Bellflower City Council
October 14, 2024

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 01). 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 01), 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.
48 Page 137 of 186

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. 49 Page 138 of 186

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 (002), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), 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 002. 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. 50

(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
I 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 51

Standard
Points
Available
Consistency
Potentia
I 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 1/2 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
1/2 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 fagade 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 52

Standard
Points
Available
Consistency
Potentia
I Project
Points
Design and install landscaping to minimize summer heat
gain through: (1) the placement of evergreen trees along the west facade 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 53

Standard
Points
Available
Consistency
Potentia
I 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 1/2 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 '/4 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 54

Standard
Points
Available
Consistency
Potentia
I 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. 55

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.
56

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.
57

Sector / Source
Category / Description
Consistency Analysis
100 % of vegetation, rocks, and soils from
land clearing shall be recycled or
stockpiled on -site.

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.

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.
58

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.
59

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. 60 Page 149 of 186

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. 61 Page 150 of 186

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 62 Page 151 of 186

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 CaIEPA 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.
63 Page 152 of 186

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). 64 Page 153 of 186

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
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?
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
El El Z El
III El Z El
El El Z El
III El Z El
III El El Z
El El Z El
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. 65

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 66 Page 155 of 186

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 67

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. 68

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 facade 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 project 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 69

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.
70

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. 71

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.
72

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 Lan 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). 73

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
NN
NN
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 concurrently4.

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.
74

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 Leg 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
75

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. 76

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. 77

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. 78

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?
n n ® ❑
❑ ® ❑
O El El El
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
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 79

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.
80 Page 169 of 186

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.
81 Page 170 of 186

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?
III El El III
III El El El
III III IZI El
III III El El
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 82 Page 171 of 186

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
b
ICU or
[Delay]°
LOS°
ICU" or
[Delay]c
LOS°
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:
• AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
• 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
Controls
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
b
ICU or
[Delay]c
LOSc
b
ICU or
[Delay]°
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:
• AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
• 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
83

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
Controls
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
b
ICU or
[Delay]c
LOS'
b
ICU or
[Delay]c
LOS'
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:

AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.

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 84 Page 173 of 186

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. 85

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)? Ei 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.
86 Page 175 of 186

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).
87

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. CaIEEMod default water usage rates were used to estimate the anticipated water demand of the proposed project. Based on the CaIEEMod 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.

CaIEEMod 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 CaIEEMod 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. 88 Page 177 of 186

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 I I I 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.
89 Page 178 of 186

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:
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? ❑ Yes ® No
El El III El
El El III El
El El III El
El El III El
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. 90 Page 179 of 186

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.
91 Page 180 of 186

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
• lulia 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
92 Page 181 of 186

E. REFERENCES
Aesthetics
City of Bellflower. 1994. General Plan Open Space/Recreation Element, December 1994. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BIobID=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?BIobID=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/Ica . 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.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook . Accessed November 5, 2019.
. 2003a. Cumulative Impacts White Paper, Appendix D. Available:
http://www.agmd.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.agmd.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.agmd.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.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 5, 2019.
93

. 2016. Air Quality Management Plan Available: http://www.agmd.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.agmd.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?DocumentlD=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.

CaIEPA. 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. 94

. 2007b. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. September 17, 2007.

Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6827/fhsz106_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?BloblD=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 Regina) 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/Iosangeles/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/waterissues/programs/tmdl/integrated20142016.shtml .

Accessed November 6, 2019.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.
95

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?BloblD=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/PartlV/ . 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.
96

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%20P1 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?BIobID=24194 . Accessed November 8, 2019.
. 2016. Water System Map. June 2016. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BIobID=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/swfaci1ities/Document/GetDocument/316072 . Accessed November 8, 2019.
97 Page 186 of 186

oV BELLFLolt
cvri
staff
epor
13-C
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
FROM: Brian McNerney, Interim Director of Public Safety SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to seek information and direction from the City Council for possible changes to various City -owned or controlled parking lots related to parking rules and regulations.

DATE: October 14, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Parking in Downtown Bellflower ("Downtown") has become increasingly busy over the years. Certain lots are frequented more than others and at times are completely full of visitors, customers, and employees who visit and work in the vicinