s).

9. Where a complaint is substantiated, assisting in the development of a recommendation concerning an appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in accordance with these policies.

10. Implementing appropriate corrective or disciplinary actions.

11. Reporting potential violations of this policy to the Personnel Officer, regardless of whether an employee complained about such conduct.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-12

Page 7 of 8 ends

12. Participating in periodic training and scheduling employees for training.

SECTION 9. Mandatory Training. The City requires that all of its supervisory employees receive at least two hours of training on the contents of this policy and that all other employees receive at least one hour of training on the contents of this policy.

Employees will receive this training within six months of being hired, and at least once every two years thereafter. Temporary and seasonal employees hired to work for less than six months will receive training on this policy within 30 calendar days after their hire date or within 100 hours worked, whichever occurs first. The City will schedule training sessions and attendance at the training will be documented. The CRD provides free online training courses on preventing sexual harassment and abusive conduct in the workplace, which are available at the following link: https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/shpt/ .

SECTION 10. Dissemination of Policy. Each employee, volunteer, and intern is responsible for knowing, understanding, and fully complying with the provisions of this policy.

A. A copy of this policy will be provided to each new employee, volunteer, and intern on their first day of work and each will sign a form acknowledging receipt of the policy, which will be placed in their individual personnel file.

B. A copy of this policy will be provided to each employee, volunteer, and intern who was employed by or providing services to the City as of April 3, 2023, and each will sign a form acknowledging receipt of the policy, which will be placed in their individual personnel file.

C. Copies of this policy will be posted on employee bulletin boards throughout the City.

SECTION 11. Ongoing Enforcement. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before, this Resolution’s effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

SECTION 12. Severable. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 13. Supersession. To the extent that Resolution No. 16-17 (adopted April 11, 2016), any other resolution pertaining to prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace is incorporated into this Resolution, it is superseded in its entirety.

SECTION 14. Administrative Policies and Procedures. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate administrative policies and procedures, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to implement this Resolution.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-12

Page 8 of 8 ends

SECTION 15. 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 16. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix their signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption and the City Clerk, or their duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest hereto.

SECTION 17. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER THIS 10th DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

______________________________
Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

14-C
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager

FROM: Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 2023, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

DATE: April 10, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

None

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Approve the March 27, 2023, Regular Meeting Minutes; or

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

FISCAL IMPACT

None

ATTACHMENT

Minutes of the March 27, 2023, Regular Meeting… .................... ………………………… 2

1 MINUTES

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2023
BELLFLOWER CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION / 7:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION

5:30 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION

1 CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Santa Ines called the Regular Meeting to order at 5:43 p.m.

2 ROLL CALL

The following Members of the City Council responded present to roll call:

Mayor Sonny R. Santa Ines
Council Member Ray Dunton
Council Member Dan Koops
Council Member Victor A. Sanchez

For the record, it was moved by Council Member Koops, seconded by Council Member Sanchez, and carried without objection to excuse the absence of Mayor Pro Tem Hamada.

3 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

For the record, 1) City Manager Stewart read the title of the Closed Session item; and 2) Council Member Dunton announced that he would recuse himself from Item 3-A (17450 Bellflower Boulevard) as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property.

There being no one in attendance wishing to provide public comments, without objection, Mayor Santa Ines recessed the meeting at 5:44 p.m. to a Closed Session regarding:

Page 1 of 7 ends

2 Bellflower City Council Minutes Item No. 3 March 27, 2023 Page 2 of 7

3 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION – Continued

A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION - GOVERNMENT CODE § 54956.9(d)(4). Number of Cases: One. Potential defendant and property listed below is not required by applicable law; voluntarily disclosed:

1. Hard Times Billiards; 17450 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, CA 90706.

For the record, Closed Session adjourned at 6:19 p.m.

4 RECONVENE FOR OPEN SESSION

Mayor Santa Ines reconvened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. For the record, there was no reportable action.

7:00 P.M. – OPEN SESSION

5 CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Santa Ines called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

6 ROLL CALL

The following Members of the City Council responded present to roll call:

Mayor Sonny R. Santa Ines
Council Member Ray Dunton
Council Member Dan Koops
Council Member Victor A. Sanchez

For the record, it was moved by Council Member Koops, seconded by Council Member Dunton, and carried without objection to excuse the absence of Mayor Pro Tem Hamada.

Staff Participants:

Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
Len Gorecki, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Jim DellaLonga, Director of Economic Development
Travis Sais, Assistant to the City Manager
Jennifer Poole-Eidd, Management Assistant
3 Bellflower City Council Minutes Item No. 7 March 27, 2023 Page 3 of 7

7 INVOCATION

Mayor Sonny R. Santa Ines offered the Invocation.

8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Director of Economic Development Jim DellaLonga led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

9-A CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mayor Santa Ines provided details relative to the “Drug Take Back Day,” which will be facilitated by Kaiser Permanente and held on April 22, 2023.

Council Member Koops provided details relative to the City’s art competition for 3rd through 6th grade students to be held on May 6, 2023, at Town Center Plaza.

Council Member Sanchez provided details in English and Spanish relative to the Asociación Emprendedoras, which is a free eight-week program for Spanish- speaking Bellflower business owners and residents, to be held every Thursday beginning April 13, 2023, at Bellflower City Hall.

Council Member Dunton provided details relative to the Chamber of Commerce’s next Monthly Morning Mingle to be held on March 28, 2023.

9-B PRESENTATION: National Vietnam War Veteran’s Day Proclamation

Mayor Santa Ines and his City Council colleagues declared March 29, 2023, as Vietnam War Veteran’s Day in the City of Bellflower and presented the proclamation to Vietnam Veteran and 30-year resident, John Peters.

John Peters 1) accepted the proclamation; 2) thanked the City Council for bringing the Vietnam Veterans W all to Bellflower in the past, noting that he had recently visited the three-quarter scale replica wall in Hawaiian Gardens; and 3) stated that the jacket he was wearing was father’s naval jacket from World War II.

9-C PRESENTATION: National Women’s History Month Proclamation

Mayor Santa Ines and his City Council colleagues declared March as Women’s History Month in the City of Bellflower and presented the proclamation to the President of Miss Bellflower and the Miss Bellflower Court.

For the record, 1) President of Miss Bellflower accepted the proclamation along with the Miss Bellflower Court and thanked the City Council; and 2) Miss Bellflower Queen Neriah Cervantes expressed her appreciation in having grown in the local community alongside the pageant and looked forward to getting involved with the community to inspire others as a role model.
4 Bellflower City Council Minutes Item No. 9-D March 27, 2023 Page 4 of 7

9-D PRESENTATION: American Red Cross Awareness Month Proclamation

Mayor Santa Ines and his City Council colleagues declared March as Red Cross Awareness Month in the City of Bellflower and presented the proclamation to Red Cross Board Member Dale Spiegel.

Dale Spiegel 1) accepted the proclamation, expressing that it was an honor to be part of the meeting; 2) stated that he felt it was apropos that this coincided with Women’s History Month, given that the founder of the Red Cross was Clara Barton, and in reference to the first proclamation, noted that they also work with the military and veterans; and 3) detailed a recent smoke alarm installation project with the City of Artesia, noting the importance of installing and maintaining smoke alarms.

10 PUBLIC COMMENTS

Lee Squire, Downey resident, American Legion Brea Post 181, Vietnam veteran, 1) on behalf of his fellow veterans, thanked the City Council for the Vietnam Veteran’s Proclamation and Assistant to the City Manager Sais for bringing the matter to the attention of the City; 2) stated that he took a photo of the purple heart displayed at the mobile Vietnam Veterans W all and sent it to Assistant to the City Manager Sais to forward to the City Council; 3) read the display inscription of the purple heart into the record; and 4) asked those in attendance for reflection on March 29, 2023, to remember those who served in the Vietnam war.

Genevieve Diaz, resident, requested that the City Council consider 1) extending the timing delay and also installing left turn signals at the intersection of Flower Street and Woodruff Avenue in an attemp t to prevent accidents; and 2) relocating endangered coyotes with written authorization from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, expressing concern they’re preying on family animals and pose a threat to elderly pet owners.

In response to comments made by Genevieve Diaz, City Manager Stewart confirmed that Director of Public Safety Hockman would discuss the City’s coyote abatement methods with her.

At the request of Mayor Santa Ines, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Gorecki confirmed that the traffic signal at Flower Street and Woodruff Avenue would be redesigned as part of the Metro Rail System.

5 Bellflower City Council Minutes Item No. 11-A March 27, 2023 Page 5 of 7

11 PUBLIC HEARINGS

A Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the HOME-American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) Allocation Plan and adopt Resolution No. 23-10 – A Resolution approving the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan; authorizing the City Manager to submit the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

City Manager Stewart introduced the item and Consultant Aknesa Ananikyan of Avant-Garde, Inc.

Consultant Ananikyan 1) provided a PowerPoint presentation of the item; and 2) along with City Manager Stewart, responded to Council Members’ questions.

Following discussion, it was moved by Council Member Koops, seconded by Council Member Sanchez, and carried without objection, to open the public hearing.

There being no one in attendance wishing to present testimony, it was moved by Council Member Dunton, seconded by Council Member Sanchez, and carried without objection, to close the public hearing.

It was moved by Council Member Dunton, seconded by Council Member Koops, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt Resolution No. 23-10:

AYES: Council Members - Koops, Sanchez, Dunton and Mayor Santa Ines

ABSENT: Council Members - Mayor Pro Tem Hamada

12 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

None

13 CONSIDERATION ITEMS

None

6 Bellflower City Council Minutes Item No. 14 March 27, 2023 Page 6 of 7

14 CONSENT CALENDAR

For the record, 1) Council Member Dunton recused on Item s 14-E (Reconstruct City-Owned Parking Lot Located at 9818 Artesia Boulevard Project) and 14-F (Request for Qualifications – Residential Development) as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject properties; and 2) Council Member Koops announced that he would recuse on Item 14-G (Butterfly Garden Park) as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property.

It was moved by Council Member Sanchez, seconded by Council Member Koops, and carried by the following roll call vote, to approve the actions stipulated on the Consent Calendar:

AYES: Council Members - Koops, Sanchez, Dunton and Mayor Santa Ines

ABSENT: Council Members - Mayor Pro Tem Hamada

A Consideration and possible action to receive and file Warrant Register No. 23-092, dated March 27, 2023.

Action: Received and filed Warrant Register No. 23-092.

B Consideration and possible action to receive and file Treasurer’s Report for the Month of February 2023. ________ _
Action: Received and filed the Treasurer’s Report.

C Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the March 13, 2023, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

Action: Approved the March 13, 2023, Regular Meeting Minutes.

D Consideration and possible action to award a contract to MSI Information Management Solutions (MSI) and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 981.1 with MSI, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for Document Conversion and Scanning Services.

Action: Awarded an agreement to MSI and authorized the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 981.1, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

E Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Public Works Contract for Specifications No. 20/21-03, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with LCR Earthwork & Engineering Corp., for additional work for the Reconstruct City-Owned Parking Lot Located at 9818 Artesia Boulevard Project.

Action: Authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Public Works Contract with LCR Earthwork for Specifications No. 20/21 -03, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

7 Bellflower City Council Minutes Item No. 14 March 27, 2023 Page 7 of 7

14 CONSENT CALENDAR – Continued

F Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Qualifications to developers for residential development in the downtown public parking lots west of Bellflower Boulevard, between Flower Street and Oak Street.

Action: Authorized the City Manager to issue a Request for Qualifications for downtown residential development.

G Consideration and possible action to Adopt Resolution No. 23 -11 – A Resolution Amending the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022 2023 to provide additional funding for Butterfly Garden Park (Specifications No. 21/22-03); and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Public Works Contract for Specifications No. 21/22-03, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with ABNY General Engineering, Inc., for additional work for Butterfly Garden Park.

Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-11 and authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Public Works Contract with ABNY for Specifications No. 21/22-03, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

15 COUNCIL REPORTS

Council Member Dunton and Mayor Santa Ines made various comments and reports.

16 ADJOURNMENT

Without objection, Mayor Santa Ines adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting of the Bellflower City Council at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 10, 2023.

Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor
City of Bellflower

ATTEST:

Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
Approved: April 10, 2023

8 14-D
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager

FROM: Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 2023, Special Joint Meeting of the Bellflower City Council, Bellflower Financing Authority, Bellflower Parking Authority, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Public Safety Commission.

DATE: April 10, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

None

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Approve the March 27, 2023, Special Joint Meeting Minutes; or

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

FISCAL IMPACT

None

ATTACHMENT

Minutes of the March 27, 2023, Special Joint Meeting… ............ ………………………… 2

1 MINUTES

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE

BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL,

BELLFLOWER FINANCING AUTHORITY,

BELLFLOWER PARKING AUTHORITY,

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION,

PLANNING COMMISSION, AND

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2023, 3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

BELLFLOWER CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1 Call to Order

Mayor Santa Ines called the Special Joint Meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

2 Roll Call

For the record, the following members were present:

Bellflower City Council; Bellflower Financing Authority; and Bellflower Parking Authority

Mayor/Chair Sonny R. Santa Ines
Council Member/Director Ray Dunton
Council Member/Director Dan Koops

Parks and Recreation Commission

Vice Chair Gerrit J. Byma
Commissioner Brian Ahumada
Commissioner Mitch Haack

Planning Commission

Chair William Mendes
Vice Chair Robert Wilson
Commissioner Aaron Drake
Commissioner George Franzen
Commissioner Chrissy Padilla Birkey

Page 1 of 4 ends

2 Special Joint Meeting Minutes Item No. 2 March 27, 2023 Page 2 of 4

2 Roll Call – Continued

Public Safety Commission

Chair Jerry Trautman
Vice Chair Larry Myers
Commissioner Larry Wehage

Staff Participants

Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
Len Gorecki, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Travis Sais, Assistant to the City Manager
Susan Crumly, Human Resources and Risk Manager
Jaden Kao, Management Analyst I
Jennifer Poole-Eidd, Management Assistant
Dakota Wallace, Management Assistant
Jim DellaLonga, Director of Economic Development
Eduardo Lizarraga, Management Analyst II
Karla Pineda, Management Assistant
Tae G. Rhee, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Anna Garan, Finance Manager
P.J. Mellana, Director of Parks and Recreation
Kristen Smith, Parks & Recreation Manager
Elizabeth Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
Kathryn Brun, Assistant Planner
Eliana Munoz, Assistant Planner
Jamie Bruccoleri, Consultant, Building Official
Juliette Ryan, Consultant, Building Division
Walter Jones, Consultant, Building Division
Joel Hockman, Director of Public Safety
Brian McNerney, Public Safety Manager
David Fawcett, Code Enforcement Inspector II
Joseph Chacon, Code Enforcement Inspector I
Esmeralda Erdelyan, Code Enforcement Inspector I
Bernardo Iniguez, Public Works Manager
Jerry Stock, City Engineer
Phillip Wang, Assistant City Engineer
Leroy Baca, Public Works Division Head - Streets
Steve Gose, Public Works Division Head - Facilities
Frank Preciado, Public Works Division Head - Inspection Natalie Rivera, Management Analyst I

3 Special Joint Meeting Minutes Item No. 2 March 27, 2023 Page 3 of 4

2 Roll Call – Continued

Presenter – Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

Christopher S. Frederick

For the record, the following members were absent:

Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Raymond Y. Hamada
Council Member/Director Victor A. Sanchez
Parks and Recreation Commission Chair Michele Worley
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Margaret Romero
Public Safety Commissioner Rocio Jimenez-Sanchez
Public Safety Commissioner Allan Morse
Mike Borzi, Consultant, Building Division
Jason P. Clark, Senior Planner
Annika Miyashiro-Ruiz, Senior Marketing Specialist
Richard Rodriguez, Code Enforcement Inspector I
William Zamora, Code Enforcement Inspector I

3 Public Comments

There was no one in attendance wishing to provide public comments.

4 Local Government Ethics Training in compliance with AB 1234 for elected and appointed public officials and city management employees. The training will be conducted by Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore, LLC, the City’s special counsel for various matters including labor. Public participation in the training will not be allowed.

For the record, copies of the PowerPoint handout (“Ethics in Public Service”) and Reference Manual (“Conflicts of Interest Ethics and Open Government Standard Core Workbook”) were provided to meeting participants prior to the meeting and made available to the Public.

Mayor Santa Ines introduced the session’s presenter, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Attorney Christopher S. Frederick.

Attorney Frederick gave a PowerPoint slide presentation, discussed and provided examples, case studies, best practices, penalties and/or consequences of violations with regard to laws regarding personal financial gain, laws relating to claiming the perquisite of office, government transparency laws, and laws relating to fair process.

4 Special Joint Meeting Minutes Item No. 5 March 27, 2023 Page 4 of 4

5 Adjournment

Without objection, Mayor Santa Ines adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 5:08 p.m.

BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL ATTEST:

BELLFLOWER FINANCING AUTHORITY

BELLFLOWER PARKING AUTHORITY

______ _______
Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor/Chair Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk/Secretary

PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST:

___
William Mendes, Chair Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of
Planning and Building Services

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTEST:

___
Michelle Worley, Chair P. J. Mellana, Director of Parks and Recreation

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION ATTEST:

___
Jerry Trautman, Chair Joel Hockman, Director of Public Safety 5

Page 1 of 2 ends

14-E

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager

FROM: Len Gorecki, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Jerry Stock, City Engineer

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to convert the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls on Coke Avenue at Rose Street (C.E.# 23-03).

DATE: April 10, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This action would approve and authorize the conversion of the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls on Coke Avenue at Rose Street pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) Chapter 10.04.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to convert the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls on Coke Avenue at Rose Street; or

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

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated cost to convert the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls is $1,500.00. The required funds are contained within the current fiscal year budget.

DISCUSSION

The City recently received two (2) requests to install additional ‘Stop’ controls at the intersection of Coke Avenue and Rose Street, specifically to convert the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls into 4-way (all directions) ‘Stop’ controls. Based upon an engineering assessment of this request, staff determined that the intersection should be considered for conversion from the existing 2-way to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls.

-1-

Staff Report – Conversion of existing 2-way ‘Stop’ controls to 4-way ‘Stop’ controls on Coke Avenue at Rose Street
April 10, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION – Continued

The guidelines for ‘Stop’ control installations are contained within the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The guidelines state that ‘Stop’ signs should be used on a less important road (minor street) that intersects with a main road because the application of the normal vehicle right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law. For the intersection under consideration, when the characteristics of intersecting streets are similar (both considered minor streets), the lack of driver line-of-sight in conjunction with narrow roadway width would justify the conversion from a 2-way ‘Stop’ to a 4-way ‘Stop’ without an extensive and detailed traffic engineering study.

The field assessment performed by the City Engineer confirmed that conditions such as limited driver line-of-sight and narrow roadway width exist at the proposed intersection.

As a result, staff is proposing to install ‘Stop’ controls (Stop signs, limit lines and ‘STOP’ pavement legends) on Coke Avenue in both travel directions. Therefore, in an effort to enhance safety and more clearly assign right-of-way, the conversion of the existing 2-way ‘Stop’ control measures to 4-way ‘Stop’ control is being recommended. The proposed change is illustrated on the attached aerial photograph.

On March 7, 2023, the City provided notice to area residents of this request and that this matter would be brought before the Public Safety Commission at its March 21, 2023, meeting. The Public Safety Commission recommended the request be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. To date, the City has received no responses to the notification.

ATTACHMENTS

Aerial Photo ..................................................................................................................... 3 Street View Photo ........................................................................................................... 4 Notification Letter to Residents ....................................................................................... 5

-2-

Printed 3/7/2023
City of Bellflower
Conversion of Existing 2-way 'STOP' to 4-way 'STOP'Scale: 1 in = 40 ft -3-

-4-

-5-

Page 1 of 2 ends

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager

FROM: Len Gorecki, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Bernardo Iniguez, Public Works Manager

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to award a contract to R.E.

Schultz Construction, Inc. for the Thompson Park Playground Improvements (Specifications No. 22/23-07); and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney.

DATE: April 10, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This action would award a contract to R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc. (R.E. Schultz), to perform the work described in the Plans and Specification documents for the Thompson Park Playground Improvements (the Project).

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Award a contract to R.E. Schultz for the Project and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with R.E. Schultz, in a form approved by the City Attorney; or

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

FISCAL IMPACT

R.E. Schultz submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $349,593. The Engineer’s estimated cost plus contingency to perform the work was $387,000.

Sufficient funds are available in Account Nos. 011-47230-9000 (General Fund) and 024-47230-9000 (Park Facilities Fund including Proposition 68 grant).

DISCUSSION

The project consists of the replacement of the existing “big kid” playground with a new playground and the installation of an ADA parking stall adjacent to the new playground.

On February 13, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-07 authorizing solicitation of bids. The City advertised Specifications No. 22/23-07 for bids in accordance with BMC Section 3.28.090. Four (4) bids were submitted at the formal bid opening on March 21, 2023. The names of those bidders and their bid amounts are listed on the next page:
14-F
-1-

Staff Report – Award of Contract – Spec. No. 22/23-07
April 10, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION – Continued

BIDDER BID PRICE
R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc. $349,593.00
NR Development, Inc. $371,212.77
Urban Professional Builders, Inc. $398,000.00
CS Legacy Construction, Inc. $398,000.00

BID ANALYSIS

R.E. Schultz submitted a complete bid package. Staff has verified its contractor’s license status, references, and registration with the Department of Industrial Relations.

R.E. Schultz is qualified to perform the work described and has fulfilled the requirements set forth in the Specification documents. Staff concludes R.E. Schultz is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and recommends that the City Council award a contract to R.E. Schultz.

SPECIFICATIONS

The Plans and Specification documents are available for public inspection at the Public Works Department Office, 9944 Flora Vista Street, Bellflower, California until completion of the Project and, subsequently, as official records, will be maintained by the City Clerk’s Office.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000, et seq.), the City conducted an environmental assessment. Based on the environmental assessment, the project was determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities). -2-

14-G
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager

FROM: Jim DellaLonga, Director of Economic Development

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to receive and file the 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis

DATE: April 10, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A parking analysis was presented to the City Council in December 2022 that outlines the current parking supply, peak parking times, and estimated parking needs in the area along Bellflower Boulevard between the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way and Flower Street.

The study also addresses potential parking supply impacts of angled parking and parklets. The analysis finds that the north downtown Bellflower area has the capacity to handle both current and potential parking demand and provides strategies for public parking management.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Receive and file the 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis (no action may be taken on this item; it is for informational purposes only);

2) Authorize the City Manager to update the Parking Analysis based upon changes to California law;

3) Conduct an environmental assessment of the various parking options listed in an updated study; and

4) Place on a future agenda for consideration and possible action.

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

DISCUSSION
In November 2022, TJW Engineering, Inc., completed the attached North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis. This analysis incorporates findings from previous parking studies, includes an inventory of all public parking spaces in the north downtown area, and presents data from parking occupancy/turnover surveys. The study also examines whether angled parking spaces, outdoor dining parklets, and trash compactor enclosures could be accommodated in the area and what the associated parking impacts might be.

Page 1 of 2 ends

- Page 1 of 183 -

Staff Report – North Downtown Bellflower Parking April 10, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION – Continued

The analysis concludes that existing parking space capacity in the north downtown Bellflower area is sufficient to accommodate both present demand and the anticipated demand from current and recently entitled projects (Edgeway Downtown Bellflower, The Stand Up Comedy Club, and the Brew Refinery).

Public Parking Management Strategies

The study offers several parking management strategies for downtown Bellflower, including the implementation of parking meters, the use of signage to direct drivers to other parking areas, extending the hours of restricted parking time limits, and the potential conversion of parallel parking to angled parking. Some of the benefits of these strategies include promoting turnover of parking spaces and generating revenue for the City. However, there are also costs associated with purchasing meters, enforcing parking restrictions, and modifying the roadway geometry (in the case of angled parking).

Among the mentioned public parking management strategies, the least expensive and quickest to implement would involve reorganizing parking time limit enforcement to provide heightened enforcement during times of high parking demand, and lengthening the restricted parking time limits in certain lots to cover the evening hours when downtown activity is at its peak.

December 15, 2022 Special Meeting

Several issues were raised during the City Council special meeting held on December 15, 2022. Parking in-lieu fees were mentioned as a way for new and higher density developments to contribute towards the cost of future parking needs in the downtown.

Concerns were raised about the safety and feasibility of installing parklets and reverse- angled parking on segments of Bellflower Boulevard. While both ideas are intended to improve the pedestrian experience, their effectiveness may depend on the specific characteristics of the roadway.

There was also an inquiry about converting Adenmoor Avenue and Oak Street, east of Bellflower Boulevard, into one-way streets to accommodate more on-street parking.

However, after preliminary analysis, staff found that this would require significant changes to the intersection of Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street and would have a considerable impact on nearby residences and service access to the area.

ATTACHMENTS

2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis ......................................................... 3

- Page 2 of 183 -

November 11, 2022

Prepared by:

TJW ENGINEERING, INC.
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
949.878.3509 | www.tjwengineering.com
North Downtown
Bellflower
Parking Analysis
Bellflower, California
- Page 3 of 183 -

9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 | Irvine, California 92618 | 949.878.3509 | www.tjwengineering.com

November 11, 2022

Mr. Jim Dellalonga

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706

Subject: North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis, City of Bellflower

Dear Mr. Dellalonga:

TJW ENGINEERING, INC. (TJW) is pleased to present you with this parking analysis for North Downtown Bellflower located along Bellflower Boulevard, Belmont Street, and Flower Street in the City of Bellflower.

This parking study has been prepared to determine if the North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis (March 2020) findings remain accurate, identify any additional peak parking periods, review parking supply, identify existing and future parking demand, and provide mitigation requirements if needed.

Please contact us at (949) 878-3509 if you have any questions regarding this analysis.

Sincerely,

Thomas Wheat, PE, TE Gene Kim, PE, TE
President Principal Engineer

Registered Civil Engineer #69467
Registered Traffic Engineer #2565
David Chew, PTP
Transportation Planning Manager

Brandon Alvarado, EIT
Transportation Planner
- Page 4 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis
Bellflower, California

November 11, 2022

Prepared for:

Mr. Jim Dellalonga

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706

Prepared by:

Thomas Wheat, PE, TE
David Chew, PTP
Brandon Alvarado, EIT

TJW ENGINEERING, INC.
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
949.878.3509 | www.tjwengineering.com
- Page 5 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
i
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PARKING INVENTORY .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES .............................................................................................................. 3

3.0 PARKING OCCUPANCY ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 HISTORICAL PARKING OCCUPANCY .................................................................................................... 6

3.2 EXISTING PARKING OCCUPANCY......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 PEAK HOUR OCCUPANCY .................................................................................................................. 10

4.0 PARKING TRENDS AND BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD TURNOVER ........................................................... 13

4.1 PARKING TRENDS .............................................................................................................................. 13

4.2 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD TURNOVER ............................................................................................. 15

5.0 ANGLED PARKING AND PARKLETS ........................................................................................................ 18

5.1 ANGLED PARKING DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 18

5.2 PARKLET DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 19

6.0 FUTURE DEMAND ................................................................................................................................. 21

6.1 FORMER BREW REFINERY PROJECT .................................................................................................. 21

6.2 THE EDGEWAY................................................................................................................................... 21

6.3 FEASIBILITY OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN NORTH DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER ................. 22

6.4 PARKING IMPACTS IN LOTS B, K AND L – TRASH COMPACTOR ENCLOSURES .................................. 22

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGE FUTURE PARKING DEMAND .................................................... 22

7.0 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 24

List of Tables

Table 1: Parking Inventory by Zone/Street ........................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: Thursday May 19, 2022 Occupancy ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Friday May 20, 2022 Occupancy .......................................................................................................... 8 Table 4: Saturday May 21, 2022 Occupancy ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Sunday May 22, 2022 Occupancy ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 6: Peak Hour Occupancy for June 9, 2022 – June 12, 2022 ................................................................... 10 Table 7: Occupancy by Zone for Thursday May 19, 2022 ................................................................................ 13 Table 8: Occupancy by Zone for Friday May 20, 2022 ..................................................................................... 13 Table 9: Occupancy by Zone for Saturday May 21, 2022 ................................................................................ 14 Table 10: Occupancy by Zone for Sunday May 22, 2022 ................................................................................. 14 Table 11: Bellflower Boulevard Turnover Data ................................................................................................ 15 - Page 6 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
ii
Table 12: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Friday May 20, 2022 ...................................................... 16 Table 13: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Friday May 20, 2022 ...................................................... 16 Table 14: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Saturday May 21, 2022 ................................................. 17 Table 15: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Sunday May 22, 2022 .................................................... 17 Table 16: Bellflower Boulevard On-street Parking Availability ........................................................................ 18 Table 17: Bellflower Boulevard On-street Mixed Parking Availability ............................................................. 19

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Project Location and Study Area ........................................................................................................ 2 Exhibit 2: Parking Locations and Inventory ....................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 3: Weekday Peak Occupancy ............................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 4: Weekend Peak Occupancy ............................................................................................................... 12

Appendices

Appendix A: Bellflower Economic Development Study
Appendix B: K2 Traffic Engineering Study
Appendix C: Inventory and Occupancy Count Data
Appendix D: IS/MND for the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Mixed-Use Project - Page 7 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

As the City of Bellflower adjusts to “new normal” traffic patterns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Bellflower is seeing an increased interest and commercial demand in the City’s north Downtown area. North Downtown is defined as the commercial area between Flower Street and the Pacific Electric Railroad right- of-way and between just west of Bellflower Boulevard and the Civic Center. Exhibit 1 shows the north Downtown Bellflower study area location.

Bellflower Economic Development staff conducted an inventory and analysis of public parking in north Downtown Bellflower (North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis, March 2020) to determine if Downtown Bellflower is nearing its capacity. The study relied on available parking data and a parking demand analysis prepared for the Brew Refinery project by K2 Traffic Engineering (Parking Study – Brew Refinery & Restaurant 16710 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower, December 2019). The analysis found that approximately 235 parking spaces would still be available throughout the north Downtown area during peak demand time. Both the Bellflower Economic Development staff study and the K2 study are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. It should be noted that the Brew Refinery is currently an entitled project that is not under construction, and the property is for sale without a buyer.

With the opening of The Stand-Up Comedy Club and traffic reaching new normal conditions, the City has asked TJW to prepare an update to the 2020 parking study. The North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis from March 2020 has been reviewed and any changes have been outlined. Overall parking patterns in Downtown Bellflower have been analyzed, including when the peak parking periods occur. The supply of available parking stalls in the north Downtown Bellflower area during peak days/time and how many stalls remain has been verified via field surveys.

Recommendations for public parking management based on the specifics of Downtown Bellflower have been made where necessary. To estimate future parking conditions, parking demand from new and future north Downtown developments have been added to the observed parking data, including:

• SteelCraft Bellflower (opened in June 2019)
• Stand-Up Comedy Club (opened in Spring 2020)
• The former Brew Refinery project, which has been utilized to estimate potential demand increases from other potential developments
• The Edgeway (proposed apartments with retail and entertainment projected to open in late 2023)

- Page 8 of 183 -

Legend:Bellflower City LimitsNot to Scale2
ǆŚŝďŝt ϭ͗ Wƌoũect >ocatŝoŶ aŶĚ StƵĚǇ ƌeaNorth Downtown Bellflower Parking StudyBEL-22-001Downtown North Study AreaCity of Bellflower60591- Page 9 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
3 2.0 PARKING INVENTORY

2.1 AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES

TJW conducted a parking inventory on Thursday, May 19, 2022, to verify the total number of parking spaces provided by north Downtown Bellflower. The parking lots, structures, and on-street parking locations included in the inventory are shown in Exhibit 2. As shown on Exhibit 2, the following parking facilities are provided:

 Parking structures on the northwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard/Mayne Street (Zone M) and east of Flower Street (Zone G) which provide 278 spaces and 293 spaces, respectively  Public parking lots amounting to 525 total parking spaces  On-street parking, including space for 45 vehicles on Bellflower Boulevard. The remaining streets (Oak Street, Belmont Street, Civic Center Drive, and Flower Street) provide on-street parking space for 142 vehicles total.

All parking spaces are available to the public with either time or day restrictions in each zone. Altogether, a total of 1,283 parking spaces are available for north Downtown Bellflower. A breakdown of spaces and restrictions by zone and street is provided below in Table 1.

The previous Bellflower Economic Development staff study found that 1,278 parking spaces were available within the north Downtown Bellflower area. Two additional on-street spaces and three additional parking lot spaces have been identified to bring the total to 1,283 parking spaces.

Table 1: Parking Inventory by Zone/Street
Zone/
Street Location Restrictions Spaces
Provided
A North side of Oak Street east of
Bellflower Boulevard
2-hour parking
7:00 AM – 6:00 PM 45
B Between Oak Street and Belmont Street
east of Bellflower Boulevard
2-hour parking
7:00 AM – 9:00 PM 89
C North side of Oak Street at Adenmoor
Avenue
No parking on Tuesdays
6:00 AM – 7:00 AM 4
D Northeast corner of Adenmoor
Avenue/Belmont Street
2-hour parking
7:00 AM – 6:00 PM 13
E North side of Belmont Street at Civic
Center Drive
Open to public after 5:30 PM on
weekends 28
F Northeast corner of Civic Center Drive
and Flower Street
2-hour parking within the library
parking portion 78
G Parking structure east of Civic Center
Drive north of Flower Street
No public parking during weekday
daytime hours 293
- Page 10 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
4 Zone/
Street Location Restrictions Spaces
Provided
H South side of Flower Street west of Civic
Center Drive
No parking when the nearby park is
closed (half-hour after dusk to half
hour before dawn)
16 I North side of Flower Street east of
Bellflower Boulevard
2-hour parking
7:00 AM – 6:00 PM 22
J North side of Flower Street west of
Bellflower Boulevard
No parking on Wednesdays
12:00 AM – 6:00 AM 44
K South side of Belmont Street west of
Bellflower Boulevard None 102
L North side of Belmont Street west of
Bellflower Boulevard None 84
M
Parking structure on the northwest
corner of Bellflower Boulevard/Mayne
Street
None 278
Bellflower
Boulevard Between Mayne Street and Flower Street
No parking Mondays and Thursdays
2:00 AM – 6:00 AM;
2-hour parking (except Sunday)
7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
45 Oak
Street West of Bellflower Boulevard 2-hour parking
7:00 AM – 6:00 PM 8
Oak
Street East of Bellflower Boulevard No parking on Tuesdays 6:00 AM – 7:00 AM 10
Belmont
Street
Between Bellflower Boulevard and Civic
Center Drive
2-hour parking
7:00 AM – 6:00 PM 38
Civic
Center
Drive
Between Belmont Street and Flower
Street None 28
Flower
Street East of Civic Center Drive None 20
Flower
Street
Between Bellflower Boulevard and Civic
Center Drive None 33
Flower
Street West of Bellflower Boulevard None 5
Total 1,283

- Page 11 of 183 -

Legend:Project SitesNot to Scale5
ǆŚŝďŝt Ϯ͗ WaƌŬŝŶŐ >ocatŝoŶƐ aŶĚ /ŶǀeŶtoƌǇNorth Downtown Bellflower Parking StudyBEL-22-001On-Street Parking A45 B89C4 D13 E28 F78 G293 H16 I22 J44 K102 L84 M278Flower StMayne StBellflower Blvd Belmont StOak StCivic Center Dr
Adenmoor Ave
Study Area BoundaryBellflower On-Street Parking- Page 12 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
6 3.0 PARKING OCCUPANCY

3.1 HISTORICAL PARKING OCCUPANCY

Bellflower Economic Development staff conducted an inventory and analysis of public parking in north Downtown Bellflower (North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis, March 2020) to determine if Downtown Bellflower is nearing its capacity. The study relied on available parking data and a parking demand analysis prepared for the Brew Refinery project by K2 Traffic Engineering (Parking Study – Brew Refinery & Restaurant 16710 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower, December 2019). Both the Bellflower Economic Development staff study and the K2 study are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. It should be noted that the Brew Refinery is currently an entitled project that is not under construction, and the property is for sale without a buyer.

The 2020 analysis found that approximately 235 parking spaces would still be available throughout the north Downtown area during peak demand time after the major developments are completed. Specifically, the 2020 analysis concluded that most of the future available parking spaces during the evening and weekend peak demand time will be in the County parking structure behind City Hall, and that it will be prudent for the new business operators and the City to promote the various parking lot locations throughout Downtown.

It should be noted that both the Bellflower Economic Development staff study and the K2 study did not provide occupancy/demand data for the Regional Transit Center Parking Structure (Zone M) on the northwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street, as it was not open at the time of the K2 study.

3.2 EXISTING PARKING OCCUPANCY

In order to determine the peak demand hours for north Downtown Bellflower, parking occupancy surveys were conducted from Thursday May 19, 2022 to Sunday May 22, 2022. For Thursday-Saturday, hourly parking occupancy surveys were conducted from 11:00 AM – 11:00 PM. On Sunday, hourly parking occupancy surveys were conducted from 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM. Parking occupancy was recorded for the lots, streets, and structures listed previously in Table 1. Occupancy data is provided in Appendix C.

Visualizations of occupancy for each hour are provided in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 below. The highest occupancy consistently occurred on Bellflower Boulevard, which regularly was parked at or near capacity. The remaining locations and parking types experienced about 30-50% occupancy from Thursday to Saturday and 10-40% occupancy on Sunday. While all four days had distinct peak parking periods, parking occupancy was generally consistent throughout Friday.

Based on total occupancy, the hours of 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM were determined to be the peak on weekdays and Saturdays, and the hours of 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM were determined to be the peak on Sundays. It should be noted that although Thursday occupancy was slightly higher during the afternoon than at night, the - Page 13 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
7 nighttime peak hour was chosen to capture potential events, shows, etc. at the Stand-Up Comedy Club and breweries within north Downtown Bellflower.

- Page 14 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
8 Table 2: Thursday May 19, 2022 Occupancy

Table 3: Friday May 20, 2022 Occupancy

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%OccupancyLots Bellflower On-Street Remaining On-Street Overall 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%OccupancyLots Bellflower On-Street Remaining On-Street Overall - Page 15 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
9 Table 4: Saturday May 21, 2022 Occupancy

Table 5: Sunday May 22, 2022 Occupancy

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
10 3.3 PEAK HOUR OCCUPANCY

A bar graph visualization of occupancy during the peak hours is provided in Table 6 below. Information for spaces occupied within zones (parking lots and structures), along Bellflower Boulevard, and on-street parking available on other streets is provided in addition to the overall total for each peak hour.

As shown in the graph, the peak weekday total occupancy was 556 spaces occurring from 8:00PM – 9:00 PM on Friday, representing 43% occupancy of the 1,283 available spaces. The peak weekend total occupancy was 494 spaces occurring from 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM on Sunday, representing 39% occupancy of the 1,283 available spaces. Although the overall peak occupancy was approximately 40%, the parking along Bellflower exceeded the average at above 80%. In addition, the remaining on-street parking within the study area showed a higher demand than the off-street parking zones.

Table 6: Peak Hour Occupancy for June 9, 2022 – June 12, 2022

Exhibit 3 shows a map of occupancy for each zone and street for the weekday peak (Friday June 10, 2022 from 8:00 PM – 9:00 PM). Exhibit 4 shows a map of occupancy for each zone and street for the weekend peak (Sunday June 12, 2022 from 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM). While several of the lots are at or near full capacity during both peaks, the remaining public lots and spaces along streets within north Downtown Bellflower can accommodate overflow.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8:00PM -
9:00PM
9:00PM -
10:00PM
8:00PM -
9:00PM
9:00PM -
10:00PM
8:00PM -
9:00PM
9:00PM -
10:00PM
1:00PM -
2:00PM
2:00PM -
3:00PM
Thursday Friday Saturday SundayOccupancyLotsBellflower On-Street Remaining On-Street Overall - Page 17 of 183 -

Not to Scaleϭ1
ǆŚŝďŝt ϯ͗ teeŬĚaǇ WeaŬ KccƵƉaŶcǇNorth Downtown Bellflower Parking StudyBEL-22-001Legend:95 - 100% BC D G I J K L MFlower StMayne StBellflower Blvd Belmont StOak StCivic Center Dr
Adenmoor Ave
85 - 95%70 - 85%50 - 70%0 - 50%Study Area BoundaryA E F HWeekday Permit Parking - Page 18 of 183 -

85 - 95%70 - 85%50 - 70%0 - 50%Study Area BoundaryWeekday Permit Parking Not to Scaleϭ2 ǆŚŝďŝt ϰ͗ teeŬeŶĚ WeaŬ KccƵƉaŶcǇNorth Downtown Bellflower Parking StudyBEL-22-001Legend:95 - 100% BC D G I J K L MFlower StMayne StBellflower Blvd Belmont StOak StCivic Center Dr
Adenmoor Ave A E F H- Page 19 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
13 4.0 PARKING TRENDS AND BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD TURNOVER

4.1 PARKING TRENDS

Visualizations for parking occupancy throughout the day by zone are provided in Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10. Green cells represent less than 85% occupancy, yellow cells represent 85-90% occupancy, orange cells represent 90-95% occupancy, and red cells represent more than 95% occupancy.

Table 7: Occupancy by Zone for Thursday May 19, 2022

Table 8: Occupancy by Zone for Friday May 20, 2022

Zone 11AM - 12PM 12PM - 1PM 1PM - 2PM 2PM - 3PM 3PM - 4PM 4PM - 5PM 5PM - 6PM 6PM - 7PM 7PM - 8PM 8PM - 9PM 9PM - 10PM 10PM - 11PM A 96% 71% 73% 100% 73% 87% 98% 91% 100% 98% 64% 20%
B 66% 80% 93% 88% 85% 84% 80% 99% 99% 99% 78% 60%
C 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 50% 25% 50% 100% 100% 100%
D 23% 46% 31% 23% 15% 23% 38% 92% 100% 100% 92% 62%
E 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
F 53% 41% 35% 32% 37% 14% 19% 58% 13% 19% 28% 29%
G 24% 15% 16% 22% 20% 13% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
H 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 25% 13% 13% 13%
I 91% 82% 86% 77% 68% 55% 73% 45% 64% 100% 100% 100%
J 98% 98% 98% 98% 100% 95% 95% 64% 66% 66% 50% 52%
K 51% 59% 56% 50% 36% 41% 35% 46% 48% 24% 24% 22%
L 65% 61% 69% 76% 63% 65% 63% 60% 76% 88% 62% 38%
M 18% 18% 18% 16% 13% 9% 8% 8% 28% 26% 27% 29%
Bellflower 71% 71% 89% 91% 78% 58% 69% 96% 91% 89% 60% 56% Oak West of Bellflower 88% 88% 75% 63% 88% 38% 25% 63% 50% 75% 75% 50% Oak East of Bellflower 63% 38% 63% 50% 50% 38% 75% 75% 75% 88% 63% 50% Belmont 82% 97% 68% 71% 82% 84% 74% 92% 92% 95% 92% 79% Civic Center 18% 18% 32% 21% 21% 21% 21% 25% 29% 46% 50% 46% Flower East of Civic Center 15% 5% 5% 15% 30% 10% 5% 5% 0% 5% 15% 15% Flower West of Civic Center 36% 39% 15% 27% 30% 27% 12% 6% 3% 3% 21% 24% Flower West of Bellflower 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 80% 60% 60% 60% 80% 80% Zone 11AM - 12PM 12PM - 1PM 1PM - 2PM 2PM - 3PM 3PM - 4PM 4PM - 5PM 5PM - 6PM 6PM - 7PM 7PM - 8PM 8PM - 9PM 9PM - 10PM 10PM - 11PM A 89% 91% 91% 87% 78% 91% 96% 98% 98% 98% 100% 84%
B 22% 99% 100% 97% 96% 99% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 93%
C 50% 75% 75% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% D 38% 62% 85% 85% 69% 69% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92%
E 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
F 38% 31% 26% 21% 24% 18% 23% 22% 24% 37% 33% 33%
G 10% 6% 6% 10% 6% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
H 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6%
I 86% 86% 82% 86% 86% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100%
J 93% 100% 100% 100% 98% 93% 91% 52% 61% 57% 39% 77%
K 33% 40% 41% 43% 46% 35% 44% 54% 59% 55% 36% 36%
L 64% 74% 93% 81% 77% 67% 79% 90% 82% 79% 96% 76%
M 14% 13% 14% 14% 12% 5% 7% 10% 34% 39% 38% 36%
Bellflower 89% 87% 91% 96% 84% 84% 93% 96% 100% 84% 84% 62% Oak West of Bellflower 38% 50% 88% 88% 88% 63% 63% 75% 88% 50% 50% 50% Oak East of Bellflower 38% 38% 75% 63% 50% 75% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% Belmont 68% 84% 92% 82% 82% 89% 89% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Civic Center 18% 18% 14% 25% 54% 64% 64% 39% 39% 46% 54% 46% Flower East of Civic Center 15% 20% 30% 20% 15% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5% 10% 5% Flower West of Civic Center 27% 15% 36% 21% 6% 9% 6% 15% 27% 27% 15% 15% Flower West of Bellflower 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 40% 40% - Page 20 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
14 Table 9: Occupancy by Zone for Saturday May 21, 2022

Table 10: Occupancy by Zone for Sunday May 22, 2022
Zone 9AM -
10AM
10AM -
11AM
11AM -
12PM
12PM -
1PM
1PM -
2PM
2PM -
3PM
A 31% 40% 36% 64% 91% 89%
B 18% 28% 61% 99% 97% 100%
C 75% 100% 100% 100% 75% 25%
D 54% 92% 100% 100% 92% 100%
E 32% 21% 14% 18% 11% 18%
F 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
G 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
H 6% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6%
I 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
J 75% 100% 100% 59% 48% 55%
K 18% 29% 54% 47% 56% 54%
L 18% 18% 27% 43% 56% 79%
M 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Bellflower 7% 31% 69% 82% 76% 84%
Oak West of Bellflower 38% 13% 0% 25% 0% 25%
Oak East of Bellflower 38% 25% 38% 50% 50% 63%
Belmont 76% 79% 87% 84% 89% 89%
Civic Center 11% 11% 14% 18% 21% 25%
Flower East of Civic Center 10% 10% 15% 15% 15% 10%
Flower West of Civic Center 0% 0% 3% 0% 3% 9%
Flower West of Bellflower 80% 60% 80% 80% 80% 60%

As shown on the previous tables, Zones A-D and I-J experience high occupancy during the evenings on Thursday and throughout the day on Fridays and Saturdays. On Sundays, Zones A-D experience high occupancy throughout the day and Zone J experiences high occupancy from 10AM – 12PM.

Zone 11AM - 12PM 12PM - 1PM 1PM - 2PM 2PM - 3PM 3PM - 4PM 4PM - 5PM 5PM - 6PM 6PM - 7PM 7PM - 8PM 8PM - 9PM 9PM - 10PM 10PM - 11PM A 76% 96% 100% 91% 62% 84% 93% 100% 100% 100% 98% 98%
B 78% 97% 98% 96% 99% 93% 96% 99% 99% 100% 100% 85%
C 75% 75% 100% 50% 25% 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% D 77% 77% 92% 92% 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% E 14% 14% 14% 14% 29% 43% 36% 39% 39% 50% 54% 50%
F 40% 41% 35% 45% 73% 86% 99% 71% 26% 13% 15% 6%
G 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
H 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 19% 19% 19%
I 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 36% 45% 27% 82% 86% 86% 95%
J 91% 89% 95% 86% 82% 80% 68% 66% 61% 66% 50% 43%
K 33% 34% 45% 53% 47% 44% 40% 40% 39% 42% 36% 30%
L 40% 43% 56% 63% 50% 51% 50% 57% 79% 92% 86% 74%
M 13% 11% 11% 10% 9% 4% 8% 11% 14% 17% 19% 17%
Bellflower 87% 93% 89% 78% 56% 71% 78% 89% 89% 96% 89% 69% Oak West of Bellflower 50% 63% 50% 50% 50% 63% 0% 50% 63% 100% 88% 38% Oak East of Bellflower 75% 63% 75% 75% 63% 63% 50% 50% 100% 88% 75% 50% Belmont 68% 84% 92% 82% 82% 89% 89% 89% 100% 97% 100% 76% Civic Center 18% 18% 14% 25% 54% 64% 64% 61% 57% 68% 64% 43% Flower East of Civic Center 15% 20% 30% 20% 15% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 15% 10% Flower West of Civic Center 27% 15% 36% 21% 6% 9% 6% 12% 12% 0% 3% 3% Flower West of Bellflower 80% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 60% 80% - Page 21 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
15 Bellflower Boulevard, Belmont Street, and Oak Street experience high occupancy in the evenings. Flower Street west of Bellflower Boulevard also experiences high occupancy, although the small capacity of five spaces exacerbates the utilization of this area. During these times of high occupancy, other street parking on Civic Center Drive and Flower Street east of Bellflower is typically available.

4.2 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD TURNOVER

License plate data for vehicles parked along Bellflower Boulevard was collected hourly to determine turnover durations, trends, and the number of vehicles served. Hourly data was collected from 11:00 AM – 11:00 PM from Thursday to Saturday and from 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM on Sunday. This data is summarized in Table 11. The overall average length of stay across all days was approximately two hours.

Table 11: Bellflower Boulevard Turnover Data
Zone/Street
Total
Parking
Spaces
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Unique
Vehicles
Average
Duration
of Stay
(Hours)
Unique
Vehicles
Average
Duration
of Stay
(Hours)
Unique
Vehicles
Average
Duration
of Stay
(Hours)
Unique
Vehicles1
Average
Duration
of Stay
(Hours)
Bellflower
Boulevard 45 209 1.98 218 2.17 199 2.23 86 1.98
1: Turnover and parking surveys were conducted from 9AM – 3PM on Sunday, which amounts to six hours. All other days were observed from 11AM – 11PM, which amounts to 12 hours.

A percent breakdown by duration of stay for May 19-22, 2022 is presented in Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, and Table 15. Although the overall average duration of stay was two hours, 25-30% of vehicles parked on Bellflower Boulevard stayed for longer than two hours due to an absence of effective enforcement of the two-hour restriction. This amounts to 54 vehicles on Thursday, 65 vehicles on Friday, 51 vehicles on Saturday, and 21 vehicles on Sunday. With effective enforcement of the two-hour restriction, the number of vehicles staying longer than two hours would be reduced and a higher amount of turnover would occur, making parking spaces more readily available to patrons of the businesses along Bellflower Boulevard.

Up to four percent of vehicles parking on Bellflower Boulevard stay parked for more than six hours, likely from employees utilizing the on-street parking. Typically, on-street parking fronting land uses in a downtown area are intended for patrons and not employees. As such, businesses within north Downtown Bellflower should direct their staff to park in lots with more availability away from Bellflower Boulevard. This will also help reduce the occupancy on Bellflower Boulevard during the evening peak hour.

- Page 22 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
16 Table 12: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Friday May 20, 2022

Table 13: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Friday May 20, 2022

74%
16%
8%2%
2 Hours or Less Between 2-4 Hours
Between 4-6 Hours Longer Than 6 Hours
70%
19%
8%3%
2 Hours or Less Between 2-4 Hours
Between 4-6 Hours Longer Than 6 Hours
- Page 23 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
17 Table 14: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Saturday May 21, 2022

Table 15: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Sunday May 22, 2022

74%
18%
4%4%
2 Hours or Less Between 2-4 Hours
Between 4-6 Hours Longer Than 6 Hours
75%
20%
5%0%
2 Hours or Less Between 2-4 Hours
Between 4-6 Hours Longer Than 6 Hours
- Page 24 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
18 5.0 ANGLED PARKING AND PARKLETS

5.1 ANGLED PARKING DISCUSSION

Angled parking is a parking design alternative that can be incorporated to increase the total number of parking spaces within the subject area, however, careful consideration should be given when constructing angled parking spaces, especially when determining the appropriate dimensions for parking. There are several alternatives for angled parking spaces with the three primary angles being 30, 45 and 60-degrees.

These alternatives have varying dimensions, with changes to parking lane widths, lengths and overall roadway impact, depending on which angle is utilized. Similar to inverse impacts to curb width versus roadway width between curbside on-street parking and head-in direct parking, 60-degree angled parking spaces experience related impacts when compared to 30-degree angled parking spaces. Of the three primary angled parking alternatives, the 45-degree and 60-degree angles are most common. Available curb side and roadway space should be appropriately assessed when determining effective angled parking design.

Downtown Bellflower could benefit by capturing the potential increase in parking by implementing angled parking along Bellflower Boulevard. Currently, the roadway segment of Bellflower Boulevard within the study area, from Mayne Street to Flower Street, contains roadway width segments ranging between 48 feet and 58 feet in width. The main difference between the two roadway geometries is the wider segments of 58 feet contain on-street parallel parking while the narrower 48-foot segments do not. Along the entire segment, there are a combined 45 on-street parallel parking spaces along both sides of the roadway – 23 on- street spaces on the west side and 22 on the east side of Bellflower Boulevard. In discussions with City staff, it was determined that portions of available parking space are under consideration for conversion to accommodate angled parking spaces, outdoor dining parklets or both. Below is a breakdown of number of parking spaces and available parking length along Bellflower Boulevard.

Table 16: Bellflower Boulevard On-street Parking Availability Location On-street Parallel Parking Availability
Bellflower Blvd between: Westside of Bellflower Blvd Eastside of Bellflower Blvd Mayne St and Oak St 5 spaces 5 spaces
Oak St and Belmont St (s/o Oak St) 4 spaces 5 spaces
Oak St and Belmont St (n/o Belmont St) 3 spaces 2 spaces Belmont St and Laurel St 6 spaces 5 spaces
Laurel St and Flower St (s/o Laurel St) -- 2 spaces
Laurel St and Flower St (n/o Flower St) 5 spaces 3 spaces Total1 23 spaces 22 spaces
1 – Discrepancies in number of parking spaces and lengths due to variations in singular parking space dimensions along segments.

- Page 25 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
19 Based on required parking space dimensions and roadway requirements per the City of Bellflower Municipal Code, it is determined that angled parking is not an appropriate alternative along both sides of the roadway due to the lack of available roadway width along Bellflower Boulevard. The City of Bellflower could consider modifications to portions of the roadway to include angled parking where feasible with changes to the existing roadway geometry within the subject roadway segment. The existing four travel lane roadway (two northbound and two southbound) could be converted to accommodate two travel lanes, one in each direction to allow the appropriate roadway width for angled parking along portions of the roadway segment.

The following table shows the potential number of parking spaces where parallel parking spaces are converted to angled parking spaces.

Table 17: Bellflower Boulevard Proposed On-street Mixed Parking Availability Location Proposed On-street Mixed Parking Availability1 Bellflower Blvd between: Westside of Bellflower Blvd Eastside of Bellflower Blvd Mayne St and Oak St 9 spaces 5 spaces
Oak St and Belmont St (s/o Oak St) 4 spaces 9 spaces
Oak St and Belmont St (n/o Belmont St) 5 spaces 2 spaces Belmont St and Laurel St 10 spaces 5 spaces
Laurel St and Flower St (s/o Laurel St) -- 2 spaces
Laurel St and Flower St (n/o Flower St) 9 spaces 3 spaces Total2 37 spaces 27 spaces
1 – Bold, italic values refer to potential number of parking spaces with conversion to angled parking spaces 2 – Discrepancies in number of parking spaces and lengths due to variations in singular parking space dimensions along segments.

As shown in the table, a total of 64 parking spaces, or a net gain of approximately 19 parking spaces is possible by converting portions where parallel parking exists to angled parking. Again, although feasible, the roadway modifications to accommodate angled parking spaces would reduce one travel lane in each direction and portions of roadway upstream and downstream from the subject area would undergo changes to capture the transition due to the changes in number of lanes.

5.2 PARKLET DISCUSSION

As for consideration to construct parklets, parklets are used as small public areas or commercial spaces that help to support adjacent businesses in areas where sidewalk space is limited and can also help to encourage pedestrian activity within business areas. Although parklets are generally for slower speed roadways of 25 MPH, with appropriate barriers and protective measures, parklets could be incorporated along roadways such as Bellflower Boulevard. Approximate impact to parking is based on parklet dimension and location along Bellflower Boulevard varies as segments of parklets would vary largely on participation of businesses along the corridor. Contrary to the angled parking modifications, parklets would only occupy the existing portion of on-street curbside parking availability, and with the exception to the change in parking spaces, no - Page 26 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
20 significant changes are anticipated to the roadway geometry along the corridor. A quick reference of parking related impacts can be found by reviewing parking availability information provided in Table 16.

The implementation of either angled parking, parklets or both are not without significant impacts to roadway geometry and as such, the benefits and disadvantages of the alternatives should be carefully considered. In addition, multiple discussions with stakeholders and extensive public outreach are recommended as part of the implementation process.
- Page 27 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
21 6.0 FUTURE DEMAND

6.1 FORMER BREW REFINERY PROJECT

To estimate future demand within north Downtown Bellflower, parking requirements for the former Brew Refinery project have been added to the observed peak parking occupancy. Requirements for the former Brew Refinery project have been obtained from a previous study utilizing parking rates for new developments in the Town Center District in the City of Bellflower Municipal Code. As outlined in the K2 Traffic Engineering Parking Study – Brew Refinery & Restaurant 16710 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower , December 2019, a total of 41 parking spaces were required to be provided by the Brew Refinery. The K2 Traffic Engineering study is provided in Appendix B.

As mentioned previously in Section 4.3, the peak occupancy observed was 556 spaces out of 1,283 available spaces (43% occupancy). With the 41 required spaces added to the peak occupancy, 597 spaces would be occupied out of the 1,283 available spaces (47% occupancy).

The former Brew Refinery project site is located on Bellflower Boulevard just north of Flower Street. The parking lot in Zone I will be the closest parking lot, and Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street will be the closest on-street options. While Zone I and Bellflower Boulevard experience high occupancies, the low occupancy experienced by Flower Street east of Bellflower Boulevard will likely be able to accommodate the parking demand generated by the potential buyer of the former Brew Refinery project site.

6.2 THE EDGEWAY

As outlined in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND No. 20-01) for the Proposed Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Mixed-Use Project, May 2020, The Edgeway is required to provide 95 spaces per the City of Bellflower Municipal Code. The applicant for The Edgeway has completed a parking agreement for required parking spaces to be placed off-site in adjacent city parking structures and/or surface parking lots. IS/MND No. 20-01 is provided in Appendix D.

To reflect the parking agreement, the 95 required spaces have been added to the peak observed occupancy of 556 spaces and the 41 spaces previously required by the Brew Refinery project. This results in an estimated peak parking demand of 692 spaces, which represents 54% occupancy of the 1,283 available spaces within the north Downtown Bellflower area. Specifically, the parking structure across from The Edgeway site (Zone M) currently experiences low occupancy and would be able to accommodate the parking demand generated by The Edgeway project.

- Page 28 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
22 6.3 FEASIBILITY OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN NORTH DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER

If further development or parking modifications were to occur within the north Downtown Bellflower area, certain lots and on-street parking areas would be able to accommodate increased demand or reduced parking supply. Zones E, G, H, K, M, Civic Center Drive, Flower Street east of Civic Center Drive, and Flower Street west of Civic Center Drive could accommodate increased demand or a reduction in parking supply. In the event that a development or modification would impact a zone that cannot directly accommodate increased demand or a reduction in parking supply, vehicles can be directed to any nearby zones which have parking availability.

6.4 PARKING IMPACTS IN LOTS B, K AND L – TRASH COMPACTOR ENCLOSURES

The City’s Public Works Department is currently considering the installation of trash enclosures within parking lots B, K and L. Due to their installation, the trash enclosures are expected to displace approximately four parking spaces per lot with the exception to Lot B, where a loss of one parking space is expected. Based on data collection, there would be minimal impacts to available parking within Lot K and Lot L. This assumption is further corroborated with the data shown in Table 9 and Table 10, that depicts Lot L and Lot K experience a max occupancy of 92% and 54% during one time period. As for Lot B, although it frequently experiences occupancy in the 90%-100% range, since only one loss of parking is expected with the trash enclosure, it should be noted that the adjacent roadways of Belmont Street (max occupancy 89%) and Oak Street (max occupancy 63%) have sufficient capacity to accommodate the loss in parking. Thus, the impact to parking due to the trash enclosures with all three lots is expected to be less than significant.

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGE FUTURE PARKING DEMAND

As outlined throughout the study, the north Downtown Bellflower area has the parking capacity to handle both current and potential parking demand; however, the capacity is currently not being fully utilized. To direct drivers to lots or streets with ample parking supply, one or more of the following recommendations could be implemented:

 Implement parking meters on Bellflower Boulevard, Zone A, and Zone B. While the 2-hour parking limit can remain, any time longer than 2-hours would be charged to the driver. Enforcement would need to be implemented to make sure all vehicles parked on Bellflower Boulevard are utilizing the parking meter. These recommendations may direct drivers to use other lots if they are staying for more than 2 hours and/or do not want to potentially pay for parking.  Signage throughout Bellflower Boulevard directing drivers to other parking areas with ample parking supply. Drivers may currently be parking on Bellflower Boulevard because they do not know about the Zone M and Zone G parking structures, for example. The signs could also include restrictions (if any) that are in place at the locations drivers are being directed towards.  Enforcement of parking restrictions should be implemented during the peak demand times. - Page 29 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
23  Extend restricted timeframes to match peak demand hours. Because Zones A-D and Bellflower Boulevard experience high demand on Friday and Saturday outside of their current 2-hour restricted timeframe, the restriction could be extended to 10:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM.

- Page 30 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
24 7.0 CONCLUSION

There are parking structures provided on the northwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard/Mayne Street and east of Flower Street which provide 278 spaces and 293 spaces, respectively. There are also public parking lots available for the north Downtown Bellflower land uses, amounting to 525 parking spaces. Bellflower Boulevard provides space for 45 vehicles and the other streets within north Downtown Bellflower provide space for 142 vehicles. Altogether, a total of 1,283 parking spaces are available for north Downtown Bellflower.

The peak weekday total occupancy was 556 spaces occurring from 8:00PM – 9:00 PM on Friday, representing 43% occupancy of the 1,283 available spaces. The peak weekend total occupancy was 494 spaces occurring from 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM on Sunday, representing 39% occupancy of the 1,283 available spaces. While several of the lots are at or near full capacity during both peaks, there are other public lots or spaces along streets within north Downtown Bellflower to accommodate overflow.

Bellflower Boulevard, Belmont Street, and Oak Street experience high occupancy in the evenings. Flower Street west of Bellflower Boulevard also experiences high occupancy, although the small capacity of five spaces exacerbates the utilization of this area. During these times of high occupancy, other street parking on Civic Center Drive and Flower Street east of Bellflower is typically available.

Up to four percent of vehicles parking on Bellflower Boulevard stay parked for more than six hours, likely from employees utilizing the on-street parking. Typically, on-street parking fronting land uses in a downtown area are intended for customers and not employees. As such, businesses within north Downtown Bellflower should direct their staff to park in lots with more availability away from Bellflower Boulevard. This will also help reduce the occupancy on Bellflower Boulevard during the evening peak hour.

The Edgeway is required to provide 95 spaces per the City of Bellflower Municipal Code. The applicant for The Edgeway has completed a parking agreement for required parking spaces to be placed off-site in adjacent - Page 31 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
25 city parking structures and/or surface parking lots. To reflect the parking agreement, the 95 required spaces have been added to the peak observed occupancy of 556 spaces and the 41 spaces required by the Brew Refinery. This results in an estimated peak parking demand of 692 spaces, which represents 54% occupancy of the 1,283 available spaces within the north Downtown Bellflower area. Specifically, the parking structure across from The Edgeway site (Zone M) currently experiences low occupancy and would be able to accommodate the parking demand generated by The Edgeway project.

If further development or parking modifications were to occur within the north Downtown Bellflower area, Zones E, G, H, K, M, Civic Center Drive, Flower Street east of Civic Center Drive, and Flower Street west of Civic Center Drive could accommodate increased demand or a reduction in parking supply. In the event that a development or modification would impact a zone that cannot directly accommodate increased demand or a reduction in parking supply, vehicles can be directed to any nearby zones which have parking availability.

Benefits
 Promotes turnover of parking spaces
and minimizes abuse of extended
parking use
 Generates revenue for City
 May encourage use of designated
public areas and parking lots
 Newer meters can provide parking data
 Newer meters can provide easy
payment options for patrons
Disadvantages
 Costs incurred to purchase meters
 Costs incurred by patrons utilizing the
meters
 Additional parking enforcement labor
costs
 Additional maintenance related costs

 Signage throughout Bellflower Boulevard directing drivers to other parking areas with ample parking supply. Drivers may currently be parking on Bellflower Boulevard because they do not know about the Zone M and Zone G parking structures, for example. The signs could also include restrictions (if any) that are in place at the locations drivers are being directed towards. - Page 32 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
26 Benefits
 Guide signs inform drivers of additional
parking areas throughout the
downtown area
 May promote parking to be dispersed
throughout downtown area, reducing
impact to specific areas
Disadvantages
 Too many signs may promote sign
blight
 Costs incurred to obtain and maintain
signs

 Enforcement of parking restrictions should be implemented during the peak demand times. This can be completed with either current parking enforcement staff or with the use of utilizing private parking enforcement services. Although utilizing available parking enforcement staff at the City, under circumstances where staffing is not available, a private parking enforcement service would be ideal.

Benefits
 Ensures quick and effective
enforcement of parking zones
 Promotes turnover of parking spaces
 Ensures appropriate legal compliance
 Reduces direct confrontations with City
staff regarding parking disputes
Disadvantages
 Costs incurred to hire private service
 Staff time and effort to
manage/monitor private service
 Strict enforcement may lead to
excessive complaints

 Extend restricted timeframes to match peak demand hours. Because Zones A-D and Bellflower Boulevard experience high demand on Friday and Saturday outside of their current 2-hour restricted timeframe, the restriction could be extended to 10:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM. This alternative is recommended following outreach and storefront input prior to implementation.

Benefits
 Reduces need for extensive
enforcement
 Longer term parking may force less
utilized parking spaces to be utilized
Disadvantages
 Patrons may contend with increased
lack of parking
 Shopfront owners businesses may be
affected

As mentioned previously, another alternative to help capture the potential increase in parking would be the implementation of angled parking along Bellflower Boulevard. Currently, the segment of Bellflower Boulevard within the study area is approximately 58 feet in width, with a small portion of the roadway approximately 48 feet wide. The main difference between the two roadway geometries is the wider segment - Page 33 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
27 contains parallel parking – the narrower does not. Along the same segment, there are approximately 45 on- street parallel parking spaces along both sides of the roadway. In discussions with City staff, it was determined that portions of available parking space may be considered for conversion to accommodate angled parking spaces, outdoor dining parklets or both. Although feasible, the roadway modifications to accommodate angled parking spaces and parklets are not without potential issues and should be determined based on multiple discussions and extensive public outreach.

Benefits
 Angled spaces increase available
parking
 Angled spaces are easier to get in and
out (consider reverse angle parking)
 Angled spaces remove one travel lane,
promoting a narrower, slower and
potentially safer corridor
 Parklets can enhance community vibe
along roadway
 Parklets and angled spaces can
potentially increase business and
revenue due to increased business
exposure within the area
Disadvantages
 Angled spaces and parklets may modify
roadway geometry. Lane reduction may
not be feasible for this segment if high
vehicle throughput is anticipated.
 Design and construction costs for
upstream and downstream
modifications to roadway.
 Reduction of travel lane may promote
congestion along the corridor

- Page 34 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
28 APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

BELLFLOWER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY
- Page 36 of 183 -

North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis
March 2020

Prepared by the City of Bellflower Department of Economic Development Reviewed by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning

- Page 37 of 183 -

2 Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis
March 2020

Executive Summary

The increased popularity of Downtown Bellflower has resulted in an increased demand for parking. This is especially true in the northern part of downtown generally located along Bellflower Boulevard from the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way south to Flower Street. A number of new development projects in this area are expected to further increase the demand for parking.

SteelCraft Bellflower (opened in June 2019); the StandUp Comedy Club (opening in Spring 2020); the Brew Refinery, proposed microbrewery, restaurant, and lounge (projected to open in Summer 2021); and the Serrano Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Development project, proposed apartments, commercial retail, and a 4-screen art house movie theater (projected to open in 2022) will incrementally increase parking demand on the limited supply/capacity of parking in Downtown Bellflower.

This analysis, using the recent parking demand study for the Brew Refinery project, combined with the addition of curbside parking spaces and the new parking structure, and conservative assumptions regarding the parking demands of the new development projects in the pipeline, shows that the inventory of Downtown Bellflower parking spaces is more than sufficient to accommodate the increased demand generated by these development projects.

Introduction

Thanks to a number of factors including advanced planning, City involvement, a robust economy and good timing, Downtown Bellflower has seen extraordinary development and improvement since the completion of Belmont Court in 2014. However, with the new interest and investment in the downtown also comes an increased parking demand from new residents, patrons, and employees all of whom have a desire to park as close to their ultimate destination s as possible.

The goal of this analysis is to determine if Downtown Bellflower is nearing its capacity for parking.

For the purposes of this analysis, demand is defined as the “need” for parking spaces by the existing land uses as shown through the K2 Traffic Engineering Parking Study and the assumption made for the new developments. Capacity is defined as the total number of available, “longer - term” parking spaces in the Downtown Study Area North .

With the buildout of various approved and proposed projects incomplete, the results of this analysis will be based on conservative projections and assumptions. Additionally, Downtown - Page 38 of 183 -

3 Bellflower, which is typically thought of as Bellflower Boulevard from the Pacific Electric Railroad Right-of-Way (“ROW”) south to the 91 Freeway, is divided into northerly and southerly sections at Flower Street because of the difference in property characteristics of the two areas (Exhibit “A”). The portion of Bellflower Boulevard south of Flower Street to Walnut Street is a bit of a transitional area in that some properties have their own parking lots, while a significant amount of public parking is provided by on-street/curbside spaces and the public parking lot on Walnut Street and the privately owned, paid parking lot on Bellflower Boulevard between Maple Street and Walnut Street. This analysis will focus on the northern portion of the downtown between Flower Street and the ROW.

This analysis does not include the impact of rideshare services or shared trips/internal capture among two or more uses, all of which would reduce the demand for parking during peak times, and which are often associated with the new types of projects being planned and developed in Downtown Bellflower.

Walkability

Walkability is a key component of a thriving downtown. From new Transit Oriented Development (TOD) guidelines to new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) guidelines, best practices and new legislation often sites ½ mile as a reasonable walking distance. This is evidenced in the City of Bellflower’s recent Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan, in which the specific plan study area is an area within a ½ mile radius of the proposed Downtown Bellflower Light Rail Station on Bellflower Boulevard.

The northern portion of the downtown, in which one major project (SteelCraft Bellflower) has been completed, and three more are on the way, is a walkable downtown area, recently enhanced by a major pedestrian streetscape program completed in 2016. Bellflower Boulevard from the ROW to Flower Street is approximately ¼ mile, as is the distance from the future comedy club to the County Parking Structure behind City Hall. Various studies have identified pedestrian walking speeds that range from 2.0 to 4.3 feet per second (the City Engineer uses 3.5 ft per second for traffic signal crosswalk timing). At those speeds, a person can walk a ¼ mile in 5 to 11 minutes, suggesting that barring time at traffic signals and crosswalks, the average person could walk from any of the public lots north of Flower Street to any of the merchants or attractions north of Flower Street in approximately 10 minutes. This also suggests a level of walkability in Downtown Bellflower that is higher than the industry standard. W alking distances from parking lots in the downtown to various attractions is shown on Exhibit B.

- Page 39 of 183 -

4 Baseline Data

Although developments are not permitted to include on -street/curbside parking spaces towards their parking requirements, curbside spaces are included in this analysis to provide a complete and accurate inventory of available public parking spaces in Downtown Bellflower . The baseline data for this analysis comes from the December 2019 Revised Parking Study (“Parking Study”) for the Brew Refinery and Restaurant project entitlement submittal at 16710 Bellflower Boulevard and Economic Development Department staff field surveys of curbside parking spaces. The Parking Study inventoried the Public Parking available in the Downtown from Flower Street, north to the ROW and did not include the Regional Transit Center Parking Structure at the northwest corner of Mayne Street and Bellflower Boulevard, because it was not open at the time of the study.

Downtown North Study Area

The Parking Study identified 12 public parking lots (Exhibit “C” lots labeled A - L) including the Library Garden Park parking lot on the south side of Flower Street and the Los Angeles County parking structure and Public Library parking lot, which are regulated by weekday time restrictions to accommodate parking for the County facilities (815 spaces). These 815 parking spaces do not include assigned Sheriff parking in Lot “B” and L.A. County employee parking in Lot “K” (County Parking Structure). The staff field survey of the number of curbside parking spaces totaled 185.

Including the new Parking Structure (278 spaces available in Spring 2020), the total number of parking spaces in the Downtown North Study Area is 1,27 8 (1,093 spaces in parking lots and 185 curbside spaces).

Adjusted Baseline Data

Now that an inventory of all the public parking spaces has been completed, the numbers will be adjusted to account for conditional parking space such as loading zones, or day and time limited parking. Some of these conditional spaces can be adjusted as needed as the Downtown evolves, however, for employee parking, the City Hall, County Library, and County Parking Structure parking lots are restricted to public use during typical weekday, da ytime working hours, and available after 5 pm and on weekends and holidays as described below. Long term parking in the non-restricted public parking lots is discouraged with a time limit of 72 hours and no parking for street sweeping on Wednesday morning from 12 am to 6 am.

- Page 40 of 183 -

5 20 Minute Parking and Loading Spaces (North Study Area)

There are 27 20- and/or 30-minute parking spaces (green painted curbs or tire-stops) scattered throughout the Downtown, with concentrations of these located in front of the post office and at SteelCraft. These spaces are typically adjacent to businesses with a need for pick-up, drop-off or deliveries, and close to the business entrances. Although these spaces take up room for longer term parking, they are typically curbside spaces and encourage those interested in longer term parking to seek parking in the main lots.

In the Downtown North Study Area, there are 7 loading spaces (white painted curbs). Six of those are located in front of White’s Funeral Home on Flower Street and the other is located on Oak Street, adjacent to SteelCraft Bellflower.

For the Downtown North Study Area, a total of 3 4 curbside parking spaces are restricted short- term parking spaces (20- or 30-minute parking or loading).

Day and Time Limited Parking

The Civic Center parking lots, which include Lots H, J, K, and L are Day and Time Limited lots (Exhibit “B”). Lot H, containing 28 parking spaces is used for City Hall employee parking during the work week and is available for public parking on th e weekends. Lot J, containing 36 parking spaces, is the primary parking lot for the County Library and is limited to 2-hour parking, Monday through Friday from 7 am to 4 pm. Lot K, a 3-story parking structure containing 279 parking spaces, is used for the County courthouse and health facility. The City has an agreement with the County of Los Angeles to allow for public parking in the structure in the evenings and on weekends. Lot L, containing 16 parking spaces adjacent to the Library Garden Park, is limite d to 1-hour parking from 7 am to 5 pm, Monday through Saturday. Since the peak parking demand times for the new developments do not conflict with the civic center parking lots mentioned above, those spaces will be counted as available spaces in this analys is.

Three Downtown North Study Area lots are time restricted, Lots D, E, and G. These lots limit parking to 2 hours between 7 am and 6 pm and contain a total of 131 parking spaces. These lots will also be counted as available spaces in this analysis as the time restrictions do not conflict with the peak times of the new developments.

Summary

Since the focus of this analysis is regarding longer term parking for patrons of Downtown Bellflower, the 34 time-restricted curbside and loading spaces are not included in the inventory - Page 41 of 183 -

6 of available parking spaces. Removing these spaces from the North Study Area reduces the total amount of longer-term parking spaces from 1,278 to 1,244.

Demand and Capacity Analysis

Using the inventory in the parking analysis prepared by K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., staff added the 151 longer-term curbside parking spaces and 278 parking spaces in the Regional Transit Center Parking Structure to the 815 total available parking spaces identified in the Parking Study.

This gives the Downtown Study Area North a capacity of 1,244 parking spaces (Table 1).

K2 Study Parking Spaces (Lots A – L) 815
Total Curbside Parking Spaces 185
Regional Transit Center Parking Spaces (Lot M) 278
Time-limited Curbside Parking Spaces -34
Total Longer-term Parking Spaces 1,244
Table 1

It can be assumed that the longer-term curbside spaces, typically considered prime parking spaces, were full during the peak times identified by the Parking Study even though they weren’t observed. As such, the peak demand numbers identified by the Parking Study were increased by 151 parking spaces, the same number of available longer-term curbside parking spaces in the Downtown North area.

Using the above described baseline data for the projected supply and peak demand, additional peak demand was added for each of the new development projects proposed to open over the next 3 years (The Brew Refinery, The StandUp Club, and the Serrano Mixed -Use project).

Pursuant to the code and outlined in their respective entitlements, the Brew Refinery and the StandUp Club each are required to have 41 parking spaces, while the theater and commercial uses for the Serrano Mixed-Use project are required to have 97 parking spaces. All of these projects typically have peak parking times from Thursday through Saturday evening and are assigning their required parking to the public parking lots through Parking License Agreements with the City.

Further, to address potential concerns that the per code parking requirements may not accurately represent the actual parking demand of these uses, staff increased the demand for each use as shown in Table 2. The number of employees was estimated for each project and an additional parking space per employee was added to the total demand for each project. For the StandUp Club and the Serrano project, both having components of public assembly uses (a comedy club and multi-screen art house theater), one parking space for every two seats was added to the respective projects parking demand.
- Page 42 of 183 -

7 Spaces
per
Code
#
Seats
Spaces/
2 Seats
Est. #
of
Emp.

Peak
Days
Peak
Times
Total
Demand
Increase
from
Entitlement
Brew
Refinery 41 n/a - 25 Thu – Sat. Eve 66 +25
Stand Up
Club 41 152 76 15 Thu – Sat. Eve 91 +50
Serrano
Mixed-Use 97 278 139 30 Thu – Sat. Eve 169 +72
Table 2

Conclusion

After the addition of both the increased parking capacity provided by the longer-term curbside parking spaces (151 spaces) and the Regional Transit Center Parking Structure (278 spaces) and accounting for the increased peak parking demand of three major development projects in the pipeline, 235 parking spaces will still be available throughout the Downtown North Study Area during peak demand (Exhibit D).

Based on people’s desire to park as close to their final destination as possible, it can be assumed that once these projects are completed, and even now, the bulk of the future available parking spaces during the evening and weekend peak demand time will be located in the County parking structure behind City Hall. As these projects come online and parking demand increases, it will be prudent for the new business operators and the City to adequately promote the various parking lot locations throughout the Downtown, especially the County parking structure.

Should peak parking demand outpace the projections, the City could employ various parking management strategies ranging from a return to public valet parking (valet parking can increase parking lot capacity through the stacking of vehicles), metered parking, late night paid parking, etc., to address parking deficiencies during peak parking demand times.

- Page 43 of 183 -

8 Exhibit A
Downtown Bellflower Areas

Downtown North Study Area
Downtown South
Study Area
Downtown South
Study Area
Downtown North Study Area
NORTH
- Page 44 of 183 -

9 Exhibit B
Downtown Bellflower Walking Distances

Typical Walking Distances and Times
Route Distance Time (3.5 ft./sec)
Mayne St. to Flower St. (Bellflower Blvd.) ¼ mile 6.2 minutes Reg. Transit Ctr. Parking Structure to SteelCraft 1/8 mile 3.1 minutes Reg. Transit Ctr. Parking Structure to the StandUp Club ¼ mile 6.2 minutes Westside Public Parking Lot to the Brew Refinery 1/10 mile 2.5 minutes County Parking Structure to the StandUp Club ¼ mile 6.2 minutes - Page 45 of 183 -

10 Exhibit C Downtown North Study Area Parking Lots

- Page 46 of 183 -

11 Exhibit D Projected Daily Peak Parking Demand
- Page 47 of 183 -

APPENDIX B

K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY
- Page 48 of 183 -

ijim. K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, Inc.

Traffic Control.Signal.Synchronization.Parking.Study
December 18, 2019 (Revision)
Wayne Lu &Mathew Shenaida
Dream Building Development
5582 Imperial Highway
South Gate, CA 90280
Re: Parking Study- Brew Refinery & Restaurant
16710 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower
Dear Wayne &Mathew,
Per your request, we have conducted a parking study for the proposed restaurant.

This letter presents our methodology, finding, and recommendation in regards to the sufficiency of parking.

PROJECT INFORMATION
The proposed building is located at 16710 Bellflower Blvd in the City of Bellflower within the Town Center District. The proposed building consists of 16,264 square feet of total interior space for such uses as microbrewery, taproom, restaurant, and rooftop bar.

The building will be operated by a number of future tenants with various hours of operations. Floor plan is shown in Exhibit 1.

According to the Municipal Code of the City of Bellflower, the parking requirement for new developments in Town Center District is one parking space per 400 square feet. The proposed building has a gross floor area of 16,264 square feet and requires 41 parking spaces. Parking will be provided free of charge in public parking lots in the downtown area.

Table 1. Parking Requirements
Required
Land Use Parking Ratio Quantity Parking
New Development in Town
Center District 1 space per 400 SF 16,264 SF 41
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd,Suite 210,Tustin,CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email:[email protected] 40—- Page 49 of 183 -

Shared Parking Study-Brew Refinery &Restaurant December 18, 2019 16710 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower Page 2 of 3

PUBLIC PARKING
Public parking lots in the downtown area are identified in Exhibit 2. There are 815 parking spaces available for the general public, not including assigned Sheriff parking in Lot "B" and LA County employee parking in Lot "K". Lot "M" is a future parking structure with approximately 300 parking spaces. Additional detail of public parking lots can be found in Appendix A.

PARKING SURVEY
In order to examine parking availability, the study conducted three consecutive weeks of field observations at these public parking lots in the month of April 2019.

One additional week was later added to capture the potential changes since the opening of Steelcraft Bellflower (a 15,000 SF craft food and drink gathering space in Downtown Bellflower) in the month of June 2019. Complete survey data can be found in Appendix B.

Our observations found that, before the opening of Steelcraft Bellflower, the peak parking took place on Friday, April 19, 2019 at 6 p.m. when 454 spaces are used. At this peak parking period, public parking lots are less than 56% full with 361 parking spaces still available.

After the opening of Steelcraft Bellflower, the peak parking took place on Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8 p.m. when 532 spaces are used. At this peak parking period, public parking lots are less than 65.3% full with 283 parking spaces still available.

A comparison of daily peak parking usage is illustrated in Exhibit 3.

K2 Traffic Engineering, inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd,Suite 210,Tustin,CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email:[email protected] 41— - Page 50 of 183 -

Shared Parking Study-Brew Refinery &Restaurant December 18, 2019 16710 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower Page 3 of 3

SUMMARY
Although the increase of parking demand is apparent with the opening of Steelcraft Bellflower and other special events in the downtown area, the City of Bellflower does provide adequate capacity of public parking for the benefit of all users. The parking demand of this proposed eating and drinking establishment can be sufficiently accommodated by public parking lots provided in the downtown area.

Nonetheless, it is recommended that parking information with directions be provided/posted for the convenience of patrons and employees.

QROf ESS/oN9Regards,
Fti
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. I JENDE KAY HSU ti
rn
N o. T2285
Jende "Kay" su, T.E. Exp.6/30/20
California Licensed TR2285 sT rRq F
9Tf OF CA1
FOEi
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd,Suite 210,Tustin,CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email:[email protected]—- Page 51 of 183 -

APPENDIX C

INVENTORY AND OCCUPANCY COUNT DATA
- Page 52 of 183 -

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 42 1 59 0 3 040 1 69 222012:00 PM‐1:00 PM 30 2 70 1 3 031 1 41 21871:00 PM‐2:00 PM 32 1 81 2 3 025 2 44 21962:00 PM‐3:00 PM 44 1 78 0 3 023 2 62 32193:00 PM‐4:00 PM 30 3 76 0 3 027 2 54 42014:00 PM‐5:00 PM 34 5 75 0 3 011 0 35 21685:00 PM‐6:00 PM 39 5 69 2 2 014 1 15 01526:00 PM‐7:00 PM 39 2 83 5 1 044 1 1 31917:00 PM‐8:00 PM 43 2 83 5 2 010 0 0 01588:00 PM‐9:00 PM 42 2 83 5 3 115 0 0 01649:00 PM‐10:00 PM 29 0 65 4 3 121 1 0 013610:00 PM‐11:00 PM 9 0 50 3 3 123 0 0 09715 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 0 0 20 0 42 151 1 54 112:00 PM‐1:00 PM 0 0 18 0 42 160 0 50 11:00 PM‐2:00 PM 0 0 19 0 42 156 1 58 02:00 PM‐3:00 PM 0 0 17 0 42 151 0 64 03:00 PM‐4:00 PM 0 0 15 0 42 236 1 53 04:00 PM‐5:00 PM 0 0 12 0 42 041 1 54 15:00 PM‐6:00 PM 0 0 16 0 41 136 0 51 26:00 PM‐7:00 PM 1 0 10 0 28 047 0 50 07:00 PM‐8:00 PM 3 1 13 1 29 048 1 63 18:00 PM‐9:00 PM 2 0 21 1 28 123 1 72 29:00 PM‐10:00 PM 2 0 21 1 21 123 1 50 210:00 PM‐11:00 PM 2 0 21 1 23 022 0 31 14588413#VALUE!4571278 RegularHK16 Parking Spaces102 Parking SpacesTotal Occupied Parking Spaces184176169158239219222‐‐‐807673792222253544495049‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐3812131312536432224198181North Downtown BellflowerThursday, May 19, 2022Zone A B C DTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking SpacesSurvey Time Period13 Regular28 RegularE78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking SpacesParking LotsFG28 Parking Spaces226219ZoneIJLMCurrent Parking Supply22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking SpacesSurvey Time Period- Page 53 of 183 -

11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 1:00 PM ‐1:30 PM 1:30 PM ‐2:00 PM 2:00 PM ‐2:30 PM 2:30 PM ‐3:00 PM 3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM Thursday, May 19, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower (1/2)
‐
182
446
M16
‐
‐
708
169
J617
W617
431
486
740
229
182
‐
‐
417
708
‐
116
229
‐
644
563
001
341
‐
‐
870
‐
359
‐
‐
‐
328
134
170
106
015
0B3
T60
815
725
244
483
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
135
‐
‐
‐
‐
161
688
‐
141
‐
‐
925
429
169
229
‐
160
896
‐
327
‐
795
T60
815815
725
‐
UTO
250
‐
‐
‐
383
725
676
483
‐
376
‐
471
162
‐
263
‐
‐
742
161
001
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
676
483
458
676
483
110
‐
‐
‐
‐
327
985
832
T60
210
217
957
815
725
345
544
116
238
035
‐
498
‐
093
‐
429
‐
229
555
‐
720
141
7X2
013
896
675
327
985
‐
T60
‐
‐
UTO
447
649
‐
UTO
‐
‐
161
OUI
341
7X2
‐
896
675
810
161
‐
644
344
‐
160
896
675
327
229
‐
708
345
116
229
141
‐
‐
354
429
‐
341
2B2
2B2
‐
608
896
617
471
429
‐
229
‐
093
141
‐
‐
317
161
001
341
‐
009
498
483
3G3
‐
457
059
T60
815
725
676
116
229
‐
708
345
302
‐
‐
985
‐
T60
815
725
676
341
291
370
‐
848
490
913
161
001
341
483
963
‐
993
9G3
‐
‐
882
429
169
229
417
‐
‐
688
359
141
‐
407
608
896
170
‐
457
059
T60
815
407
608
896
170
‐
‐
169
229
080
359
141
902
‐
597
429
9G3
‐
135
383
848
688
725
676
483
0B3
T60
815
725
676
483
229
913
446
708
486
116
F12
‐
‐
IK3
939
870
‐
913
161
001
341
‐
‐
688
054
161
001
F12
‐
046
‐
‐
135
141
990
3N1
‐
429
169
341
‐
507
870
387
359
‐
595
708
486
116
229
‐‐
708
486
116
229
‐
‐644
563
238
644
‐
708
- Page 54 of 183 -

5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 6:00 PM ‐6:30 PM 6:30 PM ‐7:00 PM 7:00 PM ‐7:30 PM 7:30 PM ‐8:00 PM 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM Thursday, May 19, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower (2/2)
286
V10
‐
‐
265
170
985
‐
7J2
569
‐
‐
229
‐
‐
111
229
751
‐
‐
‐
842
‐
‐
486
204
‐
‐
768
NA1
‐
‐
‐
‐
UUP
662
556
652
‐
‐
V10
752
965
842
708
161
O89
341
181
217
UUP
O50
112
307
204
‐
654
00W
768
NA1
V10
‐
615
576
319
398
2HI
655
‐
658
666
994
654
‐
323
939
O47
0H3 V10 V10 ‐
170 842 842 842
‐965 965 ‐
‐O79 079 ‐O79
965
842
752
‐
‐
202 910 910 ‐
015 161 161 ‐
106 708 708 ‐‐
161
910
708
161
‐
370 N06 N06 ‐
815 544 544 544
‐‐‐ ‐‐
544
N06
341
‐
217
‐112 ‐‐
483 O50 050 556
630 UUP UUP UUPUUP
O50
112
O17
O50
866
‐YZN YZN YZN
‐204 204 204
‐307 307 ‐307
204
‐
‐
204
‐
399 576 576 576
336 323 615 615
‐‐978 ‐‐
323
‐
749
‐
‐
708 353 353 ‐
300 229 229 229
101 228 228 ‐228
229
353
607
229
353
‐
229
353
341 229 229 229
001 111 111 111
161 ‐642 642‐
111
229
985
O52
229
‐
‐
229
‐655 655 655
908 ‐2HI 2HI
582 593 593 ‐593
‐
655
‐
‐
655
593
‐
655
530 2U2 ‐265
484 178 178 ‐
‐OE1 OE1 ‐‐
178
2U2
900
‐
‐
748
430
469
‐501 501 501
‐578 578 985
204 170 170 170170
578
O75
170
288
O75
170
O85
155
749 815 815 815
169 569 569 569
025 464 ‐7J2‐
569
815
569
‐
815
‐
834
471
486 483 483 483
‐BRY BRY 002
229 430 430 658430
BRY
483
430
937
483
937
‐
483
229 00W 00W ‐
565 654 654 654
655 O47 ‐286
DBA NA1 NAI 374
‐478 478 ‐
654
00W
478
NA1
- Page 55 of 183 -

Oak StreetWest of BellflowerOak StreetEast of BellflowerBelmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower StreetEast of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Bellflower8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking SpacesRegularRegularRegularRegularRegularRegularRegular11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 7531531246712:00 PM‐1:00 PM 733751134701:00 PM‐2:00 PM 65269154562:00 PM‐3:00 PM 54276395593:00 PM‐4:00 PM 743166105694:00 PM‐5:00 PM 33326295605:00 PM‐6:00 PM 26286144516:00 PM‐7:00 PM 56357123597:00 PM‐8:00 PM 46358013578:00 PM‐9:00 PM 673613113679:00 PM‐10:00 PM 6535143747410:00 PM‐11:00 PM 44301338466North Downtown BellflowerStreet Parking Thursday, May 19, 2022Survey Time PeriodTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking SupplyZone- Page 56 of 183 -

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 39 1 20 0 2 029 1 29 012612:00 PM‐1:00 PM 39 2 83 5 2 124 0 17 01811:00 PM‐2:00 PM 39 2 83 6 3 020 0 18 01822:00 PM‐3:00 PM 37 2 83 3 3 116 0 22 81863:00 PM‐4:00 PM 33 2 83 2 3 118 1 18 01704:00 PM‐5:00 PM 38 3 83 5 3 014 0 12 01675:00 PM‐6:00 PM 39 4 86 3 3 118 0 3 01696:00 PM‐7:00 PM 39 5 83 6 3 117 0 1 01687:00 PM‐8:00 PM 39 5 83 4 3 119 0 0 01678:00 PM‐9:00 PM 39 5 83 6 3 129 0 0 01799:00 PM‐10:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 126 0 0 017710:00 PM‐11:00 PM 35 3 81 2 3 126 0 0 016315 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 0 0 19 0 39 2 34 0 52 212:00 PM‐1:00 PM 0 0 19 0 42 2 41 0 62 01:00 PM‐2:00 PM 1 0 18 0 44 0 41 1 78 02:00 PM‐3:00 PM 0 0 19 0 43 1 43 1 67 13:00 PM‐4:00 PM 0 0 19 0 41 2 46 1 65 04:00 PM‐5:00 PM 1 0 18 0 40 1 36 0 56 05:00 PM‐6:00 PM 0 0 21 1 39 1 44 1 65 16:00 PM‐7:00 PM 0 0 21 1 23 0 54 1 75 17:00 PM‐8:00 PM 0 0 21 1 27 0 58 2 69 08:00 PM‐9:00 PM 0 0 21 1 25 0 56 0 65 19:00 PM‐10:00 PM 1 0 19 0 17 0 37 0 79 210:00 PM‐11:00 PM 1 0 21 1 33 1 37 0 64 04489413#VALUE!29026212991111121313‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐North Downtown BellflowerParking LotsFriday, May 20, 2022ZoneABCDEFGTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces13 Regular28 RegularSurvey Time PeriodZoneHIJLMTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking SpacesK278 Regular131385‐‐‐Survey Time Period186203221214206107131099527203239381651932032732783738259101- Page 57 of 183 -

11:00 AM ‐11:30 PM 11:30 PM ‐12:00 PM 12:00 PM ‐12:30 PM 12:30 PM ‐1:00 PM 1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 040
429
‐
196
229
116
LOR
706
429 429 429 429 429 429
769 769 1GZ 1GZ ‐040
229 ‐196
263
‐
483
419
‐
‐
815
‐
152
604
835
197
161
341
5W1
910
‐
6W1
485
6J3
292
‐
400
867
012
ZR2
865
502
398
634
OLO
588
486
Y328
K328
2WJ
602 ‐‐‐212 675
North Downtown Bellflower (1/2)
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
Friday, May 20, 2022
675
398 398 398 398 398 398
285 ‐502 502 502 502
617 617 617 617 617 OLO
634 634 634 634 634 634
‐130 486 486 486 486
9WO 9WO 9W0 018 018 588
K328 K328 K328 K328 K328 K328
‐661 661 ‐Y328 Y328
‐509 509 509 505 505
040 040 040 040 040 040
717 ‐‐515 515 292
‐225 324 324 047
977 ‐‐‐001 400
770 ‐‐‐063 35L
142 ‐385 ‐3H1 012
058 ‐‐‐‐867
‐‐‐‐865 865
‐‐‐639 423 883
077 ‐‐354 ‐835
846 ‐‐359 ‐‐
784 784 ‐161 161 161
540 ‐ZKE ZKE ZKE ZKE
341 341 5W1 5W1 5W1 5W1
161 161 341 341 341 341
910 910 875 875 416 811
5W1 5W1 910 910 910 910
‐‐GOY GOY GOY 1X2
217 916 528 528 310 501
483 483 483 483 483 483
044 044 044 044 044 044
‐‐‐204 204 204
‐‐‐419 419 419
815 815 815 815 815 815
‐6X1 547 ‐B31 B31
Y22 Y22 Y22 Y22 Y22 Y22
0R2 353 353 704 704 704
196 196 196
345 345 345 345 345 ‐
116 ‐981 116 116 116
687 687 ‐‐229 229
AK9 ‐706 706 706 706
176 176 176 ‐923 870
- Page 58 of 183 -

4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 116 850 850 ‐
8UD 8UD ‐‐ ‐
362 004 229 229
229 229 229 ‐
762 762 869 869
315 315 315 ‐‐
409 409 409 139 139
040 040 040 040 ‐
815 815 815 815 ‐
934 934 934 ‐203
72D 72D ‐‐514
093 093 093 693 083
483 483 483 483 ‐
419 419 AC1 ACI ACI
608 608 761 761 761
771 148 148 148 ‐
‐233 ‐‐ ‐
915 646 646 611 611
5W1 5W1 ‐616 616
910 910 ‐‐ ‐
161 161 ‐424 424
341 341 357 357 357
N59 N59 N59 N59 N59
009 009 009 072 072
456 456 211 211 211
044 044 211 211 211
959 893 682 568 568
124 124 124 124 124
233 082 082 082 ‐
945 945 945 945 945
821 071 ‐‐ ‐
676 676 676 676 676
641 776 1CD 672 672
251 251 251 251 ‐
‐310 174 174 951
T07 716 716 XCV XCV
709 280 280 280 ‐
947 977 96U 96U 053
031 031 303
2G2 2G2 2G2 167 167
1D2 1D2 059 059 ‐
354
502 883 883 883 434
023 6TV 6TV 6TV ‐
323 323 382 382 ‐
220 319
‐
196
229
116
LOR
706
257
870
116
706
LOR
483
419
‐
‐
815
598
409
040
429
197
161
‐
5W1
910
‐
128
608
771
081
‐
910
867
012
ZR2
‐
682
835
634
OLO
507
422
Y328
K328
617
T07
641
911 354 354 354 354 354
Friday, May 20, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower (2/2)
023
502502
0Y2
220
634
248
2G2
947
Y328
T07
617
304
641
910
194
LLC
108
260
ZR2
835
044
161
009
5W1
341
319
910
608
684
483
771
72D
419
815
‐
409
934
257
040
‐
315
‐
229
- Page 59 of 183 -

Oak StreetWest of BellflowerOak StreetEast of BellflowerBelmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower StreetEast of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Bellflower8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking SpacesRegular Regular RegularRegularRegularRegularRegular11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 332653945312:00 PM‐1:00 PM 43325454571:00 PM‐2:00 PM 763546124742:00 PM‐3:00 PM75317474653:00 PM‐4:00 PM 743115324664:00 PM‐5:00 PM 563418234725:00 PM‐6:00 PM 573418124716:00 PM‐7:00 PM 683611254727:00 PM‐8:00 PM 783611194768:00 PM‐9:00 PM 483613194759:00 PM‐10:00 PM 4836152527210:00 PM‐11:00 PM 47361315268North Downtown BellflowerStreet Parking Friday, May 20, 2022ZoneTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking SupplySurvey Time Period- Page 60 of 183 -

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 31 3 68 1 2 129 2 5 0 15612:00 PM‐1:00 PM 41 2 83 3 2 130 2 5 0 1831:00 PM‐2:00 PM 43 2 82 5 3 125 2 6 0 1852:00 PM‐3:00 PM 40 1 81 4 2 031 4 7 0 1863:00 PM‐4:00 PM 26 2 84 4 1 053 4 6 0 2004:00 PM‐5:00 PM 37 1 81 2 1 064 3 10 1 2245:00 PM‐6:00 PM 39 3 83 2 3 171 6 8 1 2406:00 PM‐7:00 PM 39 6 83 5 3 152 3 5 0 2217:00 PM‐8:00 PM 39 6 83 5 3 119 1 0 0 1818:00 PM‐9:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 110 0 0 0 1759:00 PM‐10:00 PM 39 5 83 6 3 112 0 0 0 17710:00 PM‐11:00 PM 39 5 73 3 3 15 0 0 0 15615 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 0 0 9 0 39 1 33 1 32 2 35 012:00 PM‐1:00 PM 0 0 9 0 38 1 34 1 36 0 30 01:00 PM‐2:00 PM 0 0 9 0 40 2 46 0 47 0 30 02:00 PM‐3:00 PM 0 0 9 0 37 1 54 0 53 0 28 03:00 PM‐4:00 PM 0 0 9 0 34 2 48 0 41 1 24 04:00 PM‐5:00 PM 0 0 8 0 35 0 45 0 43 0 12 05:00 PM‐6:00 PM 1 0 9 1 30 0 41 0 42 0 23 06:00 PM‐7:00 PM 0 0 6 0 29 0 40 1 47 1 31 07:00 PM‐8:00 PM 0 0 18 0 26 1 40 0 65 1 38 28:00 PM‐9:00 PM 3 0 18 1 28 1 43 0 76 1 48 29:00 PM‐10:00 PM 3 0 18 1 21 1 37 0 72 0 52 110:00 PM‐11:00 PM 3 0 20 1 19 0 31 0 62 0 46 11514121011111444448101012121313131313131212North Downtown BellflowerParking LotsSaturday, May 21, 2022Zone A B C D E F GTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces13 Regular28 RegularSurvey Time PeriodZoneHIJLMTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking SpacesK206Survey Time Period152149174182159143147155191221278 Regular183- Page 61 of 183 -

11:00 AM ‐11:30 AM 11:30 AM ‐12:00 PM 12:00 PM ‐12:30 PM 12:30 PM ‐1:00 PM 1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 Saturday, May 21, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower (1/2)
502 502 502 502 ‐8M2
984 565 ‐3A3 ‐861565
502
‐
502
‐711 711 ‐‐403
‐826 826 ‐‐ ‐
319 319 319 319 319 319319
‐
319
826
711 711
‐‐TWAY 421 421 ‐
321 010 143 143 229 229010
‐
143
TWAY
617 617 617 617 ‐617
WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY436‐
617
WAY
617
483 483 483 483 483 483
‐609 609 273 ‐OJO609
483
609
483
581 ‐906 753 ‐192
709 271 271 336 336 024271
040
271
906
403 403 403 ‐‐7U2
560 7UD 721 054 ZL1 ZL1725
403
721
403
‐503 ‐352 ‐960
KIN 511 511 413 ‐N90823
‐
511
‐
‐329 329 R04 R04 ‐
103 738 738 375 ‐ZR2738
329
738
329
693 693 693 034 034 034
‐‐GPC 147 147 ‐269
693
GPC
693
161 161 161 161 161 161
‐116 289 ‐‐ ‐064
161
289
161
217 217 217 217 217 217
089 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐
217
‐
217
5W1 5W1 6KO 6KO 699 699
932 760 760 ‐‐979‐
5W1
760
6KO
044 044 464 464 017 017
974 948 948 852 930 925948
044
948
464
U12 DVR 004 422 ‐ILI
520 344 193 193 090 6V2520
U12
193
004
‐‐192 ‐093 ‐
‐419 419 419 419 419‐
‐
419
192
815 815 815 815 ‐‐
455 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐
815
‐
815
737 ‐040 040 040 040
571 517 517 ‐‐356571
‐
752
040
429 429 231 857 ‐409
‐258 859 859 859 ‐258
429
859
231
‐‐009 189 189 ‐
3J3 913 509 936 ‐568913
‐
509
009
196 196 484 ‐‐ ‐
229 229 229 229 229 229229
196
229
484
612 612 612 612 612 612612
008
612
‐‐‐‐881 881 484
- Page 62 of 183 -

5:00 PM ‐5:30 PM 5:30 PM ‐6:00 PM 6:00 PM ‐6:30 PM 6:30 PM ‐7:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 Saturday, May 21, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower (2/2)
‐870 870 585 ‐‐
‐586
462
137 137 137‐
‐
586 ‐
‐
‐‐978 978 978‐462
100 ‐645 743 743 743
319 319 319 319 319 319319
‐
319
645
207 207 104 997 997 997
‐753 6B1 770 770 ‐753
207
6B1
104
518 518 518 518 518 518
WAY ‐998 790 790 790‐
518
998
518
483 483 483 483 483 ‐
826 591 255 255 ‐506826
483
255
483
900 900 000 243 243 761
024 364 364 364 364 364024
900
364
000
U92 U92 U92 747 747 ‐
8YO ‐591 856 856 8568YO
U92
591
747
960 ‐‐191 M90 M90
348 348 ‐334 334 334348
960
334
191
372 372 372 372 716 ‐
ZR2 13W 13W 13W 13W 192ZR2
372
13W
372
2K3 2K3 2K3 2K3 2K3 ‐
N21 N21 N21 N21 G62 G62N21
2K3
N21
2K3
161 ‐804 804 804 4
119 119 119 119 119 ‐119
161
119
804
217 217 217 111 111 ‐
‐943 943 943 ‐623‐
217
943
217
‐‐P30 P30 P30 ‐
025 451 541 836 836 836025
‐
541
P30
6V2 D42 D42 244 244 033
075 8J3 8J3 984 984 984075
6V2
8J3
244
ILI 165 592 592 592 X20
6V2 6G3 6G3 6G3 6G3 7406V2
ILI
6G3
592
‐‐‐486 486 718
419 419 419 419 458 977419
‐
419
‐
815 815 815 815 815 ‐
894 ‐‐935 ‐APT894
815
213
815
040 040 040 615 615 615
‐187 187 175 175 441‐
040
175
040
409 409 409 409 779 ‐
‐712 ‐086 009 009‐
409
086
409
‐‐3E3 WCW WCW ‐
568 ‐‐438 ZC3 ‐568
‐
320
3E3
146 ‐872 872 ‐‐
229 229 229 229 229 229229
146
229
872
‐‐255 ‐113 113
613 ‐‐‐595 595613
‐
‐
‐
- Page 63 of 183 -

Oak StreetWest of BellflowerOak StreetEast of BellflowerBelmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower StreetEast of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Bellflower8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking SpacesRegularRegularRegularRegularRegularRegularRegular11:00 AM‐12:00 PM 462653945712:00 PM‐1:00 PM 55325455611:00 PM‐2:00 PM 463546124712:00 PM‐3:00 PM 46317475643:00 PM‐4:00 PM 453115325654:00 PM‐5:00 PM 553418235725:00 PM‐6:00 PM 043418125646:00 PM‐7:00 PM 443417245707:00 PM‐8:00 PM 583816145778:00 PM‐9:00 PM 873719205789:00 PM‐10:00 PM 7638183137610:00 PM‐11:00 PM 34291221455North Downtown BellflowerSaturday, May 21, 2022Street Parking ZoneTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking SupplySurvey Time Period- Page 64 of 183 -

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap9:00 AM‐10:00 AM 14 0 16 0 2 13 0 0 15310:00 AM‐11:00 AM 17 1 25 0 3 13 0 0 16911:00 AM‐12:00 PM 16 0 54 0 3 13 0 0 09412:00 PM‐1:00 PM 29 0 86 2 3 13 0 0 0 1421:00 PM‐2:00 PM 41 0 83 3 2 13 0 0 0 1482:00 PM‐3:00 PM 39 1 86 3 1 03 0 0 0 15115 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap9:00 AM‐10:00 AM 1 0 0 0 31 2 18 0 14 1 18 010:00 AM‐11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 42 2 30 0 15 0 18 011:00 AM‐12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 43 1 54 1 23 0 18 012:00 PM‐1:00 PM 1 0 0 0 25 1 47 1 36 0 17 01:00 PM‐2:00 PM1 0 0020 1 57 0 46 1 16 02:00 PM‐3:00 PM 1 0 0 0 23 1 54 1 65 1 17 095354671213121313North Downtown BellflowerParking LotsSunday, May 22, 2022Zone A B C D E F GTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces13 Regular28 RegularSurvey Time PeriodZoneHIJLMTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking SpacesKSurvey Time Period278 Regular85107140128142163- Page 65 of 183 -

9:00 AM ‐10:00 PM 10:00 PM ‐11:00 AM 11:00 AM ‐11:30 AM 11:30 AM ‐12:00 PM 12:00 PM ‐12:30 PM 12:30 PM ‐1:00 PM 1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 807
463
249
WAY
509
229
655
‐
914
949
856
6CJ
219
419
‐
‐
529
011
939
4M2
‐
615
161
‐
792
5W1
434
763
815
483
9E3
B32
‐
‐
426
457
3A3
6DO
T60
617
268
797
678
059
486
North Downtown Bellflower
‐‐‐‐T60 T60
‐‐‐‐‐6DO6DO
T60
‐‐‐547 547 042‐
Sunday, May 22, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
265 265 ‐‐673 673
‐617 617 617 617 617617
673
‐‐366 366 366 366
‐‐‐‐797 797797
366
319 319 319 PSK PSK 371
‐‐307 307 796 059‐
PSK
‐‐622 622 622 622
‐‐‐741 ‐475‐
622
‐‐507 SPT SPT SPT
‐483 483 483 483 483483
SPT
‐944 ‐550 550 ‐
‐‐G04 G04 G04 375G04
550
‐GEB ‐171 171 426
‐812 812 812 SPT 560‐
171
‐‐864 977 977 ‐
‐‐‐989 ‐471471
977
‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐
‐161 161 161 161 161
‐‐6W1 ‐‐615‐
161
‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐910 ‐‐‐‐‐
‐
‐867 504 504 ‐‐
‐‐‐‐5W1 5W15W1
‐
‐‐‐VGH VGH VGH
‐‐948 948 948 948948
VGH
‐‐‐RAG RAG RAG
‐‐‐064 064 064064
RAG
‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐419 419 419419
‐
‐‐‐9IN 9IN 9IN
‐‐‐‐722 ‐‐
9IN
‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐412 412 575412
538
‐‐‐‐459 3A3
‐‐‐‐463 463463
459
‐378 315 315 ‐509
‐‐WAY WAY WAY WAYWAY
658
‐‐655 655 655 655
229 229 229 229 229 2292229
655
‐80D 807 807 ‐476
‐797 797 797 797 ‐797
476
- Page 66 of 183 -

Oak StreetWest of BellflowerOak StreetEast of BellflowerBelmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower StreetEast of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Civic CenterFlower StreetWest of Bellflower8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking SpacesRegularRegularRegularRegularRegularRegularRegular9:00 AM‐10:00 AM 332932044410:00 AM‐11:00 AM 123032034111:00 AM‐12:00 PM 033343144812:00 PM‐1:00 PM 24325304501:00 PM‐2:00 PM 04346314522:00 PM‐3:00 PM 2534723356Total Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking SupplySurvey Time PeriodNorth Downtown BellflowerStreet Parking Sunday, May 22, 2022Zone- Page 67 of 183 -

39 Regular 1 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap8:00 PM‐9:00 PM 43 1 83 6 3 17 1 0 01589:00 PM‐10:00 PM 26 1 85 3 3 115 0 0 014515 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap8:00 PM‐9:00 PM 0 0 8 1 36 1 50 1 63 09:00 PM‐10:00 PM 0 0 17 1 26 1 43 0 53 0Parking Lots13 Regular28 RegularE78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking SpacesSurvey Time PeriodTotal Occupied Parking SpacesK16 Parking SpacesG28 Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply22 Parking Spaces44 Parking Spaces84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking SpacesZoneIJLM‐F‐182167North Downtown BellflowerThursday, June 9, 2022Zone A B C DTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking SpacesSurvey Time PeriodH102 Parking Spaces278 Regular26221311- Page 68 of 183 -

8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 1
1 1
0 0
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
0 1
1 0
0 Thursday, June 9, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower (1/2)
- Page 69 of 183 -

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap8:00 PM‐9:00 PM 40 5 83 4 3 115 0 0 01639:00 PM‐10:00 PM 41 2 83 5 3 113 0 0 016115 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap8:00 PM‐9:00 PM 2 0 21 1 31 1 75 0 83 19:00 PM‐10:00 PM 1 0 18 1 26 0 62 1 76 02762365161‐‐1312278 RegularSurvey Time PeriodZoneHIJCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking SpacesL78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces13 Regular28 Regular28 Parking SpacesMTotal Occupied Parking Spaces84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking SpacesKNorth Downtown BellflowerParking LotsFriday, June 10, 2022Zone A B C D E F GTotal Occupied Parking SpacesCurrent Parking SupplySurvey Time Period45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces- Page 71 of 183 -

8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 Friday, June 10, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower
11 11
11 11
1 11
10 11
1 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 01
11 11
11 11
10 11
11 00
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 10
11 01
01 11
- Page 72 of 183 -

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap8:00 PM‐9:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 16 0 0 0 1579:00 PM‐10:00 PM 40 5 83 5 3 18 0 0 0 15815 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap8:00 PM‐9:00 PM 0 0 12 0 19 1 53 0 66 2 53 29:00 PM‐10:00 PM 1 0 18 1 25 1 34 0 68 2 63 2215Survey Time Period208LM0Current Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking SpacesK278 RegularSurvey Time PeriodZoneHIJ28 Parking Spaces78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces13 Regular28 RegularCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces‐‐1313North Downtown BellflowerParking LotsSaturday, June 11, 2022ZoneABCDEFGTotal Occupied Parking Spaces- Page 74 of 183 -

8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 1 1
10 11
11 10
11 11
11 11
11 10
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 10
11 11
00 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 10
11 11
11 01
11 11
11 Saturday, June 11, 2022
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
North Downtown Bellflower
11 01
11 - Page 75 of 183 -

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular1 Handicap71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap1:00 PM‐2:00 PM 41 4 83 6 3 14 0 0 0 1552:00 PM‐3:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 18 0 0 0 15915 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap1:00 PM‐2:00 PM 3 0 0 0 28 1 43 0 65 2 53 22:00 PM‐3:00 PM 1 0 0 1 34 1 45 0 79 2 55 2197220LM084 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces278 RegularKSurvey Time PeriodSurvey Time PeriodZoneHIJCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces28 Parking Spaces78 Parking Spaces293 Parking Spaces13 Regular28 RegularCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces1313North Downtown BellflowerParking LotsSunday, June 12, 2022Zone A B C D E F GTotal Occupied Parking Spaces- Page 77 of 183 -

1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
0 0
North Downtown Bellflower
Bellflower Blvd Street Parking
Sunday, June 12, 2022
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 0
1 1
1 1
1 - Page 78 of 183 -

APPENDIX D

IS/MND FOR THE DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT MIXED‐USE PROJECT - Page 80 of 183 -

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(MND NO. 20-01)

FOR THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

MIXED USE PROJECT
Applicant:

Serrano Development Group
500 North Brand Boulevard
Suite 2120
Glendale, CA 91203

Lead Agency:

City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, California 90706
May 2020
- Page 81 of 183 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... III A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

1. Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements ............................................ 1

3. Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................... 2

4. Circulation of Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ......................................... 2

5. Contents of Initial Study .................................................................................................... 2 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER TOD MIXED USE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

2. Project Location and Surrounding Uses ............................................................................ 3

3. Site Background and Existing Conditions ......................................................................... 6

4. Existing General Plan and Zoning Land Use Designations ............................................... 6

5. Description of the Project .................................................................................................. 8

6. Construction Schedule and Phasing ................................................................................. 9

7. Scope of Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................... 9

8. Necessary Project Approvals ............................................................................................ 9 C. INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .......................................................... 17

1. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 22

2. Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................... 24

3. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 26

4. Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 39

5. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 41

6. Energy ............................................................................................................................. 43

7. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 46

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 50

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 61

10. Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 65

11. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 69

12. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................... 71

13. Noise ............................................................................................................................... 72

14. Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 78

15. Public Services ................................................................................................................ 79

16. Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 81

17. Transportation ................................................................................................................. 82

18. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 86

19. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 87

20. Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 90

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 91 D. PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT AND CONSULTED PERSONS AND AGENCIES .................... 92 E. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 93

- Page 82 of 183 -

ii
Appendices
A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Calculations
B Energy Calculations
C1 Geotechnical Investigation
C2 Liquefaction Analysis Summary
D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
E Noise Calculations
F Traffic Impact Analysis
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................. 7 Figure 4 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5a Project Rendering – View from the Northeast ................................................................. 13 Figure 5b Project Rendering – View from the Northwest ................................................................ 15

Tables
Table 1 Land Use Summary ..................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3 Estimated Maximum Regional Construction Emissions (pounds per day) ................................ 28 Table 2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ................................................................. 29 Table 4 Estimated Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds per day) .................................. 31 Table 5 Estimated Maximum Localized Construction Emissions (pounds per day) ............................... 34 Table 6 Estimated Maximum Localized Operational Emissions (pounds per day) ................................. 35 Table 7 Construction Energy Consumption ............................................................................................ 43 Table 8 Levels of Energy Consumption Summary Associated with the Operation of the Project for the First Full Year of Operations (2023) ..................................................................... 44 Table 9 Consistency with CAP Climate Ready Development Standards ............................................... 51 Table 10 Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies ...................................... 56 Table 11 Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Uses ........................................................................... 74 Table 12 Modeled Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ............................................ 75 Table 13 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service .................................................................. 83 Table 14 Opening Year (2023) Without Project Intersection Level of Service ........................................ 83 Table 15 Opening Year (2023) With Project Intersection Level of Service ............................................. 84

- Page 83 of 183 -

iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ac-ft/yr Acre-feet per year
APN Assessor Parcel Numbers
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BMP Best Management Practice
BSMWC Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company
BVOZ Bellflower Village Overlay Zone
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
Central Basin Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines CH4 Methane
City City of Bellflower
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalents
CWA Clean Water Act
DART Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility
dbA A-weighted decibels
DNL Day-night average noise level
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
- Page 84 of 183 -

iv
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HSC Health and Safety Code
I-105 Interstate 105
I-605 Interstate 605
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
IS/MND Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration LA County MS4 Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges Within the Coast Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except Those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4
LACFD Los Angeles County Fire Department
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
LASD Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board LBT Long Beach Transit
Ldn Day-night average noise level
LOS Level of Service
Metro Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority MMT Million Metric Tons
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MT Metric Ton
MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Oxides of Nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
or Basin Plan Regional Water Quality Control Plan
OSHA Cal Occupational Health and Safety Administration
- Page 85 of 183 -

v
PFC Perfluorocarbon
PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
ppm Parts per million
proposed project Proposed Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Mixed-Use Project
ROG Reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SF Square feet
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SMP City of Bellflower Sewer Master Plan
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SR-91 State Route 91
SWPPP Stormwater pollution prevention plan
TAC Toxic air contaminant
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TOD SP The Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan (TOD SP)
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C Volume-to-capacity
VMT Vehicle miles travelled
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WMP Waste management plan
WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WSAB West Santa Ana Branch
- Page 86 of 183 -

1 A. INTRODUCTION

1. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that evaluates environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This document can be found at the Bellflower City Hall, 16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower CA 90706, phone: (562) 804-1424.

2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REQUIREMENTS As defined by Section 21065 of the CEQA statute, the proposed Downtown Bellflower TOD Mixed Use proposed project constitutes a “project,” and therefore, an Initial Study is required to be prepared to determine the appropriate type of CEQA document to be prepared. As defined by Section 15063 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to be used as the basis for determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR), negative declaration (ND), or mitigated negative declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the proposed project.

Pursuant to Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur:
 The proposal has the potential to substantially degrade quality of the environment.  The proposal has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
 The proposal has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
 The proposal could cause direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.

Pursuant to Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration (ND) is deemed appropriate if the proposal would not result in any significant effect on the environment.

Pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is deemed appropriate if it is determined that though a proposal could result in a significant effect, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant effects to less than significant levels.

This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of those mitigation measures contained in this document and therefore, a MND is deemed as the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental evaluations and clearance for the proposed project. This IS/MND document is prepared according to the aforementioned CEQA Guidelines and applicable requirements of the City of Bellflower.

This MND provides decision-makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the proposed project; functions as a method for fact-finding; and provides the City, concerned citizens, and other applicable public agencies with an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and environmental impacts through a process of full disclosure. - Page 87 of 183 -

2 3. LEAD AGENCY
The City of Bellflower is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines and shall consider this IS/MND during public hearings for the proposed project.

4. CIRCULATION OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This IS/MND informs the City’s decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to allow public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts.

While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals.

The IS/MND will be circulated for a period of 20 days for public and responsible agency review. Public notice will be placed in the Herald American, which is a newspaper of general circulation and the City website ( www.bellflower.org) . Comments received on the IS/MND will be considered and addressed in a Response to Comments document.

5. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
This IS/MND document is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project.

A. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire document. This section describes the scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and contents of this IS/MND.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project including the project location and surrounding uses, site background and existing conditions, existing planning and zoning, construction schedule and phasing, scope of environmental analysis, and necessary project approvals.

C. INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City's Initial Study Checklist Form. The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those issue areas that would have either a significant impact, potentially significant impact, or no impact.

D. CHECKLIST RESPONSES evaluate each response provided in the Initial Study checklist form.

Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies environmental impacts anticipated with the proposed project. Based upon the findings of the Initial Study Checklist, it has been determined that a MND will be prepared. Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines are also presented.

E. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those persons consulted and involved in preparation of this Initial Study.

F. SOURCES section lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document.

- Page 88 of 183 -

3 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED

DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER TOD MIXED USE PROJECT

1. INTRODUCTION
The 16411 Bellflower, LLC (the Applicant) proposes to construct a mixed-use (theater, residential and service commercial) project on the 1.56-acre (68,000-square-foot [SF]) site. The p roject s ite is located south of Mayne Street, west of Bellflower Boulevard and north of Oak Street. Existing project site addresses are: 1) 9742 Mayne Street, 2) 16411 Bellflower Boulevard and 3) 9735 Oak Street. The p roject s ite is comprised of three (3) Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 7106-020- 901, 7106-020-902 and 7106-020-900. The project is proposed in two parts: Parcel A) redevelopment of the existing and vacant “Cosmopolitan Grocers” building for new theater and retail commercial/restaurant uses, and 2) construction of a five (5) story, mixed-use, 91-unit condominium development and associated parking. The existing commercial uses/structures located south of the proposed Downtown Bellflower TOD building and north of Oak Street are not part of this proposed project and will remain as is.

2. PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES
Regionally, the project site is located within the City of Bellflower (City) approximately 0.6 miles north of State Route 91 (SR-91), approximately 1.2 miles west of Interstate 605 (I-605), and approximately

1.9 miles south of Interstate 105 (I-105), as shown on Figure 1, Regional Location Map. The project site is located across the street from the under-construction City of Bellflower parking garage, and the existing Los Angeles County Fire Museum, and within the vicinity of the future West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) Transit Corridor light rail station to be constructed on Bellflower Boulevard. The WSAB Transit Corridor project is a proposed 20-mile light rail transit line that would connect downtown Los Angeles to southeast Los Angeles County, serving the cities and communities of the Arts District, Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, unincorporated Florence-Graham community of Los Angeles County, Vernon, Huntington Park, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos and Artesia. In addition, the project site is located within three miles of the Metro Green Line.

Three bus systems including the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Long Beach Transit (LBT), and Bellflower Bus, all operate lines within the project vicinity.

The project site is generally located on the southwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard at Mayne Street within the City’s downtown area. As depicted on Figure 2, project site and Surrounding Land Uses, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment west of Bellflower Boulevard), commercial uses and an associated parking garage (currently under construction) are located to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot are located to the northeast; the Bellflower Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the east; Oak Street, commercial uses, and a surface parking lot to the south; single and multi-family residential uses to the southwest; and single and multi-family residential uses located immediately to the west.

The Bellflower Bike Trail runs approximately 2.7 miles along the right-of-way of the old Pacific Electric transit system, known as the Red Cars, across the City. The Trail begins at a bridge connection with the San Gabriel Trail at Ruth R. Caruthers Park on the banks of the San Gabriel River. The Trail then joins the former rail corridor at the southern end of Ripon Avenue and heads northwest to its terminus on Somerset Boulevard, just beyond the Bellflower-Paramount City line. Most of the trail consists of asphalt striped bike lanes and a pedestrian path separated by a small strip of decomposed granite. The Trail runs along the Pacific Electric Train Depot, located along Bellflower Boulevard, which was restored to its original state in 2008.
- Page 89 of 183 -

4 Source: adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Figure 1 Regional Location
- Page 90 of 183 -

5 Source: adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Figure 2 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses
- Page 91 of 183 -

6 3. SITE BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
As shown on Figure 2, the project s ite is currently partially developed. One vacant commercial building (Cosmopolitan Grocers) is present on the eastern portion of the site. Although not shown in Figure 2, the former “Grecian Farmers’” building and associated parking lot located at 9742 Mayne Street has been demolished by the City and is currently being used as a staging and parking area for the construction of their new parking garage. This site includes a concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, landscaping and overhead utilities situated along Mayne Street, Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street. Access to the project site is currently provided via Mayne Street and Oak Street. The project site is relatively flat and includes no native vegetation.

Two CEQA documents have been recently prepared in the vicinity of the proposed project and are incorporated by reference:
• Downtown Bellflower Station Area Specific Plan Negative Declaration (ND 19-01) – Adopted 06/15/19. The Downtown Bellflower Station Area Specific Plan provides design guideline sand development standards for the TOD area, which are applicable to the proposed project. • Downtown Bellflower Parking Structure Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 17-04) – Adopted 11/02/17. The downtown Bellflower parking structure is under construction and was proposed to provide needed parking in the downtown area for existing and proposed projects including the proposed project.

4. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The City of Bellflower General Plan designation for the project site is Mixed-Use (MU). No change to the project site’s existing general plan designation is proposed as part of the project as mixed-use land uses are permitted by right in the “MU” land use designation. The project site’s existing zoning designations are is the Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan (TOD SP), and includes the Town Center (TC-1) District, Area 1 and the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone – North (BVOZ-N) and are included in Planning Area 3. The purpose of the TOD SP is to prepare a transit- supportive specific plan that guides the future land use, mobility, and economic development in the TOD SP area. The TOD SP is intended to provide a regulatory framework for the downtown Bellflower area that includes customized land uses and development standards, guidelines, provides expanded multimodal transportation choices, and identifies locations for future development potential. The purpose of the TC District is to provide for the development and redevelopment of the City’s downtown area. The purpose of the BVOZ-N is to encourage unique, quality and viable development in order to promote the orderly recycling of existing land uses within the Overlay Zone boundaries. These zoning designations are located within Planning Area 3 of the TOD Specific Plan. According to the City’s Zoning Code, Allowable Use Table 4.16 of the TOD SP document, BVOZ-N, mixed uses are allowed. Per the Development Standards Table in Section 4.17 of the TOD SP document, the maximum building height for any building or structure is up to 5 stories or 59 feet. No change to the site’s existing zoning designations are proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would be consistent with the permitted uses within the City’s Zoning Code and TOD Specific Plan.

The TOD SP provides an opportunity to align the City’s long-term goals for the downtown area with the potential benefit of the anticipated rail transit corridor. The TOD SP would be used in conjunction with the General Plan to provide more detailed design and development criteria for individual project proposals and public improvements in the project area. The TOD SP defines an updated land use plan, development standards, mobility plan, infrastructure improvements, design guidelines, and implementation programs for any proposed project in the TOD SP area. The p roject is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of for future development associated with the TOD SP. The site’s general plan and zoning designations are shown on Figure 3. - Page 92 of 183 -

7 Source: adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Figure 3 Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations
- Page 93 of 183 -

8 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The project is proposed in two parcels: 1) Parcel A: Redevelopment of the existing vacant “Cosmopolitan Grocers” building with a new four (4) screen theater and retail commercial/restaurant land uses, and 2) Parcel B: Construction of a five (5) story, mixed-use, 91- unit condominium development with at-grade parking. Both Parcels A and B will be constructed concurrently and will be permitted separately. This Initial Study/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with both Parcel A and Parcel B.

The proposed land uses are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Land Use Summary
Parcel A Land Use
Multi-screen Theater 9,350 SF, 4-screen multiplex theater, 278 seats Retail Commercial/Restaurant 4,750 SF Retail (50% Retail Commercial / 50% Fast Casual Restaurant).

Trash Area 350 SF
Parking 0 parking spaces provided. 95 spaces required.

Applicant is requesting parking agreement for
required parking spaces to be placed off-site in
adjacent city parking structure and surface
parking lots.

Parcel B Land Use
Condominium / 1-bedroom units 62 units
Condominium / 2-bedroom units 29 units
Parking 139 spaces provided with partial tandem parking spaces. 228 spaces are required which will
include offsite parking pursuant to a
Development Agreement and parking study.

Retail Commercial 650 SF Retail. 2 spaces required. Applicant requesting parking agreement for required
parking spaces to be placed off-site in adjacent
city parking structure and/or surface lots.

Parcel A: includes a 14,450 SF development footprint and proposes a complete redevelopment of the existing vacant “Cosmopolitan Grocers” building, and complete façade renovation/public plaza at Mayne Street and Bellflower Boulevard. The theater will have an approximately 42-foot high illuminated marquee/roof sign. Additional improvements include conversion of the 10 feet of the eastern portion of the existing building into a colonnade and repaving and enhancements to the existing alley behind the building.

Parcel B: proposes construction of a new five (5) story, mixed-use, 91-unit condominium development with a 39,800 SF development footprint. 650 square feet of commercial retail is included on the ground floor, in the north east corner of the building. Primary access to the residential building will be via an ingress/egress driveway off Oak Street and egress only onto Mayne Street.

As shown on the site plan in Figure 4, direct ingress/egress vehicular access to the p roject would be provided at-grade from Oak Street, via a 24-foot wide dual lane driveway. Egress only would be - Page 94 of 183 -

9 allowed from the site onto Mayne Street. Pedestrian access would be provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street. The p roject would provide sidewalk improvements as well as maintain the above-ground utilities (i.e., electrical lines) located along both Mayne Street and Oak Street. p roject design is anticipated to consist of a concrete construction with heavy perimeter landscaping provided along Mayne Street, Bellflower Boulevard, and Pacific Avenue. project renderings are shown on Figure 5a and Figure 5b. project redevelopment will require approximately 2,500 tons of debris removal/grading and 5,000 cubic yards of grading to create the residential building pad. Approximately 1,000 square feet of existing landscaping will be removed as part of the proposed project.

6. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND PHASING
The proposed project construction schedule is anticipated to begin in March 2021 and be complete in March 2023. Construction hours are proposed to be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

7. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This IS/MND will provide the environmental evaluation and clearance for the Downtown Bellflower TOD Mixed Use project. Specific mitigation measures are recommended in this document to reduce potential environmental impact to an insignificant level. Existing City regulations, programs, requirements, and procedures that would reduce potential impacts will be referenced but are not considered specific mitigation measures, since these regulations, programs, etc. would be required for any development in the City, including the proposed project.

8. NECESSARY PROJECT APPROVALS
The proposed project requires the following project entitlements:

Entitlements:

1. Development Review (TODPR 1-20-10630) for the mixed-use project located at 16411 Bellflower Blvd, 9742 Mayne Street, and 9735 Oak Street (the Project). The scope of the project includes the following:

• Renovation and conversion of the 16411 Bellflower building into an approximately 9,350 SF multi-screen movie theater with approximately 4,750 square feet of retail facing Bellflower Blvd; scope of the improvement includes a complete seismic retrofit, renovation, facade renovation of the 16411 Bellflower building; construction of a public plaza at Mayne Street and Bellflower Blvd., conversion of approximately 10'-0" of the eastern portion of the 16411 Bellflower building into a publicly accessible colonnade, and re-paving and enhancements to the former alley between the 16411 Bellflower building and the 9742 Mayne Street lot. All retail and theater parking is off-site via a parking license agreement with the City of Bellflower.

• New construction of an approximately 91-unit residential condominium building at the 9735 Oak Street and 9742 Mayne Street lots. The residential condominium building will be separate from the 16411 Bellflower retail/theater building. The gross residential building area will be approximately 138,600 SF and the approximate dwelling area will be 65,130 SF.

The residential condominium building also will include approximately 600 SF of ground-floor retail along Mayne Street. Residential parking at no less than 1.50 stalls per unit (including 9 - Page 95 of 183 -

10 guest stalls) will be on-site; all retail parking is off-site via a parking license agreement with the City of Bellflower. Note that Developer intends to initially operate the residential condominium building as apartments, but in the future, if demand is sufficient, sell each residential unit to individual owners.

2. Conditional Use Permit (CU 20-02):
• A conditional use permit for a 5-story, “multiple family attached” residential condominium building within the BVOZ-N/Downtown Bellflower Station Area Specific Plan. • A conditional use permit for a theater use within the BVOZ-N/Downtown Bellflower Station Area Specific Plan.

3. Administrative Conditional Use Permit (ACU20-10)
• An administrative conditional use permit for beer, wine, and alcohol sales at the retail and accessory theater uses (SP and BVOZ-N) at the 16411 Bellflower Blvd building:
• - For the theater space, one type 41 license.
• - For the retail/restaurant space, three type 47 licenses

4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM 82987):
• The project is requesting a vesting tentative tract map to create two lots. Lot A will be for a theater and retail use. Lot B will be for the purposes of creating 91 residential condominium units. The 650 SF of ground floor retail on Lot B will be common area owned by the association and not a separate commercial condominium.

5. Development Agreement (AFN 837.1):
• A development agreement to memorialize the terms and conditions under which the Developer will operate, park, and construct the project. The development agreement includes four parking license agreements for the use of off-site parking in City-owned lots for the theater use, retail uses within the theater building, residential guest parking, and retail uses on the residential building’s ground floor.

6. Parking License Agreement for offsite commercial parking, reduced residential parking, and parklet in right of way adjacent to Bellflower Boulevard.

7. Easements - Granting City a permanent easement for public sidewalk purposes adjacent Bellflower Boulevard as well as a permanent easement for vehicular and pedestrian access over the alley between parcels A and B; and

8. Master Signage Plan.

- Page 96 of 183 -

11 Source: Image produced and provided by WHA Inc. in 2019, adapted by Ascent 2019 Figure 4 Site Plan
- Page 97 of 183 -

- Page 98 of 183 -

13 Source: Image produced and provided by WHA Inc. in 2019, adapted by Ascent 2019 Figure 5a Project Rendering – View from the Northeast
- Page 99 of 183 -

- Page 100 of 183 -

15 Source: Image produced and provided by WHA Inc. in 2019, adapted by Ascent 2019 Figure 5b Project Rendering – View from the Northwest
- Page 101 of 183 -

- Page 102 of 183 -

17 C. INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROJECT TITLE: Proposed Downtown Bellflower TOD Mixed Use Project LEAD AGENCY AND ADDRESS: City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706
CONTACT PERSON: Jason P. Clarke
Senior Planner
562-804-1424
PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is generally located on the southwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard at Mayne Street, and north of Oak Street. The project site consists of 16441 Bellflower
Boulevard, 9735 Oak Street and 9743 Mayne Street or APN 7106-020-900, 901 and 902.

SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: 16411 Bellflower, LLC
500 North Brand Boulevard
Suite 2120
Glendale, CA 91203
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Mixed-Use (MU),
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS: Downtown Bellflower Transit Specific Plan TODSP (Planning Area 3), Bellflower Village Overlay Zone – North (BVOZ-N) and Town Center (TC-1) District, Area 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is proposed in two parcels (A and B): Parcel A) Redevelopment of the existing vacant “Cosmopolitan
Grocers” building with a new four (4) screen multiplex
theater and retail commercial/restaurant land uses, and Parcel PB) and construction of a five (5) story, mixed- use, 91- unit condominium building with at-grade parking.

Parcel A includes a 14,450 SF development footprint and proposes a complete redevelopment of the existing vacant “Cosmopolitan Grocers” building, and complete façade
renovation/public plaza at Mayne Street and Bellflower
Boulevard. The theater will have a 42-foot high illuminated marquee. Additional improvements include conversion of
the 10 feet of the eastern portion of the existing building into a colonnade and repaving and enhancements to the
existing alley behind the building.

Parcel B includes the construction of a new five (5) story, mixed-use, 91-unit condominium building with a 39,800 SF development footprint located at 9742 Mayne Street.

Primary access to the residential building will be via an ingress/egress driveway off Oak Street and egress only onto Mayne Street.
- Page 103 of 183 -

18 Direct ingress/egress vehicular access to the project would be provided at-grade from Oak Street, via a 24-foot wide dual lane driveway. Egress only would be allowed from the site onto Mayne Street. Pedestrian access would be
provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street. The project would provide sidewalk
improvements as well as maintain the above-ground utilities (i.e., electrical lines) located along both Mayne Street and Oak Street. p roject design is anticipated to consist of a concrete construction with heavy perimeter landscaping
provided along Mayne Street, Bellflower Boulevard, and
Pacific Avenue.

Project redevelopment will require approximately 2,500 tons of debris removal/grading and 5,000 cubic yards of grading to create the residential building pad. Approximately 1,000 square feet of existing landscaping will be removed as part of the proposed project.

ONSITE AND SURROUNDING
LAND USES AND SETTING:

Locally, the project site is generally located on the
southwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard at Mayne Street within the City’s downtown area. As depicted on Figure 2, project site and Surrounding Land Uses, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment west of Bellflower Boulevard), commercial uses and an associated parking garage (currently under
construction) are located to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower
Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot are located to the northeast; the Bellflower Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the east; Mayne Street, vacant
commercial uses, and a surface parking lot to the south; single and multi-family residential uses to the southwest; and single and multi-family residential uses located
immediately to the west.

OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY
APPROVALS: None

- Page 104 of 183 -

19 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards / Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
None None with Mitigation
Incorporated

- Page 105 of 183 -

20 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

May 7, 2020

Jason P. Clarke, Senior Planner
City of Bellflower
Date

- Page 106 of 183 -

21 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

- Page 107 of 183 -

22 1. AESTHETICS
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099 (where aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant for qualifying residential, mixed-use residential, and employment centers), would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion
a) A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The City’s General Plan Open Space/Recreation Element addresses the management of natural resources and the preservation and enhancement of scenic and recreation opportunities in the City. Based on a review of the General Plan, no designated scenic vistas were identified (City of Bellflower 1994). The City of Bellflower is urbanized and developed with commercial, industrial, residential, and public uses and structures. There are no scenic vistas within the City or the proposed project site. The project site is generally bordered by commercial uses and a parking garage (currently under construction) are located to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot are located to the east; the Mayne Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the southeast; Mayne Street, vacant commercial uses, and a surface parking lot to the south; single and multi-family residential uses to the southwest; and single and multi-family residential uses located immediately to the west.

The proposed 5-story residential building is proposed immediately east of the existing single family and multifamily residential units, and will alter their views to the east. Since the project site is already developed with existing uses that does not support any scenic resources and because there are no offsite viewpoints in the City, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vista. No impact would occur.
b) The proposed project would be located within the City of Bellflower, which is urbanized and developed with commercial, industrial, residential, and public uses and structures. There are no scenic resources within the City or within the project site. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated or eligible state scenic highway based on a review of the California Scenic Highway Mapping System. As such, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur. c) As discussed under threshold a, the project site is already developed and surrounded by development on all sides (including the parking structure to the north of the site, currently under construction). The proposed project would be located in an urbanized area zoned Downtown Bellflower Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan (TOD SP) and developed and designed - Page 108 of 183 -

23 under the Bellflower Village Overlay Zone – North (BVOZ-N). The proposed project includes development of a mixed-use project, consistent with this zoning. The TOD SP and BVOZ-N overlay zone includes design guidelines such as architectural design/style, construction materials and use of colors, signage requirements, and landscape and hardscape requirements. The architectural design and style required under the TOD SP and the BVOZ-N overlay zone requires that a project eliminate bulk through the use of elevation planes, varied rooflines, balconies, and patio covers. As shown on Figure 5, Renderings, the proposed project incorporates various shapes through alteration of rooflines through incorporation of balconies and parapets. The TOD SP and BVOZ-N overlay zone also requires multiple construction materials that would introduce shading, textures, and buildings relief. As shown on Figure 5, the proposed project accomplishes this through the use of varying materials such as brick, steal, stucco, and glass. Thus, because the proposed project is consistent with the zoning of the site, and through compliance with the design guidelines under the TOD SP and BVOZ-N overlay zone, regulating scenic quality, impacts would be less than significant.
d) New light and glare would be created on site as a result of the proposed project from new commercial and residential uses, exterior lighting, parking areas, and vehicles entering and exiting the project site. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with Section

17.48.240(B) of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires all light and glare associated with operations and illuminated signs be shielded or directed so as not to illuminate abutting residential districts. Also, building lighting, for the purpose of accenting architectural elements through the use of exposed neon, may be approved by the Director. As shown on Figure 5, Renderings, the proposed project incorporates a variety of materials, including glass and metal. Although the proposed project would incorporate metal railings and glass, the proposed project does not include large expanses of glass or other highly reflective materials. As such, with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would not result in substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

- Page 109 of 183 -

24 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion
a) The proposed project would be located within the City of Bellflower, within the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, which is largely developed and urbanized. There is no area within the City that is designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2016). Thus, the proposed project would not convert any farmland into non-agricultural land or affect any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact would occur.
b) The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. As discussed under Threshold a, above, the City is developed and urbanized. Accordingly, there is no area in the City that is under a Williamson Act Contract (DOC 2019). The site is zoned TOD SP with the following underlying zone: Town Center (TC-1) District, Area 1 and overlay: Bellflower Village Overlay Zone – North (BVOZ-N) (City of Bellflower 2019). Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. - Page 110 of 183 -

25 c) As discussed above, the City, including the project site and surrounding area is developed and urbanized. Further, the site is zoned TOD SP with the following underlying zone: Town Center (TC-1) District, Area 1 and overly: Bellflower Village Overlay Zone – North (BVOZ-N) (City of Bellflower 2019) and thus is not zoned for forest or timber land and there is no area in the City that is designated forest land or timberland. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest or timber land. No impact would occur. d) As discussed above, the City, including the project site and surrounding area is developed and urbanized. Accordingly, there is no area in the City that is designated forest land. Thus, the proposed project would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
e) As discussed above, the project site and surrounding area are developed and urbanized and no farm or forest land is present on site or in the surrounding area. Thus, the proposed project would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. No impact would occur.

- Page 111 of 183 -

26 3. AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Are significance criteria established by the applicable air district available to rely on for significance determinations? Yes No Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion
a) The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Air quality planning for the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted by the SCAQMD as a program to lead the Basin into compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). It relies on emissions forecasts based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Program (SCAQMD 2016). SCAG is charged by federal and state law to prepare and approve “the portions of each AQMP relating to demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures and strategies” (SCAQMD 2016).

Projects whose growth is included in the projections used in the formulation of the AQMP are considered to be consistent with the plan and not to interfere with its attainment. The SCAQMD recommends that, when determining whether a project is consistent with the current AQMP, a lead agency must assess whether the project would directly obstruct implementation of the plan and whether it is consistent with the demographic and economic assumptions (typically land use related, such as resultant employment or residential units) upon which the plan is based (SCAQMD 1993).

Construction
The proposed project would result in an increase in short-term employment compared to existing conditions. Being relatively small in number and temporary in nature, construction jobs under the proposed project would not conflict with the long-term employment projections upon which the AQMP is based. Control strategies in the AQMP with potential applicability to short-term emissions from construction activities include strategies denoted in the 2016 AQMP as ONRD-04 and OFFRD-01 and in the 2016 AQMP as MOB-08 and MOB-10, which are intended to reduce emissions from on- road and off-road heavy-duty vehicles and equipment by accelerating replacement of older, emissions-prone engines with newer engines meeting more stringent emission standards. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of these strategies. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) diesel particulate matter control measures to minimize short-term emissions from on-road and off-road diesel - Page 112 of 183 -

27 equipment. The proposed project would also comply with SCAQMD regulations for controlling fugitive dust pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403.

Thresholds
Given that construction impacts are temporary and limited to the construction phase, the SCAQMD has established numeric indicators of significance specific to construction activity. Based on the indicators in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the proposed project would potentially cause or contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard if the following would occur:

Regional construction emissions from both direct and indirect sources would exceed any of the following SCAQMD-prescribed daily regional emissions thresholds (SCAQMD 2015):
 VOC: 75 pounds per day;
 NOX: 100 pounds per day;
 CO: 550 pounds per day;
 SO2: 150 pounds per day;
 PM10: 150 pounds per day; or
 PM2.5: 55 pounds per day.

Analysis
Construction would occur for two years beginning in early 2021 and ending in early 2023.

Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction and retrofit, paving, tenant improvements and architectural coating. The worst-case daily emissions were calculated for each phase of construction. This allows the air quality assessment to capture changes in maximum daily construction emissions over time. It should be noted that the maximum daily emissions are predicted values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would occur for every day within the construction period. Detailed emissions calculations and assumptions are provided in Appendix A of this MND. Results of the criteria pollutant calculations are presented in Table 3, Estimated Maximum Regional Construction Emissions. As shown therein, construction- related daily emissions for the criteria and precursor pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD numeric indicators for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. These calculations include appropriate dust control measures that would be implemented during each phase of development, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 (Control of Fugitive Dust).

The SCAQMD’s project thresholds are intended to maintain or achieve attainment designations in the Basin with respect to the CAAQS and NAAQS. If the project does not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds and does not contribute to nonattainment designations, it would not exacerbate or interfere with the region’s ability to attain the health-based standards. Furthermore, the lack of exposure of criteria air pollutants that may exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS would avoid health impacts. Because the project’s construction phase emissions would be below SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds, they would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Because the ambient air quality standards are established to be protective of public health, adverse health impacts to receptors are not anticipated due to the project’s emissions being below SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, with respect to regional construction emissions, impacts would be less than significant. Air quality/emissions calculation worksheets are attached as Appendix A. - Page 113 of 183 -

28 Table 3
Estimated Maximum Regional Construction Emissions (pounds per day) a Regional Emissions ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10
Total
PM2.5
Total
Demolition - 2021c 2 24 16 <1 3 1
Site Preparation - 2021 2 17 8 <1 3 2
Grading – 2021 2 21 8 <1 3 2
Building Construction/Retrofit – 2021-2022 2 15 16 <1 2 1 Paving - 2022 1 7 9 <1 1 <1
Architectural Coating – 2022-2023 12 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Daily Emissions 12 24 16 <1 3 2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Indicators? No No No No No No
Notes:
a Emission quantities are rounded to “whole number” values. As such, the “total” values presented herein may be one unit more or less than actual values. Exact values (i.e., non-rounded) are provided in the Appendix A. b PM10 and PM2.5 emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. c Demolition of existing building has already occurred. By presenting demolition activities, the modeling reflects a conservative estimate of emissions.

Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2019 Compliance with these requirements is consistent with and meets or exceeds the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Because the proposed project would not conflict with the control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project is the retrofit of a vacant building into a theater and the construction of a retail commercial/restaurant space and mixed-use condominium building with a land use designation of Commercial (C). The project site’s existing zoning designations are SP TOD with underlying zones:
1) TC District, which provides for development and redevelopment of the downtown area, and 2) BVOZ-N, which encourages redevelopment of existing land uses within the Overlay Zone, which permits by right mixed-use residential developments. No change to the site’s existing zoning designations are proposed as part of the project. The project site is located within the Downtown Bellflower Station Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which aligns the City’s long-term goals for the downtown area with the potential benefit of the anticipated rail transit corridor. The proposed project would support future development associated with the Specific Plan. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.

The proposed project includes Parcel A which would involve redevelopment of an existing vacant building with a new four screen theater and retail commercial/restaurant land uses and Parcel B which would involve construction of a five story, mixed-use, 91-unit podium condominium building with an at-grade parking structure. The new uses are allowed under the site’s existing designations. Thus, the project’s commercial/retail and residential uses would be consistent with applicable growth- related projections in plans and policies, such as the City’s General Plan, TOD SP, SCAG’s RTP, and the AQMP. Additionally, the proposed project would support Transportation Control Measures in the AQMP that are intended to reduce regional mobile source emissions through the installation of development close to transit facilities (the future West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) Transit Corridor light rail station, three bus systems including the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Long Beach Transit (LBT), and Bellflower Bus, and within three miles of the Metro Green Line), and links - Page 114 of 183 -

29 to Class I Bellflower bike/pedestrian pathways adjacent to the proposed project. As the proposed project would be consistent with the growth projections in the AQMP and consistent with the General Plan and TOD SP, and would be supportive of relevant Transportation Control Measures aimed at reducing vehicle trips, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, project operations would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the proposed project, as discussed below, would not obstruct implementation of the AQMP as its construction and operational emissions would be less than significant. The proposed project’s criteria pollutant emissions would not cause the Basin’s criteria pollutant emissions to worsen so as to impede the SCAQMD’s efforts to achieve attainment with respect to any criteria pollutant for which it is currently not in attainment, or to cause the Basin to deteriorate from its current attainment status with respect to any other criteria pollutant emissions.

Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.7), a lead agency may consider using, when available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district when making determinations of significance. The proposed project is under the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. SCAQMD has established air quality significance thresholds in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These thresholds are based on the recognition that the Basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health (SCAQMD 1993). Table 2 presents emission source types and health effects associated with criteria air pollutants. The City has not adopted specific city-wide significance thresholds for air quality impacts; therefore, it is appropriate to rely on thresholds established by the SCAQMD (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7). The potential air quality impacts of the proposed project are, therefore, evaluated according to the most recent thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD in connection with its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, and other applicable SCAQMD guidance.

Table 2
Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutant Sources Acutea Health Effects Chronicb Health Effects
Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from
reaction of ROG/VOC and NOX in
presence of sunlight. ROG/VOC
emissions result from incomplete
combustion and evaporation of
chemical solvents and fuels; NOX
results from the combustion of fuels
increased respiration and
pulmonary resistance; cough,
pain, shortness of breath, lung
inflammation
permeability of
respiratory epithelia,
possibility of
permanent lung
impairment
Carbon
monoxide (CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor
vehicle exhaust
headache, dizziness, fatigue,
nausea, vomiting, death
permanent heart and
brain damage
Nitrogen
dioxide
(NO2)
combustion devices; e.g., boilers, gas
turbines, and mobile and stationary
reciprocating internal combustion
engines
coughing, difficulty breathing,
vomiting, headache, eye
irritation, chemical pneumonitis
or pulmonary edema;
breathing abnormalities,
cough, cyanosis, chest pain,
rapid heartbeat, death
chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung
function
- Page 115 of 183 -

30 Pollutant Sources Acutea Health Effects Chronicb Health Effects
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
coal and oil combustion, steel mills,
refineries, and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory
tract, increased asthma
symptoms
Insufficient evidence
linking SO2 exposure
to chronic health
impacts
Respirable
particulate
matter (PM10),
Fine
particulate
matter (PM2.5)
fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and
stationary sources, construction, fires
and natural windblown dust, and
formation in the atmosphere by
condensation and/or transformation
of SO2 and ROG/VOC
breathing and respiratory
symptoms, aggravation of
existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases,
premature death
alterations to the
immune system,
carcinogenesis
Lead metal processing reproductive/ developmental
effects (fetuses and children)
numerous effects
including neurological,
endocrine, and
cardiovascular effects
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases; VOC = volatile organic compounds. a Acute health effects refers to immediate illnesses caused by short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants at fairly high concentrations.

An example of an acute health effect includes fatality resulting from short-term exposure to carbon monoxide levels in excess of 1,200 parts per million.
b Chronic health effects refers to cumulative effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations. An example of a chronic health effect includes the development of cancer from prolonged exposure to particulate matter at concentrations above the national ambient air quality standards.

Sources: EPA 2018
Thresholds
For regional operational emissions, the operational numerical emissions indicators in the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook are used for determining impact significance. The SCAQMD has established numeric indicators of significance in part based on Section 182(e) of the Clean Air Act which identifies 10 tons per year of VOC as a significance level for stationary source emissions in extreme nonattainment areas for ozone (SCAQMD 1993). The Basin is designated as extreme non-attainment for ozone. The SCAQMD converted this significance level to pounds per day for ozone precursor emissions (10 tons per year × 2,000 pounds per ton ÷ 365 days per year = 55 pounds per day). The numeric indicators for other pollutants are also based on federal stationary source significance levels.

SCAQMD’s numeric indicators are based on the recognition that the Basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health (SCAQMD 1993). Based on the indicators in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the proposed project would potentially cause or contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard if the following daily regional emissions thresholds would be exceeded (SCAQMD 2015):
• VOC: 55 pounds per day;
• NOx: 55 pounds per day;
• CO: 550 pounds per day;
• SO2: 150 pounds per day;
• PM10: 150 pounds per day; or
• PM2.5: 55 pounds per day.

- Page 116 of 183 -

31 Analysis
Operational emissions were assessed for mobile and area sources. Operational criteria pollutant emissions were calculated for the proposed project for the buildout year, 2023. As the existing use is non-operational, the construction and operation of Parcels A and B would generate new vehicle trips.

For a worst-case analysis, it is conservatively assumed that the proposed project would generate 2,207 new vehicle trips per day for both weekdays and weekends (Appendix F). In addition to mobile source emissions, operational emission sources also include energy from natural gas use, and area sources from the use of landscaping equipment, consumer projects, and architectural coatings. Area source emissions from landscaping equipment are based on off-road emission factors from CARB.

Emissions from the reapplication of architectural coatings are based on data provided in CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2. Detailed emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A of this MND. Results of the criteria pollutant calculations are presented in Table 4, Estimated Maximum Regional Operational Emissions. The maximum daily emissions from operation of the proposed project are compared to the SCAQMD daily regional numeric indicators. As shown therein, the proposed project operational-related daily emissions for the criteria and precursor pollutants (VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) would not exceed the SCAQMD numeric indicators.

SCAQMD’s project thresholds are intended to maintain or achieve attainment designations in the SCAB with respect to the CAAQS and NAAQS. If the project does not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds and does not contribute to nonattainment designations, it would not exacerbate or interfere with the region’s ability to attain the health-based standards. Furthermore, the lack of exposure of criteria air pollutants that may exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS would avoid health impacts. Because the proposed project’s construction phase emissions would be below SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds, they would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Because the ambient air quality standards are established to be protective of public health, adverse health impacts to receptors are not anticipated due to the proposed project’s emissions being below SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, with respect to regional emissions from operations, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4
Estimated Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds per day) a Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area (Consumer Products,
Landscaping, Architectural Coating)
3 <1 8 <1 <1 <1
Energy (Natural Gas, Electricity) <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 3 12 31 <1 9 2
Total Project Emissions 6 13 39 <1 9 3
Maximum Regional Emissions 6 13 39 <1 9 3
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Indicators? No No No No No No
Note:
a Emission quantities are rounded to “whole number” values. As such, the “total” values presented herein may be one unit more or less than actual values. Exact values (i.e., non-rounded) are provided in Appendix A.

Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2019 b) A significant impact may occur if a project were to add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or state non-attainment pollutant. The Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone (federal and state standards), PM10 (state standards only) and PM2.5 (federal and state standards), therefore, related projects could cause ambient concentrations to exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. Cumulative impacts to air quality are evaluated under two sets of thresholds for CEQA and the SCAQMD.
- Page 117 of 183 -

32 In particular, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3) provides guidance in determining the significance of cumulative impacts. Specifically, Section 15064(h)(3) states in part that:
“A lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency…”
For purposes of the cumulative air quality analysis with respect to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is determined based on compliance with the SCAQMD-adopted AQMP. As discussed previously under Threshold a, the project would be consistent with the AQMP and would not have a cumulatively considerable air quality impact. As the project is not part of an ongoing regulatory program, the SCAQMD also recommends that project-specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. The SCAQMD has provided guidance on an acceptable approach to addressing the cumulative impacts issue for air quality as discussed below (SCAQMD 2003a):
“As Lead Agency, the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR… projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project- specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.”
Consistent with accepted and established SCAQMD cumulative impact evaluation methodologies, the potential for the proposed project to result in cumulative impacts is assessed based on the SCAQMD thresholds.

As discussed under Response III (b) and shown in Tables 2 and 3, the daily emission levels for ozone precursors (NOX and VOC) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) generated during construction and operational activities by the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds.

By applying SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an addition of criteria pollutants such that cumulative impacts would occur, in conjunction with related projects in the region. In addition, as discussed in Response III (d)., below, construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAQMD has established a localized numeric indicator. Therefore, the proposed project’s construction and operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the Basin is in non- attainment. Thus, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
c) Localized Emissions
The localized effects from the on-site portion of proposed project emissions are evaluated at nearby sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the proposed project. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project are single and multi-family residential uses located immediately west of the project site. The SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003, revised July 2008) (SCAQMD 2008), which relies on on-site mass emission rate screening tables and project-specific dispersion modeling, where appropriate, is used to evaluate localized impacts to - Page 118 of 183 -

33 sensitive receptors. The localized significance thresholds are only applicable to NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. For NOX and CO, the thresholds are based on the ambient air quality standards. For PM10 and PM2.5, the thresholds are based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. The SCAQMD has established screening criteria that can be used to determine the maximum allowable daily emissions that would satisfy the localized significance thresholds and therefore not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable ambient air quality standards without project-specific dispersion modeling. The screening criteria depend on: (1) the area in which the project is located, (2) the size of the project site, (3) the distance between the project site and the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals) and (4) construction equipment types used and their duration of operation. The localized significance thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. The project site is located in the City of Bellflower and is approximately 1.02 acres in size. The nearest off-site receptors are located adjacent to the project site to the west. Therefore, the screening criteria applicable to a 1-acre site in the Southeast Los Angeles County area with sensitive receptors located 25 meters away were used. Although the receptors are closer than 25 meters, the SCAQMD methodology is to use the 25-meter distance for any receptors that are at 25 meters or closer to a project site.

Construction
Thresholds
The SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the potential for localized emissions to cause an exceedance of applicable ambient air quality standards or ambient concentration limits. Impacts would be considered significant if the following would occur:
 Maximum daily localized emissions of NOX and/or CO during construction are greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site greater than the most stringent ambient air quality standards for NO2 and/or CO (SCAQMD 2008).
 Maximum daily localized emissions of PM10 and/or PM2.5 during construction are greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site to exceed 10.4 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3) over 24 hours (SCAQMD Rule 403 control requirement) (SCAQMD 2008).

Analysis
The localized construction air quality analysis was conducted using the methodology described in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003, revised July 2008) (SCAQMD 2008). The screening criteria provided in the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology were used to determine localized construction emissions thresholds for the proposed project. The maximum daily localized emissions for each of the construction phases and localized significance thresholds are presented in Table 5, Estimated Maximum Localized Construction Emissions. As shown therein, maximum localized construction emissions for sensitive receptors would not exceed the localized thresholds for CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, with respect to localized construction emissions, impacts to nearby receptors would be less than significant.

- Page 119 of 183 -

34 Table 5
Estimated Maximum Localized Construction Emissions (pounds per day) a NOX CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total
Demolition – 2021c 20 14 2 1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 99 733 6 4
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Site Preparation - 2021 17 8 3 2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 95 698 5 3
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Grading - 2021 13 13 1 1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 80 571 4 3
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Building Construction – 2021-22 14 13 1 1
Paving - 2022 7 9 <1 <1
Architectural Coating – 2022-2023 1 2 1 1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 80 571 4 3
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Notes:
a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Detailed emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A. b The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 5 (southeast Los Angeles County) for a 1-acre site within a 25-meter receptor distance. c Demolition of existing building has already occurred. By presenting demolition activities, the modeling reflects a conservative estimate of emissions.

Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2019 Operational
Thresholds
The SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the potential for localized emissions to cause an exceedance of applicable ambient air quality standards. Impacts would be considered significant if the following were to occur:
 Maximum daily localized emissions of NOX and/or CO during operation are greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site greater than the most stringent ambient air quality standards for NO2 and/or CO (SCAQMD 2008).
 Maximum daily localized emissions of PM10 and/or PM2.5 during operation are greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site to exceed 2.5 μg/m3 over 24 hours (SCAQMD Rule 1303 allowable change in concentration).

Analysis
The localized operational air quality analysis was conducted using the methodology described in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003, revised July 2008) (SCAQMD 2008). The screening criteria provided in the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology were used to determine localized operational emissions thresholds for the proposed project. The maximum daily localized emissions and localized significance thresholds are presented in Table 6, Estimated Maximum Localized Operational Emissions. As shown therein, maximum localized operational emissions for sensitive receptors would not exceed the localized thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, with respect to localized operational emissions, impacts to nearby local receptors would be less than significant.
- Page 120 of 183 -

35 Table 6
Estimated Maximum Localized Operational Emissions (pounds per day) a, b Source NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area (Consumer Products, Landscaping,
Architectural Coating) 1 8 <1 <1
Total Project On-Site Emissions 1 8 <1 <1
Maximum Localized (On-Site) Emissions 1 8 <1 <1
SCAQMD Numeric Indicators 80 571 4 3
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Notes:
a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Detailed emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A. b The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 5 (southeast Los Angeles County) for a 1-acre site within a 25-meter receptor distance.

Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2019 Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project site is measured at the Compton monitoring station, South Central Los Angeles County, which is located approximately 4.75 miles northwest of the project site. The maximum ambient CO concentration in 2018 was measured at 4.7 parts per million (ppm) (one-hour average) and 3.5 ppm (eight-hour average) (SCAQMD 2019).

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Thresholds
With respect to the formation of CO hotspots, the project would be considered significant if the following would occur:
 The project would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the CAAQS one-hour or eight-hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 ppm, respectively.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Analysis
The potential for the project to cause or contribute to CO hotspots is evaluated by comparing project intersections (both intersection geometry and traffic volumes) with prior studies conducted by the SCAQMD in support of their AQMPs and considering existing background CO concentrations. As discussed below, this comparison provides evidence that the project would not cause or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots, that CO concentrations at project impacted intersections would remain well below the ambient air quality standards, and that no further CO analysis is warranted or required.

CO levels in the project area are substantially below the federal and state standards. Maximum CO levels in recent years are 4.7 ppm (one-hour average) and 3.5 ppm (eight-hour average) compared to the thresholds of 20 ppm (one-hour average) and 9.0 (eight-hour average). Carbon monoxide decreased dramatically in the Basin with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of CO have been recorded at monitoring stations in the Basin for some time and the Basin is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both the CAAQS and NAAQS. Thus, it is not expected that CO levels at project-impacted intersections would rise to the level of an exceedance of these standards.

Based on the traffic study conducted for the project, the addition of the project-generated traffic to existing conditions (i.e. existing-plus-project conditions) would not result in the downgrading of project-affected intersection to level of service (LOS) level E or F. All intersections would continue to operate at a LOS C or better overall. Furthermore, the traffic study estimated a peak traffic volume of 114 per hour (Appendix F). As a result, CO concentrations are expected to be up to a maximum of - Page 121 of 183 -

36 approximately 4.7 ppm (one-hour average) and 3.5 ppm (eight-hour average), which would not exceed the thresholds.1 Thus, this comparison provides evidence that the project would not contribute to the formation of CO hotspots and no further CO analysis is required. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to nearby receptors with respect to CO hotspots.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The potential for the project to cause impacts from toxic air contaminants (TACs) is evaluated by conducting a screening-level analysis. The screening-level analysis consists of reviewing the proposed project’s conceptual site plan and project description to identify any new or modified TAC emission sources. If it is determined that the proposed project would introduce a new source of TACs, or modify an existing source, then downwind sensitive receptor locations are identified and a site- specific analysis is conducted.

The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be related to diesel particulate matter emissions associated with heavy-duty equipment during demolition 2, excavation and grading activities. Construction activities associated with the project would be sporadic, transitory, and short term in nature (approximately 24 months). Given the temporary duration of the construction phase of the project, construction impacts associated with TACs are addressed qualitatively based on consistency with strategies and measures that limit, minimize, or reduce diesel emissions.

During long-term operations, TACs could be emitted as part of periodic maintenance operations, cleaning, painting, etc., and from diesel-powered delivery and service vehicles. However, these uses are expected to be occasional and result in minimal exposure to off-site sensitive receptors. As the project consists of a theater, retail commercial/restaurant space, and apartments the project would not include sources of substantive TAC emissions identified by the SCAQMD or CARB siting recommendations. Thus, a qualitative approach is appropriate.

Toxic Air Contaminants

Construction
Thresholds
Based on criteria set forth by the SCAQMD, the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs if any of the following were to occur (SCAQMD 1993):
 The project would emit carcinogenic materials or TACs that exceed the maximum incremental cancer risk of ten in one million or a cancer burden greater than 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas greater than or equal to 1 in 1 million) or an acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0.

Analysis
The greatest potential TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment usage during demolition, grading and excavation, and building construction activities. DPM emissions are highly correlated with exhaust PM2.5 emissions. These products would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules for their manufacture and use. The project would be subject to SCAQMD rules designed to limit exposure to TACs during construction activities.

The project would be required to comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In- Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation that aims to reduce emissions through the installation of

1 The expected CO concentrations are calculated based on the ratio of 114/100,000 multiplied by the screening values of 4.6 ppm (one-hour average) and 3.2 ppm (eight-hour average) and adding the background concentrations. Actual CO value would likely be less than the expected values reported in the analysis as the average CO emissions from motor vehicles operating today have declined as compared to motor vehicles operating in year 2003.
2 Demolition of existing building has already occurred. By presenting demolition activities, the modeling reflects a conservative estimate of emissions.
- Page 122 of 183 -

37 diesel particulate matter filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repower of older, higher-emitting engines with newer emission-controlled models. Compliance with these regulations would minimize emissions of TACs during construction. Therefore, the project to a less than significant level.

Although project construction activities would be temporary and short-term, diesel particulate emissions from equipment exhaust would likely result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD 10 in one million cancer risk threshold at the nearest sensitive receptors (residential uses to the west of the site). The Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is responsible for developing guidelines for performing health risk assessments (HRAs). In March 2015, OEHHA has adopted new guidelines which results in numeric life-time health risk values to be approximately two to three times higher than those calculated under the previous guidelines.

According to the SCAQMD, under the new OEHHA guidelines, a typical 1-acre office project with a 6-month construction duration would likely result in a significant health risk impact with regard to construction emissions (SCAQMD 2014). As the project is approximately 1.56-acre in size, with a 2- year construction duration, construction emissions would also likely result in significant impacts with regard to cancer risk. Since the new OEHHA guidelines have been adopted, the SCAQMD significance threshold with regard to health risk has remain unchanged.

In the absence of refined guidance from the SCAQMD, the responsible air quality regulatory agency for the Basin, it is conservatively assumed that, based on SCAQMD’s estimated health risk impacts for typical construction activities, the project would not result in a potentially significant incremental increase in health risk. Therefore, the project would not result in a potentially significant impact with regard to construction. Impacts to nearby receptors would be less than significant.

Operations
Project operations would generate only minor amounts of diesel fuel emissions from delivery trucks and incidental maintenance activities. These activities would be intermittent and would not include extended periods of idling at the project site. Trucks would comply with applicable provisions of the CARB Truck and Bus regulation to reduce PM and NOX emissions from existing diesel trucks.

Therefore, project operations are not considered a substantial source of diesel particulates. In addition, project operations would only result in minimal emissions of air toxics from maintenance or other ongoing activities, such as from the use of architectural coatings and other products. As a result, toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the project. Based on the uses expected on the project site, potential long-term operational impacts associated with the release of TACs would be minimal and would not be expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) With respect to odors, the project would be considered significant if it created objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Construction
Potential activities that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents and the combustion of diesel fuel in on- and off-road equipment. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the amount of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. In addition, the project would comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure regarding idling limitations for diesel trucks. Through mandatory compliance with rules and regulations, no construction activities or materials are expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, construction of the project would result in less than significant impact with respect to odors. Impacts to nearby receptors would be less than significant. - Page 123 of 183 -

38 Operations
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project does not include any uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with substantial odors. As a result, the project is not expected to discharge contaminants into the air in quantities that would cause a nuisance, injury, or annoyance to the public or property pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, the project would not create adverse odors affecting a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

- Page 124 of 183 -

39 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. Biological Resources.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion
a) The City is located within southern Los Angeles County and is highly urbanized. Accordingly, the potential for candidate, sensitive, or special status species or habitats is low within City limits and thus at the project site. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database identifies six candidate, sensitive, or special status species or habitats within the Whitter quadrangle, which includes the City of Bellflower. These include the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), bank swallow (riparia riparia), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), crotch bumble bee (Bombus Crotchii), and the California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)5. Redevelopment of the site would not expand the existing footprint of the currently developed area or introduce any land uses that would adversely affect biological resources. However, the site is already developed with a vacant commercial building and a parking lot with limited landscaping and no native vegetation is present on site. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. No impact would occur. b) As discussed above, the project site and the surrounding area are highly developed and urbanized.

No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present on the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact would occur.

- Page 125 of 183 -

40 c) As discussed above, the project site and the surrounding area are highly developed and urbanized.

Therefore, no wetlands are present on the project site or in the surrounding area. Thus, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any state or federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur.
d) As discussed above, the project site is entirely disturbed with one vacant commercial building and a graded dirt parking lot. The project site is surrounded by development to the east, west, and south.

One disturbed vacant parcel is present to the north of the project site. A parking structure is currently being constructed on this parcel. As such, due to the highly developed nature of the site and its surroundings, this area is not designated as a native resident or migratory wildlife corridor. The proposed project would not Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impact would occur. e) The City does not have any local policies or ordinances that protect specific biological resources, including tree preservation. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur. f) The City is not regulated by any Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (CDFW 2019). Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

- Page 126 of 183 -

41 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources.

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

Discussion
a) A historical resource is defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; possessing high artistic values; or yielding information important in prehistory or history. Resources listed in or determined eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered historical resources under CEQA.

According to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project with an effect that may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. The project site is currently developed with one existing commercial building. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix D), this building was built sometime between 1952 and 1963. According to City public permit applications, this building has been altered a few times. Upgrades included placing concrete along additional footings in 2001 and renovation of the building which took place in 2002 (City of Bellflower 2002).

According to the City’s General Plan, Conservation Element, the City does not include sites listed on the State or Federal Registers of Historic Place, however buildings with historical significance are located within the City. The closest one to the project site, as identified in the City’s General Plan is the Pacific Electric Railway Depot building, which is located approximately 95 feet to the northeast of the project site, across Mayne Street (City of Bellflower 1995). However, the proposed project would not result in any disturbance of this structure. Therefore, because the site does not contain any historic resources, and because the existing structure on site has previously been altered and not considered a historic resource, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is currently developed with a vacant commercial building and a parking lot with limited landscaping. The potential for archaeological materials to be present at the project site is considered low because the entire project site has been previously disturbed. However, although unlikely, there is the potential for previously unknown subsurface artifacts to be encountered during ground- disturbance activities. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially significant, and implementation of mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would be required. The impact would be less than significant with the above mitigation measure implemented. - Page 127 of 183 -

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

The project would also be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097.98, which ensure proper handling of any inadvertent human remain finds. Thus, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

- Page 128 of 183 -

43 6. ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Discussion
a) Neither the law nor the State CEQA Guidelines establish thresholds that define when energy consumption is considered wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. Compliance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards would result in energy-efficient buildings.

However, compliance with building codes does not adequately address all potential energy impacts during construction and operation. For example, energy would be required to transport people and goods to and from the project site. Energy use is discussed by anticipated use type below. Project energy use calculations are contained in Appendix B.

Construction-Related Energy
Energy would be required to operate and maintain construction equipment and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical buildings and infrastructure associated with the project would be nonrecoverable. Most energy consumption would result from operation of off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips associated with commutes by construction workers and haul trucks trips.

Table 7 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the construction of the project by year. Most of the construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and waste using on-road haul trucks. An estimated 9,399 gallons of gasoline and 35,639 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (Appendix B).

Table 7
Construction Energy Consumption
Year Gasoline (Gallons) Diesel (Gallons)
2021 142 12,170
2022 9,257 23,469
Total 9,399 35,639
Notes: Gasoline gallons include on-road gallons from worker trips. Diesel gallons include off-road equipment and on-road gallons from worker and vendor trips. Demolition of building was already competed; thus energy consumption modeling is conservative.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2019
The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Associated energy consumption would be typical of that associated with commercial projects in an urban setting. Automotive fuels would be consumed to transport people to and from the project site. Energy would be required for construction elements and transport construction materials.

The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical infrastructure associated with the - Page 129 of 183 -

44 project would be nonrecoverable. There is no atypical construction related energy demand associated with the proposed project. Non-renewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region.

Operational-Related Energy
The project would increase electricity and natural gas consumption in the region relative to existing conditions. However, the new buildings would, at a minimum, be built to 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 30 percent more efficient than 2016 Standards (CEC 2018). Table 8 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the operation of the project for the first full year of operations (2023).

Table 8
Levels of Energy Consumption Summary Associated with the Operation of the Project for the First Full Year of Operations (2023) Energy Type Energy Consumption Units
Electricity 718 MWh/year
Natural Gas 1,219 MMBTU/year
Gasoline 138,832 gal/year
Diesel 12,857 gal/year
Notes: MWh/year = megawatt-hours per year; MMBTU/year = million British thermal units per year, gal/year = gallons per year.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Fuel consumption associated with project-related vehicle trips would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Based on the estimated annual vehicle miles traveled (3,792,682 miles) from the CalEEMod model outputs and estimated miles per gallon (MPG) from the CARB mobile source emissions inventory EMFAC2017 Web Database, gasoline consumption is estimated at 138,832 gallons per year and diesel consumption is estimated at 12,857 gallons per year (See Appendix A). State and federal regulations regarding fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in California are designed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy for transportation. Additionally, the project is integrated with adjacent residential land uses. This integration would likely reduce VMT from neighboring residences who might otherwise travel further to shop. Although this potential reduction in VMT was not quantified, this effect would align with intent of the regional South Coast Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy to reduce regional VMT.

The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In addition to compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, design features of the project include the installation of electric vehicle chargers, increased transit accessibility near the project site, and an enhanced pedestrian bike network. With these design features, the project’s energy consumption through construction, building operation, and transportation would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Relevant plans that pertain to the efficient use of energy include the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), which focuses on energy efficiency; demand response; renewable energy; the supply and reliability of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels; and achieving GHG reduction targets (CEC 2019). Although the project would require more energy use than the existing site, the project would be designed with energy efficiency design features under the 2019 California Energy Code.

These standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building installation and - Page 130 of 183 -

45 roofing, and lighting. In addition, transportation energy demand from the implementation of the project would be reduced by federal and State regulations including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program. In addition, the project will encourage alternative fuel use with the installation of electric vehicle chargers in the proposed parking lot and transit use by being located nearby transit options. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

- Page 131 of 183 -

46 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Discussion
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project was prepared by Geocon West, Inc. in March 2019 (Appendix C1). The results of this report serve as the basis for this analysis.

Further analysis has been prepared by Geocon West, Inco for the liquefaction potential of the project site. The results of this liquefaction analysis have been summarized in an email from Petrina Zen, PE of Geocon West, Inc. from February 19, 2019, which has been included as Appendix C2 of this MND. a.i) Fault rupture is the displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years), but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive (Appendix C1). The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are present within the project site. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture due to faulting is considered low. Nonetheless, the project site is located in the seismically active Southern California region and various faults are present in the vicinity of the site. The closest active fault to the site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the project site (Appendix C1).

Thus, the proposed project could be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many nearby active faults.
- Page 132 of 183 -

47 Nonetheless the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) includes seismic design criteria, which would be required for the proposed project in order to reduce the potential for structural damage. With implementation of required CBC requirements, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture. Impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii) As discussed above, although no active fault traverses the project site, the site is located within the seismically active Southern California region and various faults are present in the vicinity of the site.

The closest known active or potentially active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the project site. Other nearby faults include the Whittier Fault, located approximately 9.1 miles northeast of the site; the Palos Verdes Fault, located 11.9 miles southwest of the site; the Raymond Fault, located approximately 16.4 miles north of the site; and the Hollywood Fault, located approximately 18 miles north-northwest of the project site. Lastly, the San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 42 miles northeast of the project site (Appendix C1). Thus, due to regional proximity to major known active fault zones, the project site is subject to strong ground motion from seismic activity similar to that of the rest of Southern California.

However, as discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC, which incorporates seismic design criteria, including foundation design and grading requirements. The applicable seismic design criteria for this project are incorporated in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1) and would be implemented for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to geotechnical hazards would be potentially significant, and implementation of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 would be required. The impact would be less than significant with the above mitigation measure implemented.

MM-GEO-1: The proposed project shall comply with the recommendations and requirements contained in the geotechnical investigation in Appendix C1 and C2. a.iii) Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose and saturated soil loses strength during strong ground shaking events. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, and groundwater level (Appendix C1).

The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1) includes a liquefaction analysis of the project site. As identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the South Gate Quadrangle and the City’s Safety Element identify the project site as having a potential for liquefaction. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation further evaluated the liquefaction potential at the project site using soil testing and confirmed that, due to the alluvial soils and historically high groundwater depth at the site, there is potential for liquefaction to occur on site in the event of an earthquake. Due to potential for liquefaction to occur on site, further analysis has been prepared by Geocon West, Inco for the liquefaction potential of the project site. The results of this liquefaction analysis have been summarized in an email from Petrina Zen, PE of Geocon West, Inc from February 19, 2019, which has been included as Appendix C2 of this MND. This liquefaction summary provided design features such as requiring that new development is placed on a mat foundation, place new development on-grade rather than with a subterranean level for development within Parcel B. For the renovation within Parcel A, the liquefaction summary recommends that although a conventional foundation is appropriate, the applicant shall coordinate with the structural engineer on tolerable settlements and the foundation would be required to be designated for seismic settlements and as well static settlements (Appendix C2). Therefore, impacts to geotechnical hazards would be potentially significant, and implementation of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 would be required. The impact would be less than significant with the above mitigation measure implemented.

MM-GEO-1: The proposed project shall comply with the recommendations and requirements contained in the geotechnical investigation in Appendix C1 and C2. - Page 133 of 183 -

48 a.iv) According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the topography of the project site is relatively level and the topography in the immediate vicinity slopes gently to the southwest. Both the City’s General Plan Safety Element and the County of Los Angeles Safety Element indicate that the site is not located within an area of slope instability (Appendix C1). Therefore, because the potential for landslides on site is considered low, impacts would be less than significant. b) Soil erosion refers to the process by which soil or earth material is loosened or dissolved and removed from its original location. Erosion can occur by varying processes and may occur in a particular development area where bare soil is exposed to wind or moving water (both rainfall and surface runoff). The processes of erosion are generally a function of material type, terrain steepness, rainfall or irrigation levels, surface drainage conditions, and general land uses. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and micro-organisms.

The project is located in an urbanized area of the City and the project site has already been disturbed and developed. Therefore, extensive grading would not be required for the proposed project.

Nonetheless, earth-moving activities during the construction phase could temporarily increase the potential for displaced soils and thus could be subject to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The project would be required to be constructed in accordance with standard erosion control practices required by the CBC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, as applicable. Consistent with these requirements, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) could be prepared that incorporates Best management practices (BMPs) to control water erosion during construction periods. Further, wind erosion would be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by the SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion would also be reduced by implementation of standard erosion control measures imposed during site preparation and grading activities, as required under Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Thus, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss. Impacts would be less than significant. c) As discussed under Threshold a.iv, above, the potential for landslides to occur on the project site is considered low. project site is not located within an area prone to landslides.

According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1), the project site is underlain by Holocene age alluvium consisting of clay, silt, and sand. Artificial fill was also encountered at the project site during field explorations and characterized as dry to slightly moist and loose to medium dense. Further, groundwater was encountered on site during the field exploration. However, per the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, based on the depth of groundwater encountered and the depth of proposed construction, groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction.

Nonetheless, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation incorporates recommendations to ensure proposer drainage of the project site and ensure that potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse would be reduced. Impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.
d) According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1), the soils encountered during the field investigation are considered to have a very low expansive potential and are classified as non-expansive in accordance with the CBC. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation also incorporates recommendations for building foundations to add additional support for structures. Thus, the proposed project would not be located on expansive soils, creating direct or indirect risks to life or property. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Septic tanks or other similar alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed under the project. No impact would occur.
- Page 134 of 183 -

49 f) As discussed under Threshold c, above, the project site is underlain by Holocene age alluvium. The potential for paleontological resources to be present at the project site is considered low because the entire project site has been previously disturbed. Pleistocene or older (older than 11,000 years) continental sedimentary deposits are considered as having a high paleontological potential while Holocene-age deposits (less than 10,000 years old) are generally considered to have a low paleontological potential because they are geologically immature and are unlikely to have fossilized the remains of organisms. Therefore, due to the low potential for paleontological resources to occur and the developed nature of the site, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

- Page 135 of 183 -

50 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion
a) Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. The absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature.

The earth has a much lower temperature than the sun; therefore, the earth emits lower frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. Project-related greenhouse gas calculations are included in Appendix A.

The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because different GHGs have different warming potentials and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For example, SF6 is a GHG commonly used in the utility industry as an insulating gas in circuit breakers and other electronic equipment. SF6, while comprising a small fraction of the total GHGs emitted annually world-wide, is a much more potent GHG with 22,800 times the global warming potential as CO2. Therefore, an emission of one metric ton (MT) of SF6 could be reported as an emission of 22,800 MT of CO2e.

Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.3 The Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) latest 2018 CEQA Guidelines, encourage cities to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a city may determine that a particular project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted mitigation program, or plan for the reduction of GHG emissions that includes the following elements:
(A) Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area;
(B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;

3 A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms; it is equal to approximately 1.1 U.S. tons and approximately 2,204.6 pounds. - Page 136 of 183 -

51 (C) Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
(D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
(E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

In response to these requirements, the City, in December 2012, adopted a climate action plan (CAP) which explained how the City would achieve its proportional share of state GHG emission reductions.

The City’s CAP met the programmatic requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and described specific measures and performance standards for reducing community emissions. The CAP Climate Ready Development Standards were established to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that were subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA. The Climate Ready Development Standards are part of the CAP and give points for energy efficiency and emissions-reducing features of new developments. Each standard has a point value assigned to it that reflects its general effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions. For a project to be fully compliant with the CAP, an applicant must select measures to achieve 16 points. For additional flexibility, the City established an in-lieu fee program that allowed applicants to pay a fee to be used to offset GHG emissions through energy efficiency retrofits of City’s existing building stock. Thus, if a project didn’t get 16 points, it could pay based on how many points it received.

Projects that are consistent with the CAP as determined through the use of these Climate Ready Development Standards could rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions.

Projects that are not consistent with the CAP would need to prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions.

Project Consistency with CAP
A preliminary analysis of the Climate Ready Development Standards shows that the project would be designed to comply with the CAP as discussed below in Table 9, Consistency with CAP Climate Ready Development Standards. The analysis in the table shows the potential number of points the project would achieve for through its design or by complying with standards.

Table 9
Consistency with CAP Climate Ready Development Standards Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Demonstrate the building will perform at least 15% better than the current Title 24. Three additional points can be achieved if the building will perform at least 30% better than the current Title 24.
3-6 Not applicable. 0
Provide preferred parking for low-emitting and fuel-
efficient vehicles for 5% of the total vehicle parking or provide electric vehicle recharging stations for 3% of the total vehicle capacity.
3 Applicable. The project
would be designed to
provide electric vehicle
charging stations at 3% of
the parking spaces.
3 - Page 137 of 183 -

52 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Hire a third-party commissioning agent to conduct a
commissioning audit of the building and verify the building mechanical systems were installed and operate correctly 3 Not applicable. 0
Design and orient 75% or more new buildings such that
one axis is at least 1.5 times longer than the other, and such that the longer axis is within 15 degrees of the
geographical east/west axis. The length to width ratio shall be applied only to the length of walls enclosing conditioned spaces, walls enclosing unconditioned spaces such as
garages, arcades or porches cannot contribute to standard achievement. South facing vertical surfaces of buildings counting towards standard achievement must not be more
than 25% shaded at time of initial occupancy (measured at noon on December 21st).
3 Not applicable. 0
Implement a commute trip reduction program if the project generates more than 50 jobs.
3 Not applicable. 0
Install solar energy generation to meet 35% of the
project’s energy demand. The solar panels should be
onsite, but can be located offsite and within the City
Limits, at the approval of the Planning Director. Two
additional points can be achieved for meeting 50% of the project’s energy demand through installed solar energy
generation.
3-5 Not applicable. 0
Use porous materials on all paved areas except fire lanes or specified fire access as required by the Fire
Department.
2 Not applicable. 0
All non-permeable paving materials shall be high albedo materials with a Solar Reflectance index of at least 29. 2 Not applicable. 0
If a new development is within a ½ mile of a transit stop and requires off-street parking, parking must be
unbundled from the rental or for-sale cost.
2 Applicable. Project is within
½ mile of projected train
station and bus lines on
Bellflower Boulevard.
2 Provide continuous rows of appropriately spaced trees (every 25 feet) along all streets (or an equivalent number of trees placed offsite at the discretion of the Planning Director.) Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade. Evergreen
trees are preferred. Palm trees shall be prohibited from consideration towards this standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
If a façade faces a street or sidewalk, 30% or greater of its continuous length shall not be blank (without windows and doors). Walls with public art installations such as murals may be exempted.
2 Applicable. 2
It is prohibited for more than 25% of the linear street frontage of new buildings to be garages and service bay openings.
2 Potentially applicable. 2
New multi-unit developments must install electricity, gas, and water meters for each unit.
2 Applicable (no gas)

2 - Page 138 of 183 -

53 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Design and install landscaping to minimize summer heat
gain through: (1) the placement of evergreen trees along the west façade of buildings, (2) the placement of trees so as to shade 50% of the site’s hardscape within 5 years of construction, and (3) a covenant recorded that provides for the ongoing maintenance so as to maintain the tree’s shade. Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade. Evergreen trees are
preferred. Palm trees shall be prohibited from
consideration towards achieving this standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
Provide at least one secure, enclosed bicycle storage
space, separated and independent from the required
automobile parking areas, per occupant for a percentage of the planned occupancy and no less than one space per unit. Points shall be achieved as follows: (a) For
provisions of spaces for 15% of planned occupancy, 1
point; (b) For provision of spaces for 30% of planned
occupancy, a total of 2 points; (c) For provision of spaces for 45% of planned occupancy, a total of 3 points: and (d) For provision of spaces for 50% or more of planned
occupancy, a total of 4 points.
1-4 Applicable. 15% of planned
occupancy total of 14
secure, enclosed bicycle
storage spaces.

1 Provide visitor bicycle racks on-site with at least one bicycle space per 10,000 square feet of new non-retail
space or 5,000 square feet of retail space but not fewer than four bicycle spaces per building or 1 space per
business (whichever is greater).
2 Applicable. The project
would include bicycle
spaces and racks.
2 Provide secure visitor bicycle racks on-site, with at least one bicycle space per 10 new dwelling units and not less than four spaces per project site.
2 Applicable. The project will
include 10 secure visitor
bicycle spaces.
2 Provide at least one on-site shower with changing facility for any development with 100 or more new workers and
at least one additional on-site shower with changing
facility for every 150 new workers thereafter.
2 Not applicable. 0
Provide at least one additional tree per unit above what is required by code. Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade.

Evergreen trees are preferred. Palm trees shall be
prohibited from consideration towards achieving this
standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
Provide at least one tree per 500 square feet of building area. Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade. Evergreen trees are
preferred. Palm trees shall be prohibited from
consideration towards achieving this standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
Incorporate appropriate traffic calming features such as curb extensions, mini-circles, parking chicanes,
roundabouts, medians, raised street crossing or similar features. (Applies to projects greater than 5 acres)
1 Not applicable. 0
- Page 139 of 183 -

54 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Minimize the number of driveway cuts that intersect with sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways.
1 Potentially applicable. The
project would be designed
to minimize the number of
driveway cuts that intersect
with sidewalks and other
pedestrian walkways.

Removing one existing
driveway cut along Oak
Street and one along
Mayne Street.
1 Delineate crosswalks at every intersection within ½ mile of the project site. (Applies to projects greater than 5 acres)
1 Not applicable. 0
Construct sidewalks on both sides of streets (except
where the Bellflower Municipal Code exempts such) for
frontage controlled by the project applicant that is
contiguous to the project site.
1 Potentially applicable. The
city decides where
crosswalks go.
1 Create external pedestrian and bicycle connections every 800 feet along the project perimeter. (Applies to projects greater than 5 acres)
1 Not applicable. 0
Continue to divert 100% of all non-hazardous inert
construction and demolition debris for recycling and
salvage and divert 75% of all remaining construction and demolition debris.
1 Not applicable. 0
Locate the majority entry points to new buildings within a ¼ mile of a transit stop.
1 Applicable. Bus stops along
Bellflower Boulevard and
future train station.
1 Use salvaged, refurbished, or recycled materials such that the sum of these materials constitutes at least 5% based on cost, of the total value of materials on the
project. One additional point can be achieved if the use of these materials constitutes 10% of the total value of
materials.
1-2 Not applicable. 0
Provide designated space, facilities, and services for
users to recycle and compost waste.
1 Applicable. Project will
designate recycling bins.
1 Use only high efficiency lighting. 1 Applicable. The project will comply with Title 24.
1 Meet at least 5% of a project’s indoor water use through a combination of reclaimed water and gray water.

Providing plumbing for future reclaimed water availability will meet the requirement of this standard if reclaimed water is not yet available at the site.
1 Not applicable. 0
Design landscaping for very low water use. 1 Applicable. 1 Utilize artificial turf in place of grass. 1 Potentially applicable.

Project will have no grass
and will incorporate low
water consuming plants.
1 Use of efficient irrigation systems and weather-based irrigation controllers.
1 Applicable. 1
- Page 140 of 183 -

55 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Provide at least one of the following sidewalk amenities like benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, and/or public art in a new mixed-use and multi-family, for every 50 feet of sidewalk frontage.
1 Not applicable. 0
Locate all new off-street surface parking lots at the side or rear of buildings, leaving building frontages facing streets free of surface parking lots. Side lot parking shall be limited to double stacked drive aisles.
1 Not applicable. 0
Total Potential Points
Compliance Point Threshold
Project Compliant with CAP
24 16
Yes
Source: City of Bellflower and Ascent Environmental 2019 Project consistency with the CAP is shown in Table 9 above. The project would be designed to meet Climate Development Ready Standards to reach 24 points. According to City staff, the project would be designed to comply with the 16-point threshold. Since the project could meet the 16-point compliance standard, it is fully compliant with the CAP and would not result in a cumulative GHG impact. The project would, therefore, support the CAP’s target of reducing GHG emissions 17 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 19 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 resulting in a less than significant impact.
b) A significant impact would occur if the project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment by conflicting with applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions as discussed within CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City’s CAP and Green Building Code.

As shown in Table 9, the project would be consistent with the CAP and would not interfere with the City’s ability to meet GHG reduction measures. The discussion below, shows how the project would comply and not conflict with various plans, policies, and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan
In support of Health and Safety Code (HSC) Division 25.5, the state has promulgated specific laws aimed at GHG reductions applicable to the project. The primary focus of many of the statewide and regional mandates, plans, policies and regulations is to address worldwide climate change. Due to the complex physical, chemical and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, there is no basis for concluding whether the project’s annual GHG emissions would cause a measurable change in global GHG emissions necessary to influence global climate change. Newer construction materials and practices, energy efficiency requirements, and newer appliances tend to emit lower levels of air pollutant emissions, including GHGs, as compared to those built years ago; however, the net effect is difficult to quantify. The GHG emissions of the project alone would not likely cause a direct physical change in the environment. According to California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, “GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective.” It is global GHG emissions in their aggregate that contribute to climate change, not any single source of GHG emissions alone. Because the project would not cumulative impact global climate change, and the fact that the project incorporates physical and operational project characteristics that would reduce potential GHG emissions to a less than significant level by virtue of being consistent with the City’s CAP, the project is considered not to conflict with the GHG reduction goals of HSC Division 25.5. - Page 141 of 183 -

56 Table 10, Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies, contains a list of GHG- reducing strategies potentially applicable to the project. The analysis describes the consistency of the Project with these strategies that support the state’s strategies in the Climate Change Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan relies on a broad array of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as the Cap-and-Trade program. As shown below, the project would be designed to incorporate characteristics to reduce energy and reduce vehicle travel consistent with statewide strategies and regulations. As a result, the project would not conflict with applicable Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

Table 10
Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis Energy
California
Renewables Portfolio
Standard
Increases the proportion of electricity from
renewable sources to 33% renewable
power by 2020.

Consistent. The project would use
electricity provided by Southern California
Edison (SCE), which is committed to
achieving 33% renewables by 2020.

California
Renewables Portfolio
Standard and SB 350
Increases the proportion of electricity from
renewable sources to 33% renewable
power by 2020. SB 350 requires 50% by
2030. It also requires the State Energy
Resources Conservation and
Development Commission to double the
energy efficiency savings in electricity and
natural gas final end uses of retail
customers through energy efficiency and
conservation.

Consistent. The project would use
electricity provided by SCE, which is
required to meet the 2050 performance
standard. The project would also meet or
exceed the applicable requirements of the
State of California Green Building
Standards Code. The project would
incorporate energy efficiency measures as
outlined in the CAP to get the necessary
amount of points.

CCR, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
Consistent. The project would be
designed to meet mandatory CALGreen
Building Standards.

Assembly Bill 1109 The Lighting Efficiency and Toxics
Reduction Act (AB1109) prohibits
manufacturing specified general purpose
lights that contain levels of hazardous
substances prohibited by the European
Union. AB 1109 also requires a reduction
in average statewide electrical energy
consumption by not less than 50% from
the 2007 levels for indoor residential
lighting and not less than 25% from the
2007 levels for indoor commercial and
outdoor lighting by 2018
Consistent. As discussed above, the
project would be designed to meet
mandatory CALGreen Building Standards.

SB 1368 Establishes an emissions performance
standard for power plants within the State
of California.

Consistent. The project would not impede
this regulation and would not conflict with
implementation of the emissions standards
for power plants.
- Page 142 of 183 -

57 Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis California Green
Building Standards
Code Requirements
All bathroom exhaust fans shall be
ENERGY STAR® compliant.

Consistent. The project would be
designed to meet mandatory CALGreen
Building Standards. The Project would
meet or exceed the energy standards in the
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. Parking spaces shall be designed for
carpool or alternative fueled vehicles. Up
to eight % of total parking spaces will be
designed for such vehicles.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. The Project would be designed to
comply with the CAP Climate Ready
Development Standards as well, which are
stricter. Long-term and short-term bike parking
shall be provided for up to five % of vehicle
trips.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. The Project would be designed to
comply with the CAP Climate Ready
Development Standards as well, which are
stricter. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) required.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. Indoor water usage must be reduced by
20% compared to current California
Building Code Standards for maximum
flow.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code All irrigation controllers must be installed
with weather sensing or soil moisture
sensors.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. Wastewater usage shall be reduced by 20
% compared to current California Building
Standards.

Consistent. The project would meet or
exceed this requirement as part of its
compliance with the City’s requirements
and the CALGreen Code. Requires a minimum of 50 % recycle or reuse of nonhazardous construction and
demolition debris.

Consistent. The project would meet or
exceed this requirement as part of its
compliance with the City’s requirements
and the CALGreen Code. The Project
would be designed to comply with the CAP
Climate Ready Development Standards as
well, which are stricter. Requires documentation of types of waste recycled, diverted or reused.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. Requires use of low VOC coatings
consistent with AQMD Rule 1168.

Consistent. The project would be
consistent with this regulation and would
meet or exceed the low VOC coating
requirements.
- Page 143 of 183 -

58 Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis 100 % of vegetation, rocks, and soils from land clearing shall be recycled or
stockpiled on-site.

Mobile Sources
Advanced Clean Cars
Program
In 2012, CARB adopted the Advanced
Clean Cars (ACC) program to reduce
criteria pollutants and GHG emissions for
model year vehicles 2015 through 2025.

ACC includes the Low-Emission Vehicle
(LEV) regulations that reduce criteria
pollutants and GHG emissions from light-
and medium-duty vehicles, and the Zero-
Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which
requires manufacturers to produce an
increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning
battery electric and fuel cell electric
vehicles), with provisions to also produce
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in
the 2018 through 2025 model years.

Consistent. The standards would apply to
all vehicles used by employees and
customers associated with the Project. The
project would consider the installation of
electric vehicle charging stations during
final design.

SB 375 SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the
development of regional targets for
reducing passenger vehicle GHG
emissions. Under SB 375, CARB is
required, in consultation with the state’s
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, to
set regional GHG reduction targets for the
passenger vehicle and light-duty truck
sector for 2020 and 2035.

Consistent. The project would be
consistent with SCAG RTP/SCS goals and
objectives under SB 375 to implement
“smart growth.” The Project would provide
residential and commercial land uses
within close proximity to one another, the
Project site is served by a high level of
public transit, the Project could encourage
use of non-motorized vehicles by
considering installation of electric vehicle
charging stations during final design, bike
parking, and connectivity to the future West
Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor light rail
station. The Project would be designed to
meet the applicable requirements of
CALGreen Code.

Water
CCR, Title 24 Title 24 includes water efficiency
requirements for new residential and non-
residential uses.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the CALGreen Code. The Project would be
designed to comply with the CAP Climate
Ready Development Standards as well,
which are stricter.
- Page 144 of 183 -

59 Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis Solid Waste
California Integrated
Waste Management
Act (IWMA) of 1989
and Assembly Bill
(AB) 341
The IWMA mandated that state agencies
develop and implement an integrated
waste management plan which outlines
the steps to be taken to divert at least 50
% of their solid waste from disposal
facilities. AB 341 directs CalRecycle to
develop and adopt regulations for
mandatory commercial recycling and sets
a statewide goal for 75 % disposal
reduction by the year 2020.

Consistent. The project would be served
by the City’s solid waste collection and
recycling services. The Project would be
required to comply with AB 341.

Other Sources
Climate Action Team Reduce diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling.

Consistent. The project would be
consistent with the CARB Air Toxics
Control Measure to limit heavy duty diesel
motor vehicle idling to no more than 5
minutes at any given time. Achieve California’s 50 % waste diversion mandate (Integrated Waste Management
Act of 1989) to reduce GHG emissions
associated with virgin material extraction.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the CALGreen Code.

Implement efficient water management
practices and incentives, as saving water
saves energy and GHG emissions.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the CALGreen Code. The Project would
provide drought tolerant landscaping or
other low water landscaping to the greatest
extent feasible. Apply strategies that integrate
transportation and land-use decisions,
including but not limited to promoting
jobs/housing proximity, high-density
residential/ commercial development
along transit corridors, and implementing
intelligent transportation systems.

Consistent. The project would incorporate
physical characteristics that would reduce
vehicle trips and VMT and encourage
alternative modes of transportation for
patrons as it in close proximity to the future
West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor
light rail station and existing bus and other
transit options; rail, bicycle, walking. Reduce energy use in private buildings. Consistent. The project would meet Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Source: Ascent Environmental 2019
Furthermore, not only is the project consistent with currently applicable GHG emission reduction strategies described in Table 10, but the project also would not conflict with or impede the future statewide GHG emission reductions goals. CARB has outlined a number of potential strategies for achieving the 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels in the 2017 Scoping Plan.

Appendix C of the 2017 Scoping Plan includes detailed GHG reduction measures and local actions that land use development projects and municipalities can implement to support the statewide goal.

For project-level CEQA analyses, the 2017 Scoping Plan states that projects should implement feasible mitigation, preferably measures that can be implemented on-site. The project would include GHG reduction features that would be consistent with the measures listed in Appendix C of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The project would be consistent with reducing the rate of growth in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by providing onsite bicycle parking facilities, combining residential and commercial land uses, and being located in an area served by a high level of public transit including bus lines and train stations.
- Page 145 of 183 -

60 SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS
The significance of the project’s GHG emissions was first evaluated based on whether the emissions would be generated in connection with development located and designed consistent with relevant regional and local goals, actions, and recommendations designed to encourage development to reduce trips and VMTs. Transportation-related GHG emissions are the largest source of GHG emissions from the project. This project characteristic is consistent with the assumption in many regional plans, such as the SCAG RTP/SCS, which recognizes that the transportation sector is the largest contributor to the state’s GHG emissions.

Consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS alignment of transportation, land use, and housing strategies, the project would accommodate projected increases in travel demand by implementing smart land use strategies. The project would redevelop the infill land into a residential and commercial, retail space, encouraging alternative modes of transportation by combining land uses, considering the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, and by providing bike parking spaces and racks. The project site provides access to transit options such as carpooling, bus, bicycling, and rail travel. Overall, these project characteristics have the potential to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, thus reducing their associated GHG emissions.

SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS states that 38 percent of all trips in the region are less than 3 miles (SCAG 2016). The RTP/SCS intends to decrease these trips by extending local bikeway networks. The project would be consistent with this RTP/SCS goal by providing parking adjacent to the Class I Bellflower Bike Path, which would allow cyclists to visit the downtown area from their bike and the bike path connects to the longer San Gabriel River Trail path. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS regional and local trip and VMT reduction goals.

Bellflower Green Building Standards Code
The proposed project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (City of Bellflower 2019) that would reduce GHG emissions by increasing energy-efficiency, reducing indoor and outdoor water demand, and installing energy-efficient equipment. The project would also incorporate characteristics that would reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by combining residential and commercial uses next to transit stations and the bicycle paths, thereby encouraging alternative forms of transportation and pedestrian activity. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s Green Building Standards Code.

Bellflower Climate Action Plan
As discussed above, the project would not impede implementation or conflict with policies of the Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS, California Green Building Code, and the Bellflower CAP. In conclusion, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

- Page 146 of 183 -

61 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

Discussion
a) A hazardous material is defined as any material that due to its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health or to the environment if released. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, paints, cleansers, or pesticides. Vehicles traveling along City streets could also use and/or transport potentially hazardous materials such as oil, gasoline, and other similar materials.

Construction the proposed project could potentially transport and/or handle potentially hazardous materials, such as oil, gas, etc. However, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with existing hazardous materials regulations already enacted that protect people and locations from exposure to hazardous materials and substances. For instance, Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the State level to ensure compliance with Federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations, as appropriate, could be monitored by the State (e.g., Cal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) in the workplace or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for hazardous waste), and/or local jurisdictions (e.g., the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Environmental Health Division) to ensure construction materials are properly handled, transported, and disposed of. - Page 147 of 183 -

62 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) has been prepared for the project by Environmental Help, Inc. on December 20, 2018 and included as Appendix D of this MND. As discussed in the Phase I, because the existing structure onsite has been constructed before 1980, lead-based paint and asbestos can be present within the existing structure on site. The Phase I also indicates that the existing structure contains a hydraulic freight elevator, which can result to hazards to people and the environment if not disposed of properly. Therefore, renovation within Parcel A has the potential to create a hazard of exposing the public to lead-based paint, asbestos and/or hydraulic fluid. Thus, the following mitigation would be required:

Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the partial demolition of the existing structure on-site, a lead-based paint and asbestos survey shall be conducted by a licensed lead and asbestos inspector retained by the project applicant. If any on-site abatement of lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials is necessary, the licensed lead and asbestos inspector shall prepare an abatement work plan for removal of such materials in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. The work plan shall include a monitoring plan to be conducted by a qualified consultant during abatement activities to ensure compliance with the work plan requirements and abatement contractor specifications. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures for the removal of materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. The measures shall be consistent with the abatement work plan prepared for the project and conducted by a licensed lead/asbestos abatement contractor.

MM HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the partial demolition of the existing structure on-site, a plan of removal of disposal shall be prepared for the existing hydraulic fluid elevator located within the existing structure. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures for the removal of this elevator to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. The measures shall be consistent with the abatement work plan prepared for the project and conducted by a licensed engineer.

Once project construction is complete, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the operational phase of the project would be limited to cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and other typical substances associated with the multifamily residential and commercial uses of the proposed project. Transportation, use, and disposal of these materials are required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Significant impacts associated with long-term operation of the site are not expected. Therefore, impacts from any potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Therefore, with the implementation of the above mitigation, lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials would be properly handled, transported and disposed of. Thus, impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) As discussed above, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with existing hazardous materials regulations already enacted that protect people and locations from exposure to hazardous materials and substances. For instance, Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the State level to ensure compliance with Federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations, as appropriate, could be monitored by the State (e.g., Cal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) in the workplace or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for hazardous waste), and/or local jurisdictions (e.g., the Los Angeles County Fire - Page 148 of 183 -

63 Department and the Los Angeles County Environmental Health Division) to ensure construction materials are properly handled, transported, and disposed of. This would reduce potential hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident of hazardous materials during construction. Further, because there is potential for asbestos and lead-based paint to be present within the existing building on site, there is the potential for the accidental release of these hazardous materials during earthmoving activities and construction of the proposed project.

With the implementation of mitigation MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2, impacts to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As described above, once project construction is complete, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the operational phase of the project would be limited to cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and other typical substances associated with the multi-family residential and commercial uses of the proposed project. Transportation, use, and disposal of these materials are required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Therefore, with compliance with these regulations, potential impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
c) No schools are present within a quarter mile of the site. However, the nearest school to the project site is Priscilla’s Music School, located approximately 0.29-mile northwest of the site. School Ten, Inc. is located approximately 0.33 mile southwest of the project site. Ramona Elementary School is also 0.46 mile southwest of the site. As discussed under threshold a, above, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with federal, state, County, and City regulations relating to control of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the likelihood of accidents and risks associated with release of hazardous materials. The project would also be required to implement MM-HAZ-1 which would reduce potential impacts from asbestos and lead based paint, and MM-HAZ-2, which would require proper removal and disposal of the existing freight elevator. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Government Code Section 65962.5, amended in 1992, requires CalEPA to develop and update annually the Cortese List, which is a list of hazardous waste sites and other contaminated sites. While Government Code Section 65962.5 makes reference to the preparation of a list, many changes have occurred related to web-based information access since 1992, so information regarding the Cortese List is now compiled on the websites of DTSC, the State Water Board, and CalEPA. The Phase I (Appendix D) performed a review of standard, federal, state, and tribal environmental records searches of the project site and near the project site. The environmental records search performed in the Phase I identified one nearby site that could result in hazardous materials on site. This site is associated with a previous dry cleaner on an adjacent site. Because the potential for subsurface impact still exists and is related to release of tetrachloroethylene (TCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) on this adjacent site, a plume in groundwater under the southeast corner of the site exists. The Phase I recommends that, because of this existing hazardous condition, no subterranean parking lot should be constructed as part of the project. Because subterranean parking is not proposed, this existing hazardous condition would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Phase I concluded that the existing TCE and PCE on the southeastern corner of the site should not create unhealthful conditions at the project site. To further ensure that potential impacts associated with the plume does not result, the following mitigation measure is required. It should be noted, however, that there are approximately ten full or partially filled five-gallon paint/tar containers present at the project site. However, these containers have a low migration potential to affect other areas of the site. Therefore, once removed, these containers should not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. All impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation.
- Page 149 of 183 -

64 MM HAZ-3: The project applicant shall install a vapor barrier below the proposed building foundations following grading and prior to building construction to ensure that TCE contaminated soil/groundwater does not adversely affect project occupants. The vapor barrier shall be designed per the requirements of the project toxicologist and the RWQCB. e) The closest airport to the project site is the Long Beach Airport, located approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site, and is not located within the sphere of the airport’s land use plan. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive airplane noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur. f) The City also has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) which is placed into operations for extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and human-caused events. Bellflower Boulevard is identified as a disaster movement route in the EOP (City of Bellflower 2017). However, the proposed project includes redevelopment of the site and would result in less than significant impacts at both the intersection of Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street and the intersection of Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street (Appendix F). Therefore, the proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. g) The project site is located within a highly developed area of the City. The project site is not located within an area designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as a fire hazard severity zone or a local responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2007a; CAL FIRE 2007b).

- Page 150 of 183 -

65 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;

iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Discussion
a) The State Water Resources Control Board, through its nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs), has developed Regional Water Quality Control Plans (or Basin Plans) that designate beneficial uses and water quality objectives for California’s surface waters and groundwater basins, as mandated by both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Water quality standards are thus, established in these Basin Plans and provide the foundation for the regulatory programs implemented by the State.

The Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan, which covers the project site, specifically designates beneficial uses for surface waters and ground waters; sets objectives to conform with the State’s anti- degradation policy; and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In other words, the Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan provides all relevant information necessary to carry out Federal mandates for the anti-degradation policy; 303(d) listing of impaired waters; and related total maximum daily loads; and provides information relative to NPDES and Waste Discharge Requirement permit limits. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, States are required to identify water bodies that do not meet their water quality standards (LARWQCB 2014).

Construction of the proposed project would require site work for grading, clearing, partial demolition of the existing building, and construction of structures and infrastructure improvements. These construction activities could result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil which could then affect water quality. - Page 151 of 183 -

66 However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all existing regulations that ensure protection of water quality standards. For instance, all projects that would result in disturbance of one acre of land or more (including laydown and stockpile areas) is required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires development of a SWPPP, implementation of erosion and sediment best management practices, monitoring, and reporting. Pursuant to the Construction General Permit, prior to terminating permit coverage, the proposed project site must be stabilized and not pose any additional sediment discharge risk than it did prior to the commencement of construction activity.

During operations of the proposed project, there is the potential for the proposed project to generate pollutants. Potential pollutants generated by the project post-construction that could affect water quality include sedimentation runoff from post-construction areas left exposed; fertilizer-derived nutrients from an increase in landscaped surface area; heavy-metal runoff from parking lots; organic compounds derived from hydrocarbons, solvents, and pesticides; trash and debris deposited in drain inlets; and hydrocarbons such as oil and grease from paved areas. Nonetheless, the project site is already disturbed and developed with an existing commercial structure and a graded lot. As such, the project would not result in additional impervious surfaces on site that could drastically alter the drainage pattern of the site and thus or result in waste discharge that would substantially surface or ground water quality. Further, all development within the City must comply with the Planning and Land Development Program requirements described in Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001), Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges Within the Coast Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except Those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4 (LA County MS4 Permit) (LARWQCB 2012). The LA County MS4 Permit requires implementation of post-construction BMPs that would reduce stormwater pollution. As such, due to compliance with existing construction and post-construction regulations, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is located within the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin (Central Basin) (Department of Water Resources 2019). The Central Basin is a high priority basin under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires that all basins designated as high or medium priority by DWR form a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) to prepare and submit a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or directly submit an alternative analysis in lieu of forming a GSA. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) submitted an alternative analysis on the basin condition that demonstrates that the basin has operated within a sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years (Water Replenishment District of Southern California 2016). The project site is already developed with impervious surfaces and therefore is not considered a significant groundwater recharge area. As discussed in Section 19, water service at the site is provided by the Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company (BSMWC). Although BSMWC serves a lot of its customers from groundwater supplies, primary groundwater production wells are several miles away from the City and not within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not decrease groundwater supplies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c.i) The project site is developed with impervious surfaces. The closest river to the project site is the San Gabriel River, which runs in the north-south direction through the City boundaries, approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The proposed project would not result in the alteration of the San Gabriel River. Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets. As discussed under Threshold b, above, the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site. Therefore, the drainage pattern of the project site will not be significantly altered with implementation of the proposed project. Further, per the LA County MS4 Permit, the proposed project would be required to prepare an erosion control plan which would incorporate BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants (County of Los - Page 152 of 183 -

67 Angeles 2017). Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant. c.ii) As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces.

Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets.

The proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site.

Therefore, the drainage pattern of the project site will not be significantly altered with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.
c.iii) As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces.

Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets.

Because the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site, the proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the LA County MS4 Permit, which requires implementation of post-construction BMPs that would reduce potential stormwater pollution.

Thus, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. c.iv) As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces.

Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets.

Because the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site, the proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern in a way that would impede or redirect flood flows. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. d) According to maps provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located within Zone X, which is outside of the 100-year flood zone area. Zone X includes areas of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood, areas of one percent annual chance of flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance of flood (FEMA 2019). The proposed site is located approximately 16 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Thus, the proposed project would not be located within a tsunami area. There are no existing lakes or reservoirs near the project site; thus, no seiche hazards are expected at the project site. Therefore, because no flood, tsunami, or seiche hazards are present nearby, there would be no impact.
e) The project site is located within the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan), designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the nearest river to the project site is the San Gabriel River, which is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site. Various portions of the San Gabriel River are listed as impaired by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the Basin Plan (SWRCB 2016; LARWQCB 2014). As discussed under Thresholds c.i through c.iv, above, the proposed project would not result in the alteration of the San Gabriel River. Further, the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site that would result in significant alteration of the drainage pattern and drainage would be collected on site and thus not discharged into San Gabriel River. The proposed project would not affect the water quality in the San Gabriel River. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the objectives of the Los Angeles Basin Plan for Coastal Watersheds. Impacts would be less than significant impact.

As discussed under Threshold b, above, the project site is located within the Central Basin (DWR 2019), a high priority basin under SGMA. The Water Recharge District (WRD) submitted an alternative analysis on the basin condition that demonstrates that the basin has operated within a - Page 153 of 183 -

68 sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years (Water Replenishment District of Southern California 2016). The project would not directly involve groundwater use, as no wells are proposed on-site. Further, the site is already developed with one existing structure and a graded lot. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces on site that would interfere with groundwater recharge in the area. The proposed project would not obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

- Page 154 of 183 -

69 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Discussion
a) The project site is currently developed with a vacant commercial building and a parking lot with limited landscaping and is surrounded by development on all sides. Surrounding land uses include the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment west of Bellflower Boulevard), commercial uses and an associated parking garage (currently under construction) are located to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot are located to the northeast; the Mayne Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the east; Mayne Street, vacant commercial uses, and a surface parking lot to the south; single and multi-family residential uses to the southwest; and single and multi-family residential uses located immediately to the west (see Figure 2, project site and Surrounding Land Uses). Further, the proposed project would incorporate features that would improve circulation at the project site. As shown on the site plan in Figure 4, direct ingress/egress vehicular access to the Project would be provided at-grade from Oak Street, via a 24-foot wide dual lane driveway. Egress only would be allowed from the site onto Mayne Street. Pedestrian access would be provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street. The Project would provide sidewalk improvements as well as maintain the above-ground utilities (i.e., electrical lines) located along both Mayne Street and Oak Street. As such, due to the developed nature of the site and its surroundings, and due to the circulation improvements proposed on-site, the project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b) The project site is designated Mixed Use (MU) and Downtown Bellflower Station Area Specific Plan (Planning Area 3) in the General Plan. Development within Parcel A would involve a redevelopment of the existing structure and complete façade renovation/public plaza at Mayne Street and Bellflower Boulevard. Development within Parcel B would involve construction of a new five story, mixed-use, 91-unit condominium building with a 39,800 SF development footprint and 650 Square feet of commercial retail is included on the ground floor, in the north east corner of the building. Therefore, due to the commercial components incorporated into the proposed project, the project would be consistent with the existing general plan land use designation of the project site.

The project site is zoned TOD SP and includes the following underlying zone and overlay: 1) -Town Center (TC) District, Area 1 and Bellflower Village Overlay Zone – North (BVOZ-N). The TC zoning allows for various land uses such as office, restaurants, coffee house, game arcades, and pawn shops.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the development standards of the TOD SP document (City of Bellflower 2019). These requirements include site dimension, height limits, and parking requirements. The p roject would be consistent with the permitted, conditionally permitted, and administrative conditionally permitted uses within the TOD SP. The land use requirements within the BVOZ-N area are outlined in the Specific Plan, which incorporates land use development standards and objectives within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan encourages the development and redevelopment of the City’s downtown area into a creative, vital, and visionary neighborhood featuring a robust mix of residential and commercial uses (City of Bellflower 2019). The proposed - Page 155 of 183 -

70 project incorporates a mixed-use development, which would include both residential and commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
- Page 156 of 183 -

71 12. MINERAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. Mineral Resources.

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Discussion
a) The City is urban and almost completely developed. No mineral resources are known to occur on or around the project site (Department of Conservation1982). Further, the project site is entirely disturbed. Therefore, valuable mineral resources are not known to exist within the City or the project site and the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.

No impact would occur.
b) The City is urban and almost completely developed. The City’s General Plan Conservation Element does not identify any areas known to produce oil, natural gas, or coal deposits (City of Bellflower 1994). Further, the project site is entirely disturbed. Therefore, valuable mineral resources are not known to exist within the City or the project site and the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

- Page 157 of 183 -

72 13. NOISE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. Noise.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion
a) Noise is defined as unwanted sound; however, not all unwanted sound rises to the level of a potentially significant noise impact. To differentiate unwanted sound from potentially significant noise impacts, the City has established noise regulations that take into account noise-sensitive land uses.

The following discussion includes a brief description of the fundamental principles of noise and commonly used noise descriptors, a summary of applicable noise standards, and an evaluation of project-generated construction and operational noise.

Noise Principles and Descriptors
Audible sound is a physical disturbance in a medium, such as air, that is capable of being detected by the human ear. Sound waves in air are caused by variations in pressure above and below the static value of atmospheric pressure. Sound is measured in units of decibels on a logarithmic scale.

The “pitch” (high or low) of the sound is a description of frequency, which is measured in hertz. Most common environmental sounds are composed of a composite of frequencies (Harris 1998).

The time-varying characteristic of environmental noise over specified periods of time is described using statistical noise descriptors in terms of a single numerical value, expressed as A-weighted decibels (dbA). The noise descriptors used in this analysis are summarized below (Harris 1998):
 Leq: The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe the noise level over a specified period of time, typically 1-hour, expressed as Leq. The Leq may also be referred to as the “average” sound level.
 Lmax: The maximum, instantaneous noise level.
 CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level is the average noise level over a 24-hour day that includes an addition of 5 dBA to the measured hourly noise levels between the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and an addition of 10 dBA to the measured hourly noise levels between the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours, respectively.
- Page 158 of 183 -

73 TOD SP Document
Section 4.5.4 requires Applicants for new noised-sensitive development (e.g., residential) must demonstrate to the Director that all habitable rooms would meet the45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard before the City issues building permits.

In addition, applicants must demonstrate that residential outdoor common areas and recreational areas within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of the transit line (which is the level considered normally acceptable for multifamily residential uses) will achieve 60 dBA CNEL to ensure compatibility with the ambient noise environment, or 65 dBA CNEL for areas where the acoustical analysis demonstrates that achieving a level of 60 dBA CNEL is clearly not feasible. Noise reduction measures could include increased setback from the rail right-of-way, shielding with noise barriers, or placing outdoor noise- sensitive areas behind buildings.

Section 17.48.240.2 prohibits loading/unloading activities abutting any residential building between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day, including crates, containers, garbage cans, or similar objects.

Section 17.48.240.6 states any live music, or music systems (e.g., CD players, radios, tape players, digital audio players) shall be conducted, designed, installed, and operated in a manner which is not disturbing to surrounding Town Center (TC) District uses and abutting residential districts.

City of Bellflower General Plan Noise Element (1994)
In addition to the previously described provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, the City has also established noise guidelines in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan that are used for planning purposes. These guidelines are based in part on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the California State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and are intended for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. Table 11 provides the guidelines of land use compatibility for community noise sources. The CNEL noise levels for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (1) “normally acceptable” (2) “conditionally acceptable” (3) “normally unacceptable” and (4) “clearly unacceptable.” A CNEL value of 70 dBA is considered the dividing line between a “conditionally acceptable” and “normally unacceptable” noise environment for noise sensitive land uses, including residences, transient lodgings, schools, and library.

The following policies that are applicable to the project address Citywide noise issues:
 Policy 1.4: Limit construction activities which impact adjacent residential uses to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. during weekdays and Saturdays.
 Policy 1.5: Require construction activities to incorporate feasible and practical techniques which minimize noise impacts on adjacent areas.
 Policy 1.7: Ensure the outdoor noise limits for residential uses do not exceed 60 dBA CNEL for single family uses and 65 dB Ldn for multiple family uses.  Policy 1.8: Ensure the indoor noise limits for all residential uses do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.  Policy 1.9: Actively pursue sound wall mitigation measures with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). - Page 159 of 183 -

74 Table 11
Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Uses
Land Use Categories
Day-Night Average Exterior Sound
Level (CNEL, dB)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes A A A/C C N U U Residential Multi- Family A A A/C C N U U
Transient Lodging, Hotel, Motel A A A/C C N U U
School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing Home A A A/C A/C C/N N U Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheater C C C C/N U U U
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports C C C C C/N U U
Playground, Neighborhood Park A A A A A/U N/U U
Golf Course, Riding Stable, Water Recreation,
Cemetery

A A A A A/N A/N U
Office Building, Business, Commercial, Professional A A A A A/C C/N N Agriculture, Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities A A A A A/C C/N N Notes:

Based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, “General Plan Guidelines,” 1990. To help guide determination of appropriate land use and mitigation measures vis-a-vis existing or anticipated ambient noise levels.

A = Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption buildings involved are conventional construction without any special noise insulation.

C = Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development only after a detailed analysis of noise mitigation is made and needed noise insulation features are included in project design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning would suffice.

N – Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development generally should be discouraged. A detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and noise insulation features included in the design of a project.

U – Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: City of Bellflower General Plan, Noise Element, 1994.

Construction Noise
The project construction schedule is anticipated to begin in March 2021 and be complete in March 2023. Construction hours are proposed to be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The project is proposed to be completed in one phase, with Theater renovation and residential building demolition occurring concurrently 4.

Noise from construction activities would be generated by the operation of vehicles and equipment involved during various stages of construction: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary depending on factors such as the type and number of equipment, the specific model (horsepower rating), the construction activities being performed, and the maintenance condition of the equipment.

Individual pieces of construction equipment anticipated to be used during project construction could produce maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 90 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source (FHWA 2006). These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions. Equipment operating under full power only occurs during a portion of a day.

Thus, estimate usage factors, consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, were used to estimate average hourly noise levels for each piece of equipment. Then, to evaluate project anticipated construction noise levels that would occur throughout the day, the evaluation

4 Demolition of existing building has already occurred. By presenting demolition activities, the modeling reflects a conservative estimate of noise impacts during construction.
- Page 160 of 183 -

75 assumed that up to four construction equipment pieces would operate simultaneously at 75 feet from the nearest residence, with demolition and renovation activities occurring simultaneously.

Based on modeling conducted, combined maximum noise levels could reach 85.3 dBA Lmax and average hourly levels could reach 79.4 dBA Leq at the nearest residential receptors located approximately 75 feet to the west of the project site. Refer to Appendix E (Noise Calculations) for modeling inputs and outputs.

The City of Bellflower has not adopted construction-related noise thresholds. However, construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities are prolonged and occur during sensitive times of the day, thus, having the potential to disturb people when sleeping. As discussed above, construction activities would be required to comply with City Policy 1.4 that limits construction activities to the day-time hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.), when people are not generally sleeping and are less sensitive to noise. In addition, for comparison purposes, noise levels can be compared to OSHA standard limit of noise exposure which are 90 dB or less over eight continuous hours, or 105 dB or less over one continuous hour. Modeling conducted assumed a worst-case scenario with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously throughout the day and predicted noise levels would not exceed OSHA limits. Thus, because construction activities would be temporary (i.e., two years), would occur during the daytime hours when people are less sensitive to noise, and would not exceed OSHA’s recommended maximum exposure levels, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Traffic Noise
The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways, as well as nearby commercial activities. Long-term operations of the project would have a minimal effect on the noise environment within the proximity of the project area. Noise generated by the project would result primarily from the increased traffic on local roads.

Vehicle trips attributed to operation of the project would increase the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along the major thoroughfares within the project vicinity which was analyzed to determine if any traffic-related noise impacts would result from project implementation. The street segments selected for this analysis include residential land uses which are the most affected by traffic increases generated by the project. Traffic noise modeling was conducted in accordance with FHWA and Caltrans guidance for both the existing and the existing plus project conditions and based on traffic data included in the Traffic Impact Assessment completed for the project (Appendix F). Traffic noise model inputs and outputs are included in Appendix E. Predicted noise levels under both existing and existing plus project conditions are shown below in Table 12.

Table 12
Modeled Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadways Adjacent to Following
Intersections
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at
100 feet from Roadway (dBA CNEL)
Exceed
Threshold? Existing a
Existing
+Project a Change
Ardmore Avenue, Flower Street to Oak Street 55.4 55.8 0.4 No Ardmore Avenue, Oak Street to Mayne Street 54.9 55.2 0.2 No Oak Street, West of Ardmore Avenue 55.4 55.6 0.2 No
Oak Street, Ardmore Avenue to Orchard
Avenue

55.2 55.6 0.4 No
- Page 161 of 183 -

76 Roadways Adjacent to Following
Intersections
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at
100 feet from Roadway (dBA CNEL)
Exceed
Threshold? Existing a
Existing
+Project a Change
Oak Street, Orchard Avenue to Project site 56.5 56.9 0.3 No Oak Street, Project site to Bellflower
Boulevard

56.5 57.3 0.8 No
Mayne Street, Orchard Avenue to Project site 56.9 57.4 0.6 No Mayne Street, Project site to Bellflower
Boulevard

56.9 58.2 1.3 No
Bellflower Boulevard, South of Flower Street 64.0 64.1 0.1 No Bellflower Boulevard, Flower Street to Oak
Street

63.4 63.6 0.2 No
Bellflower Boulevard, Oak Street to Mayne
Street

63.6 63.9 0.3 No
Bellflower Boulevard, Mayne Street to
Alondra Boulevard

64.0 64.2 0.2 No
Bellflower Boulevard, North of Alondra
Boulevard

63.4 63.5 0.1 No
Alondra Boulevard, West of Bellflower
Boulevard

64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Alondra Boulevard, East of Bellflower
Boulevard

64.6 64.7 0.1 No
Flower Street, Orchard Avenue to Bellflower
Boulevard

61.1 61.1 0.1 No
Flower Street, East of Bellflower Boulevard 61.6 61.8 0.2 No Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. 2019
As shown above in Table 12, operation of the project would not result in a substantial increase in project-related traffic noise levels over existing traffic noise levels.

With respect to the community noise assessment for operational noise levels, changes in noise levels of less than 3 dBA are generally not discernable to most people, while changes greater than 5 dBA are readily noticeable and would be considered a significant increase. Therefore, the significance threshold for mobile source noise is based on human perceptibility to changes in noise levels (increases) with consideration of existing ambient noise conditions and City’s guidelines for noise compatible land use in Table 11. As shown above in Table 12, the increase in noise levels on all modeled roadway segments would be substantially less than the 3 dBA, with the greatest increase being slightly over 1 dBA. Increases in traffic noise as a result of the project would not be perceptible to the human ear. As a result, project-related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. b) The project would not result in any major operational sources of vibration (e.g., rail lines, transit stations), and therefore, this discussion focusses on short-term construction-generated vibration.

Prior to the analysis, a brief discussion of vibration principles is included. - Page 162 of 183 -

77 Foundations of Vibration
Vibration can be interpreted as energy transmitted in waves through the ground or man-made structures, which generally dissipate with distance from the vibration source. Because energy is lost during the transfer of energy from one particle to another, vibration becomes less perceptible with increasing distance from the source.

Vibration sources include the use of heavy-duty equipment during construction and operational sources include major transit (e.g., rail, transit stations) development. Maintenance operations and traffic traveling on roadways can also be a source of such vibration. If its amplitudes are high enough, ground vibration has the potential to damage structures, cause cosmetic damage or disrupt the operation of vibration-sensitive equipment such as electron microscopes and advanced technology production and research equipment. Ground vibration and groundborne noise can also be a source of annoyance to individuals who live or work close to vibration-generating activities.

In describing vibration in the ground and in structures, the motion of a particle (i.e., a point in or on the ground or structure) is used. The concepts of particle displacement, velocity, and acceleration are used to describe how the ground or structure responds to excitation. Although displacement is generally easier to understand than velocity or acceleration, it is rarely used to describe ground and structure borne vibration because most transducers used to measure vibration directly measure velocity or acceleration, not displacement. Accordingly, vibratory motion is commonly described by identifying the peak particle velocity (PPV).

Construction Vibration
Possible sources of vibration would include heavy-duty construction equipment such as pile drivers, bulldozers, dump trucks, backhoes, rollers, and blasting activities. It is not anticipated that blasting or pile driving would be required, thus, the use of heavy bull dozers would generate the greatest levels of vibration.

When considering potential impacts from construction-related vibration, both structural damage and human disturbance within occupied nearby structures are considered. Regarding structural damage, Caltrans provides guidance for various structure types. In accordance with Caltrans guidance, a residential structure could be damaged if exposed to vibration levels that exceed 0.5 PPV/second (Caltrans 2013). As documented in Appendix E, vibration levels would not exceed 0.044 PPV/second at a distance of 40 feet. Regarding human disturbance from construction activities, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) considers a vibration level of 65 vibration decibels (VdB) to be the threshold of perceptibility for humans. Based on FTA’s vibration criteria, a significant impact would occur if vibration levels exceeded 80 VdB within places where people normally sleep (FTA 2018). As discussed above, construction activities would take place during the daytime hours when people are generally not sleeping and would therefore not be disrupted. Thus, this analysis focusses on the potential for structural damage to nearby existing buildings. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.
c) The project is located within the City of Bellflower, not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public airport. Therefore, the project would not expose people to excessive airport-related noise and there would be no impact.

- Page 163 of 183 -

78 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. Population and Housing.

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

Discussion
a) The proposed project would introduce 62 one-bedroom units and 29 two-bedroom units to the project site, for a total of 91 units. According to the 2018 U.S. Census data, the City had an estimated population of 77,131 persons and an average household size of 3.3 persons in 2018 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). Due to the addition of 91 units, the proposed project is estimated to introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site. This represents an approximately 0.4 percent increase over the City’s existing population. This increase is not considered substantial and thus would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area. Further, the proposed project would be located on a developed site that is already served by existing infrastructure. Thus, the project would not result in indirect unplanned growth in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) The proposed project is already developed with an existing structure and no residential uses currently exist on site. Due to the fact that the proposed project site does not contain any housing, no people would be displaced as a result of the project. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or people, and no impact would occur.

- Page 164 of 183 -

79 15. PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. Public Services.

Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a.i) The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the City and the project site. The LACFD provides traditional fire and life safety services to approximately 4 million residents living in 1.23 million housing units in 58 cities and all unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County (LACFD 2017). The LACFD has two stations located within the City: Station 23, located at 9548 East Flower Street, approximately 0.32 miles southwest of the project site; and Station 98, located at 9814 Maplewood Avenue, approximately one-mile northeast of the project site (LACFC 2019).

Construction of the proposed project could temporarily increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, and could cause the occasional exposure of combustible materials, such as wood, plastics, sawdust, coverings and coatings, to heat sources including machinery and equipment sparking, exposed electrical lines, welding activities, and chemical reactions in combustible materials and coatings. Typical of any development, however, all construction managers and personnel should be trained in fire prevention and emergency response, as required by OSHA.

Further, fire suppression equipment required by any typical construction would also be maintained in accordance with the 2019 California Fire Code, and Chapter 15.40 Fire Code, of the Bellflower Municipal Code. Compliance with these regulations would reduce potential impacts of fire hazards to insignificant levels. Construction-related traffic could result in increased travel time due to flagging or stopping of traffic to accommodate trucks entering and exiting the construction site. However, all potential impacts would be temporary and on an intermittent basis and truck routes for material and equipment deliveries and disposal, would require approval by the City’s Public Works Department.

Therefore, impacts regarding emergency response times and emergency access during construction would be less than significant.

Following construction, operation of the proposed project would introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site, which would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. However, the proposed project would be subject to fire protection design standards, as applicable, per the 2016 CBC, the 2016 Los Angeles County Fire Code, and Chapter 15.40 of the City’s Municipal Code, to ensure adequate fire protection. Further, the proposed project would be located an urban infill development site within an existing fire service area and is already served by LACFD. As such, due to the minimal increase of residents and employees at the project site, and the fact that the site is already served by LACFD, and with compliance all federal, state, and local fire - Page 165 of 183 -

80 and emergency response regulations, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire or police facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii) Police protection for the City and the project site is provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), which is under contract with the City’s local law enforcement services. The LASD serves an area of approximately 4,084 square miles with a population of approximately 10 million persons. The LASD provides general law enforcement services to 42 contract cities; 141 unincorporated communities; 216 facilities, hospitals, and clinics located throughout the County; nine community colleges; the Metropolitan Transit Authority; and 37 Superior Courts. The LASD further provided services such as laboratories and academy training to other law enforcement agencies located within the County. In addition, the LASD is responsible in securing approximately 18,000 inmates daily in seven custody facilities which includes providing food and medical treatment. The LASD includes approximately 18,000 employees (LASD 2017). The nearest station is the Bellflower Sheriff Substation Sub Station located at 16615 Bellflower Boulevard.

Construction of the proposed project could require the storage of equipment and building materials, which could result in theft, graffiti, and vandalism. Typical of any development, perimeter fencing will be required for those developments that store equipment and building materials onsite.

After construction, operations of future development could increase the demand for police protection services through the addition of approximately 301 persons at the project site. However, the project site is already developed and served by existing law enforcement, which is 0.003 percent of LASD’s serving population of 10 million. Further, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation at the project site and therefore this increase in population has already been accounted for in the City’s plans for growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities.
a.iii) As discussed above, the proposed project would introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site, which could increase student enrollment within those schools located in the City. However, the applicant would be required to pay appropriate school fees to alleviate potential burden on existing school capacities for the residential component of the project to alleviate potential burden on existing school capacities. Therefore, with payment of appropriate fees, impacts to schools would be less than significant.
a.iv) As discussed above, the proposed project would introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site, which could increase demand for parks within the City. Typical of any development, the applicant would be required to pay park fees for the residential portion of the project in order to alleviate potential burden on existing parks. Therefore, with payment of appropriate fees, impacts to parks would be less than significant.
a.v) The proposed project does not propose any land uses that would directly result in the need for other additional public services. The additional population resulting with the proposed project represents about a 3.3 percent increase over the existing City population, which is not considered significant.

The proposed project would not result in the need or alteration of any other public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

- Page 166 of 183 -

81 16. RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. Recreation.

Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion
a) As discussed under Section 9, the proposed project could potentially increase population by approximately 301 persons, which could increase demand on parks and recreational facilities nearby.

However, the applicant would be required to pay park fees for the residential portion of the project in order to alleviate potential burden on existing parks. Therefore, with payment of appropriate fees, impacts to parks would be less than significant.
b) The proposed project does not include the construction of recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts would occur.

- Page 167 of 183 -

82 17. TRANSPORTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. Transportation.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a) The proposed project’s potential impacts related to applicable plans, ordinances, and policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Gandini and included as Appendix F of this MND.

The TIA conservatively assumed that the proposed project would generate 2,207 new vehicle trips per day for both weekdays and weekends, including 39 trips during the AM peak hour and 115 trips during the PM peak hour (Appendix F). The following analysis is based on that report.

Methodology
In accordance with City of Bellflower guidelines, analysis of signalized intersections is based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which compares the volume of traffic using the intersection to the capacity of the intersection. The resulting volume-to-capacity (V/C) represents the portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. Level of service (LOS) is used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (extreme congestion and system failure). The technique used to assess the performance of unsignalized intersections is known as the intersection delay methodology based on the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. The methodology compares the traffic volume using the intersection to the capacity of the intersection to calculate the delay associated with the traffic control at the intersection. LOS is also used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from LOS A to LOS F. The City has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if an intersection is operating at an acceptable LOS without the project but would operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) with the project or if the project related increase in the volume‐to‐capacity ratio equals or exceeds a V/C ratio of 0.91 or more or results in an incremental increase of 0.02 or more.

Existing and Existing Plus Project Analysis
The existing traffic conditions are based on the current roadway conditions shown in Figure 3 of the TIA and traffic counts conducted on October 2019. Refer to the TIA for additional details regarding the roadway classifications, speed limits, and other details.

Intersection Analysis
Under the existing conditions, all intersections operate at acceptable LOS B or better during peak hours for existing conditions. With the addition of project traffic to the existing conditions, all - Page 168 of 183 -

83 intersections would continue to operate acceptably at LOS C or better (Table 13). Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to intersections under the existing conditions.

Table 13
Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
Study Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc
Ardmore Avenue and Oak Street AWS [8.2] A [8.2] A
Parking Garage Driveway and Mayne Street CSS [9.9] A [10.7] B Project Driveway and Oak Street CSS [10.7] B [11.2] B
Bellflower Boulevard at Alondra Boulevard TS 0.660 B 0.690 B Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street TS 0.552 A 0.603 B Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street TS 0.575 A 0.617 B
Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street TS 0.663 B 0.707 C Notes:
a AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
c Delay is shown in [seconds/vehicle’. Delay is reported for un-signalized study intersections. For intersections with all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on average delay of the worst individual lane (or movements sharing a lane) Source: Appendix F
Opening Year (2023) Without Project
To develop Opening Year (2023) Without Project volume forecasts, Existing volumes were combined with trips generated by other developments. The delay and Levels of Service for Opening Year (2023) Without Project conditions are shown in Table 13. As shown in Table 14, the study intersections are forecast to operate at Levels of Service C or better during the peak hours for Opening Year (2023) Without Project conditions. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to intersections under the Opening Year (2023) Without Project.

Table 14
Opening Year (2023) Without Project Intersection Level of Service Study Intersection Traffic
Controla
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc
Ardmore Avenue and Oak Street AWS [8.3] A [8.3] A
Parking Garage Driveway and Mayne Street CSS [11.7] B [13.5] B Project Driveway and Oak Street CSS [10.5] B [11.0] B
Bellflower Boulevard at Alondra Boulevard TS 0.692 B 0.791 C Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street TS 0.675 B 0748 C Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street TS 0.623 B 0.674 B
Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street TS 0.717 C 0.7697 C Notes:
a AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
c Delay is shown in [seconds/vehicle’. Delay is reported for un-signalized study intersections. For intersections with all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on average delay of the worst individual lane (or movements sharing a lane) Source: Appendix F
- Page 169 of 183 -

84 Opening Year (2023) With Project
Opening Year (2023) With Project volume forecasts were developed by adding project‐generated trips to the Opening Year (2023) Without Project forecast. The Opening Year (2023) Without Project forecasts have been reduced for the parking garage on the northwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street to account for project traffic. Thus, when project traffic is added for Opening Year (2023) With Project conditions, the parking garage trip generation will be at its full trip generation forecast. As shown in Table 15, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Opening Year (2023) With Project conditions. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to intersections under the Opening Year (2023) Without Project.

Table 15
Opening Year (2023) With Project Intersection Level of Service Study Intersection Traffic
Controla
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc
Ardmore Avenue and Oak Street AWS [8.3] A [8.4] A
Parking Garage Driveway and Mayne Street CSS [11.8] B [13.7] B Project Driveway and Oak Street CSS [10.9] B [11.4] B
Bellflower Boulevard at Alondra Boulevard TS 0.695 B 0.791 C Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street TS 0.680 B 0.746 C Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street TS 0.638 B 0.690 B
Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street TS 0.720 C 0.772 C Notes:
a AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
c Delay is shown in [seconds/vehicle’. Delay is reported for un-signalized study intersections. For intersections with all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on average delay of the worst individual lane (or movements sharing a lane) Source: Appendix F
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Pedestrian facilities at the project site include a sidewalk that extends from Bellflower Boulevard to the west along both Oak and Mayne Street. The proposed project would provide pedestrian improvements, such as pedestrian access, to be provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street, which would enhance pedestrian activity within the project site. Bellflower Bike Trail is located along Pacific Avenue, approximately 85 feet north of the project site. The proposed project does not propose bicycle facilities or improvements and would not result in impacts to the Bellflower Bike Trail or other bicycle facilities nearby. Bicycle racks will be included in the adjacent parking structure. therefore, as the proposed project would promote the effectiveness for the performance of the pedestrian system and not impact the existing bicycle system, impacts would be less than significant.

Transit
Bellflower Bus North Route services Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street, while Bellflower Bus South Route services Bellflower Boulevard, and Oak Street. A bus stop is situated on the west side of Bellflower Boulevard south of Oak Street and near the project site. Route 127, provided by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), also services Bellflower Boulevard north of Alondra Boulevard and Route 128 services Alondra Boulevard in the study area. Lastly, Long Beach Transit also provides bus services near the project site. Long Beach Transit bus routes include Route 91, which services Bellflower Boulevard and Alondra Boulevard, and Route 93, which services Bellflower Boulevard, Alondra Boulevard, and Flower Street. A bus stop is situated on the west side - Page 170 of 183 -

85 of Bellflower Boulevard and south of Oak Street, and on the east side of Bellflower Boulevard north of Mayne Street. As discussed in the TIA, using methodology included Metro’s 2010 Congestion Management Program, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 108 daily transit trips, including two a.m. peak hour and 6 PM peak hour trips. A light rail station is anticipated to be constructed at Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street for the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor by 2028. Upon completion of the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor station, the proposed project would generate approximately 309 daily transit trips, including 5 a.m. peak hour and 16 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the existing transit services available in the project vicinity and the relatively low transit trip generation, the proposed project is forecast to have a less than significant impact on transit service.
b) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b) now requires that all traffic impacts be analyzed based on VMT. Traditionally, traffic impacts were analyzed based on levels of service on roadways and intersections. All cities will be required to conduct future traffic analysis based on VMT by July 1, 2020, unless adopted earlier by the lead agency. The City has not elected this provision ahead of the standard schedule and, therefore, this section does not yet apply. No impact would occur. c) As shown in Figure 4, Site Plan, the proposed project includes circulation improvements of the site.

Direct ingress/egress vehicular access to the Project would be provided at-grade from Oak Street, via a 24-foot wide dual lane driveway. Egress only would be allowed from the site onto Mayne Street.

Pedestrian access would be provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street. More specifically, the project would provide a north to south driveway at Oak Street which would provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane with southbound stop-control. Both the existing eastbound and westbound lane on Park Lane would be shared through left and right turn movements, while the new southbound lane at the project driveway will allow shared left, through, and right turn movements. At project driveway at Mayne Street would provide one outbound lane with a northbound stop-control. The new northbound lane at this driveway will allow share left and right turn movements.

The proposed driveways would be required to comply with all applicable City standards and regulations relating to traffic circulation and access and would be designed to ensure that significant safety hazard would not result. Impacts would be less than significant. d) As discussed under Threshold c, above, the project would provide two access points that may be utilized during an emergency. In addition, the project driveway would be provided in accordance with City standards that ensure adequate emergency access. Overall, the project would provide adequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

- Page 171 of 183 -

86 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.

Has a California Native American Tribe requested consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1(b)? Yes No Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?

Discussion
a) The project site is developed with existing structures and improvements. None of these existing structures and improvements are listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources as defined by PRC Section 5020.1(k) or of any known value to a Native American Tribe.

To confirm that Native American resources would not be disturbed, in accordance with AB52, staff sent letters on April 15, 2019, requesting consultation with the following Native American Tribal Governments: Gabrielino Tongva Nation; Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The Torrez Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians submitted a letter dated June 3, 2019 and had no comments. Project impacts would be less than significant. b) As discussed in Section 5, there are no existing structures within the project site that could be considered to be historically significant based on set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). Furthermore, none of the Native American Tribes identified any specific historical or cultural resource that could be deemed significant during the consultation process. The potential for unknown buried tribal cultural resources is considered low in this fully developed urban environment where heavy soil disturbance has occurred. Although unlikely, if any previously unknown subsurface artifacts are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, MM-CUL-1 would be implemented, which requires grading to be halted in the event of an archaeological discovery and the resource to be addressed by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with the City’s criteria. Therefore, impacts to unknown Tribal resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

- Page 172 of 183 -

87 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion
a) Water: Water service is provided to the project site by the Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company (BSMWC) (City of Bellflower 2016). Customer needs are served through local groundwater with supplemental quantities coming from recycled water. BSM owns roughly three quarters of the ground water supplies needed to serve its customers and leases the remainder from the City of Bellflower (BSMWC 2019). Currently, the project site is already entirely disturbed and not used as a local groundwater recharge facility as the area is mostly built out with a relatively high impervious condition. The primary groundwater production wells are several miles away from the City (BSMWC 2011). The proposed project is located on an already developed site and is surrounded by development on all sides.

As discussed under Threshold b, below, BSMWC has the capacity to serve the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Sewer: Regarding sewer service, two sanitary systems exist in the City. One of the systems are local lines operated by the City of Bellflower and the other are trunk sewers operated by Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) (City of Bellflower 2014). The City Public Works Department manages the City’s sanitation sewer collection system and serves a population of approximately 77,000 people. The collection system consists of about 99 miles of gravity sewer lines. Sewage is collected by City collector facilities and then conveyed to trunk sewers owned and maintained by LACSD District #2, which then treats the sewage at the regional Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (LCWRP) or the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated only at the JWPCP (City of Bellflower 2019d). Wastewater generated within the proposed project would flow into local sewer lines, owned by the City and eventually into the regional LASD sewer lines (City of Bellflower 2019d).
- Page 173 of 183 -

88 The City prepared a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) in 2014 to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system (City of Bellflower 2014). The SSMP includes the entire City and therefore the project site. The SSMP performed an evaluation of the existing wastewater collection system within the City, including sewer line and manhole inspections, gas trap manholes, and sewer line cleaning. The proposed project was included in the City of Bellflower Sewer Master Plan (SMP) performed in March 2007. The purpose of the SMP was to evaluate the existing wastewater collection system in the City of Bellflower, which included modeling infrastructure to determine any deficient segments and propose improvements for the future. The SMP noted three tiers of deficiencies for sewer lines across the City, based on depth of flow to diameter of pipe (d/D) ratio. Priority 1 Improvement lines are located along Alondra Boulevard, Clark Avenue and Woodruff Avenue. Priority 2 Improvement lines are on Alondra Boulevard and Clark Avenue (City of Bellflower 2019c). The proposed project is not located within areas of these needed improvements and no new or expanded services would be required as a result of the proposed project. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

Drainage: The project site is already developed with one existing structure and a graded lot. As such, the project would not result in additional impervious surfaces on site that could drastically alter the drainage pattern of the site. Thus, the project is not expected to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage. Impacts would be less than significant.

Electric and Telecommunications: Electric service is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE); telecommunication service is provided by multiple carriers. The proposed project is located on an already developed site and is surrounded by development on all sides. While on-site utility improvements would be required to service the proposed mixed-use project, such utilities are included in the project and addressed by the environmental analysis included herein. Construction of these utilities would not result in environmental effects aside those outlined in this Initial Study. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) The proposed project would increase the intensity of uses on the project site, resulting in increased water use. CalEEMod default water usage rates were used to estimate the anticipated water demand of the proposed project. Based on the CalEEMod generation rates, water use per day during project operation would be approximately 43,912 gallons per day or 16 million gallons per year (Appendix A).

As discussed under Threshold a, above, the project site is within the water service boundaries of the BSMWC. The BSMWC serves potable water to an area of approximately 2.63 square miles of the City and approximately 46,230 people. According to BSMWC’s 2011 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), BSMWC would have adequate supplies to serve its service area for a one, two, and three- year period during a single dry year and multiple dry years. With a 50 percent reduction of purchased water, BSMWC would still be able to provide 5,662 acre-feet per year of water or 5.1 million gallons per day to its service area. The water consumption estimated for the proposed project would consist of 0.9 percent of the water supply provided by BSMWC to its service area even with a 50 percent reduction in purchased water. Therefore, because BSMWC has adequate supplies to serve its service area during a single dry year and multiple dry years, and because water consumption estimated to occur as a result of the proposed project would be minimal, impacts would be less than significant. c) As discussed under threshold a, above, LASD provides wastewater service to the project site.

CalEEMod default water usage rates were used to estimate the anticipated water demand of the proposed project. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated only at the JWPCP (City of Bellflower 2019d). Based on the CalEEMod generation rates, wastewater use per day during project operation would be approximately 30,137 gallons per day or 11 million gallons per year (Appendix A). The JWPCP currently has the capacity to handle approximately 100 million gallons of wastewater per day. The proposed project would result in 0.03 percent of JWPCP’s current capacity. - Page 174 of 183 -

89 Therefore, the increase in wastewater attributed to the project would be nominal and adequate capacity is available to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) The proposed project would generate solid waste and recycling during both the construction and operation of the project. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires the City to divert 50% of its waste from landfills. In an effort to comply with AB 939, on December 8, 2003 the Bellflower City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1055, the C&D Waste Management Plan Ordinance of the City of Bellflower. The ordinance requires diversion, via reuse or recycling of 100% of all inert debris, such as concrete and dirt, and 50% of the remaining C&D debris generated by all construction and renovation projects whose total cost, or projected cost are greater than or equal to $50,000. On September 13, 2010, the City Council amended the C&D Ordinance to include all demolition projects of any valuation. The project applicant would be required to submit a waste management plan (WMP) prior to being issued a building or demolition permit for partial demolition within Parcel A (City of Bellflower 2019c).

During operations, trash and recycling services are provided by CR&R. According to CR&R, waste generated in Bellflower is sent to the CR Transfer and Material Recovery Facility in Stanton, Southeast Resource Recovery Facility in Long Beach, with most of the loads going to the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility (DART) in Downey (City of Bellflower 2019a). DART is permitted to receive, handle and process up to 5,000 tons per day of waste 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.

Residual waste from the facility is transferred to a fully permitted Class III landfill or transformation facility. In 2019, the average annual tonnage was estimated to be 720 tons per day (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 2017). Impacts would be less than significant, as the proposed project’s solid waste generation would not exceed the permitted capacity.

CalEEMod default water usage rates were used to estimate the anticipated solid waste demand of the proposed project. Based on the CalEEMod generation rates, waste use per day during project operation would be approximately 144 tons per year or 0.4 tons per day (Appendix A). Thus, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 0.05 percent of the total waste handled at the DART facility. All waste would be disposed of in accordance with AB 939, which mandates that 50% of solid waste generated be diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, or composting. Once constructed, solid waste and recycling generated from the project site would be typical of that generated by similar residential and commercial uses, and could potentially include small amounts of hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials would be disposed of in compliance with city requirements. Therefore, due to the nominal increase in solid waste generated for the proposed project, and through compliance with existing regulations, the propose project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) As discussed under Threshold d, above, the proposed project would be required to submit a WMP prior to being issued a building or demolition permit for partial demolition within Parcel A, for compliance with the City’s C&D Ordinance. During operations, the project would be required to comply with AB 939, which requires that 50% of solid waste generated be diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, or composting. Therefore, based on compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

- Page 175 of 183 -

90 20. WILDFIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire.

Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Yes No
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Discussion
a-d) The project site is not located within an area designated by CAL FIRE as a fire hazard severity zone or a local responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2007a; CAL FIRE 2007b). The proposed project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, expose occupants to wildfire related pollutants, require infrastructure that would contribute to wildfire hazard or expose people to significant flooding or landslide risk due to wildfire. No impact would occur.

- Page 176 of 183 -

91 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion
a) As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Additionally, as addressed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, proposed project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) As addressed throughout this Initial Study, both project construction and operations could result in individual-level impacts that could be potentially significant without the incorporation of mitigation.

Thus, when coupled with impacts related to the implementation of other related projects located throughout the broader geographic area, the proposed project would potentially result in cumulative- level impacts if these individual-level significant impacts were left unmitigated. (See Section 5, Cultural Resources, Section 7, Soils and Geology, and Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; for recommended mitigation measures.)
The proposed project is an infill development on a site that is already developed with an existing commercial structure and a graded lot. As a result, the area surrounding the project site is built out; few properties are found in the immediate area with substantial future development potential; and any upcoming development activity in the project area is expected to be limited. As mitigation measures would be required for impacts to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) As evaluated throughout this document, the proposed project could result in impacts to Cultural Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore, effects on human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

- Page 177 of 183 -

92 D. PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT AND

CONSULTED PERSONS AND AGENCIES
City of Bellflower
 Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning and Building Services  Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
 Jason P. Clarke, Senior Planner
 Jim Dellalonga, Director of Economic Development
 Jerry Stock, City Engineer
 Duane Morita, Consultant
Ascent Environmental
 Eric Ruby, Project Director
 Iulia Roman, Environmental Planner
 Alyssa Way, Air Quality and Climate Change Analyst
 Poonam Boparai, Principal/Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist  Dimitri Antoniou AICP, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Noise Specialist  Phi Ngo, GIS Specialist/Resource Analyst
 Gayiety Lane, Production Specialist
Ganddini Group, Inc.
 Bryan Crawford
 Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP

- Page 178 of 183 -

93 E. REFERENCES
Aesthetics
City of Bellflower. 1994. General Plan Open Space/Recreation Element, December 1994. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28094 . Accessed November 2019.
———. 2019a. City of Bellflower Zoning Ordinance. Prepared by the City of Bellflower.

Agricultural Resources
City of Bellflower. 2018. Zoning Map. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31884 . Accessed October 2019.

California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ . Accessed October 2019. ———. 2019. Williamson Act Program. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca . Accessed October 2019.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

Air Quality
SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook . Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2003a. Cumulative Impacts White Paper, Appendix D. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative- impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper-appendix.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2003b. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations. Available: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air- quality-management-plans/2003-air-quality-management-plan/2003-aqmp-appendix- v.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2008. Localized Significance Thresholds. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/LST.html . Accessed November 5, 2019. ———. 2014. Potential Impacts of New OEHHA Risk Guidelines on SCAQMD Programs. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2014/may-specsess- 8b.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 5, 2019.
- Page 179 of 183 -

94 ———. 2016. Air Quality Management Plan Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean- air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp. Accessed November 5, 2019. ———. 2019. Air Quality Network Management Plan, Appendix A. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring-network- plan/aaqmnp-appendix-a6BF4F040D8A9.pdf?sfvrsn=29. Accessed. November 5, 2019.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018. Criteria Air Pollutants. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants#self . Accessed. November 5, 2019.

Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans.

Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline . Accessed October 2019.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Cultural Resources
City of Bellflower. 2000. Building Permit Application. October 18, 2000.

Energy
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Efficiency Standards. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_ Standards_FAQ.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2019.

CEC. 2019. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019_energypolicy/ . Accessed November 8, 2019.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Bellflower. 2016. Ordinance No. 1325. Available:
http://www.qcode.us/codes/bellflower/revisions/1325.pdf . Accessed November 5, 2019.

Raimi + Associates. 2012. Bellflower Climate Action Plan. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24054 . Accessed November 5, 2019.

SCAG. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Available: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf . Accessed November 5, 2019.

SCAG. See
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

CalEPA. See California Environmental Protection Agency.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007a. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. Adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. Available:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6636/fhszs_map.pdf . Accessed October 2019. - Page 180 of 183 -

95 ———. 2007b. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. September 17, 2007.

Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6827/fhszl06_1_map.pdf . Accessed October 2019.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2017. EnviroStor Database. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public.; Accessed October 2017.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. CalEPA’s List of Active CDO and CAO sites.

Available at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ . Accessed October 2017.

City of Bellflower. 2017 General Plan Safety Element. February 3, 2017. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28096 . Accessed October 2019.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2017. Cortese List. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov . Accessed October 2017.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Hydrology and Water Quality
County of Los Angeles. 2017. Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division & Land Development Division Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP).

California Department of Water Resources. 2019. DWR Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool (BBAT). Last updated February 11, 2019. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ .

Accessed November 6, 2019.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019.FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Available:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home . Accessed November 25, 2019.

LARWQCB. See Los Angeles Reginal Water Quality Control Board.

Los Angeles Reginal Water Quality Control Board. 2012. MS4 Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County ORDER NO. R4-2012-0175, as amended by R4-2012- 0175-A01 NDPES NO. CAS004001. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/lo s_angeles_ms4/2016/OrderR4-2012-0175_corrected_120216.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2014 (September 11). Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Countries. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_ documentation.html. Accessed November 2019
State Water Resources Control Board. 2016. 2014 and 2016 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml .

Accessed November 6, 2019.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.
- Page 181 of 183 -

96 Water Replenishment District of Southern California. 2016. Resolution No. 16-1048. December 8, 2016. Available: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/alternative/print/12 . Accessed November 6, 2019.

Land Use
City of Bellflower. 2019. Bellflower Specific Plan. September 2019.

Mineral Resources
City of Bellflower. 1994. General Plan Open Space/Recreation Element, December 1994. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28094 . Accessed November 2019.

California Department of Conservation. 1982. Mineral Lands Classification Map – Aggregate Resources Only. June 1, 1982. Available:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_143/PartIV/ . Accessed November 8, 2019.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

Noise
California Department of Transportation. 2013 (September). Technical Noise Supplement. Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Harris, C. M. 1998 (September). Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Federal Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

Washington, DC.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Washington,
FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration
Population and Housing
U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Quick Facts: Bellflower City, California. Available:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bellflowercitycalifornia . Accessed November 6, 2019.

Public Services
LACFD. See Los Angeles County Fire Department.

LASD. See Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). 2017. Los Angeles County Fire Department. March 2019. Available: https://wearelacountyfire.org/file/la_county_fire_overview_booklet_0317.pdf .

Accessed November 20, 2019.
- Page 182 of 183 -

97 LACFD. 2019. Fire Station Search by Address. Available: https://locator.lacounty.gov/fire . Accessed November 6, 2019.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 2017. About Us. Available:
https://www.lasd.org/about_us.html , accessed October 2017. Accessed November 6, 2019.

Utilities and Service Systems
Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company. 2011. Urban Water Management Plan Resolution to Adopt. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/Bellflower- Somerset%20Mutual%20Water%20Company/Bellflower%20Urban%20Water%20Mgt%20Pl an.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2019.
———. 2019. About Us. Available: https://bsmwc.com/about-us/ . Accessed November 7, 2019.

BSMWC. See Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company.

City of Bellflower. 2014 (August 11). Sewer System Management Plan. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24194 . Accessed November 8, 2019.
———. 2016. Water System Map. June 2016. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28781 . Accessed:

November 8, 2019.
———. 2019c. Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/depts/pw/waste.asp . Accessed November 8, 2019. ———. 2019d. Bellflower Specific Plan. September 2019.

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 2017 (March). Transfer/Processing Report for Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Document/GetDocument/316072 . Accessed November 8, 2019.

- Page 183 of 183 -

§ 65863.2. Minimum automobile parking requirements;..., CA GOVT § 65863.2 © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 West's Annotated California Codes
Government Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 7. Planning and Land Use (Refs & Annos)
Division 1. Planning and Zoning (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 4. Zoning Regulations (Refs & Annos)
Article 2. Adoption of Regulations (Refs & Annos)
West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 65863.2
§ 65863.2. Minimum automobile parking requirements; conditions for imposition or enforcement; voluntary parking requirements Effective: January 1, 2023
Currentness
(a) A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a city, county, or city and county may impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a project that is located within one-half mile of public transit if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on any of the following:
(1) The city's, county's, or city and county's ability to meet its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 for low- and very low income households.
(2) The city's, county's, or city and county's ability to meet any special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities identified in the analysis required pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (3) Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project. (c) For a housing development project, subdivision (b) shall not apply if the housing development project satisfies any of the following:
(1) The development dedicates a minimum of 20 percent of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate- income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. (2) The development contains fewer than 20 housing units. (3) The development is subject to parking reductions based on the provisions of any other applicable law.

§ 65863.2. Minimum automobile parking requirements;..., CA GOVT § 65863.2 © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an event center shall provide parking, as required by local ordinance, for employees and other workers.
(e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Housing development project” means a housing development project as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(2) “Low- and very low income households” means the same as “lower income households” as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) “Moderate-income households” means the same as “persons and families of moderate income,” as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(4) “Public agency” means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(5) “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. (6) “Project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except where a portion of a housing development project is designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (f) This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development that is located within one-half mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply. (g) When a project provides parking voluntarily, a public agency may impose requirements on that voluntary parking to require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public, or require parking owners to charge for parking. A public agency may not require that voluntarily provided parking is provided to residents free of charge. (h)(1) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. This subdivision shall apply to an existing contractual agreement that is amended after January 1, 2023, provided that the amendments do not increase commercial parking requirements. (2) A project may voluntarily build additional parking that is not shared with the public.

§ 65863.2. Minimum automobile parking requirements;..., CA GOVT § 65863.2 © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 (i) The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.

Credits
(Added by Stats.2022, c. 459 (A.B.2097), § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2023.) West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code § 65863.2, CA GOVT § 65863.2 Current with Ch. 1 of 2023-24 1st Ex.Sess, and urgency legislation through Ch. 2 of 2023 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager

FROM: Justin A. Tamayo, Deputy City Attorney

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 23-13 – A Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to enter into National Opioid Settlements with Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart.

DATE: April 10, 2023

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:

1) Adopt Resolution No. 23-13; or

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

BACKGROUND:

On July 21, 2021, a $26 billion offer to settle was made by opioid manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceuticals (parent company of Johnson & Johnson) and the “big three" distributors (McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health) (“the Distributors") to resolve their liabilities in over 3,000 opioid crisis-related lawsuits nationwide. The City is participating in these settlement agreements and receives payments from the State each year that are derived from Janssen and the Distributors.

In late 2022, agreements were announced with three pharmacy chains (CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart) and two additional manufacturers (Allergan and Teva). In January 2023, each of those pharmacy chains and manufacturers confirmed that a sufficient number of states had agreed to the settlements to move forward. As with the 2021 National Settlements, cities that want to participate in the 2022 National Settlements now will have the opportunity to “opt in.” The greater the level of subdivision participation, the more funds will ultimately be paid out. The City must opt-in by April 18, 2023, or it will be precluded from participation.

Under both the 2021 and 2022 National Settlements, at least 85% of the funds going directly to participating cities must be used for abatement of the opioid epidemic, with the overwhelming bulk of the proceeds restricted to funding future abatement efforts by state and local governments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Participation in the additional settlements entitles the City to opioid remediation funds from the new defendants. The amount of funds that the City will receive is dependent upon the total number of local subdivisions that timely opt-in.

ATTACHMENTS

Email to City Attorney ...................................................................................................... 2 Resolution No. 23-13 ....................................................................................................... 4

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
14-H

Monday, April 10, 2023 at 13:32:22 Pacific Daylight TimeBerger, Karl H.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Bellflower City CouncilApril 10, 2023

Bellflower City Council
April 10, 2023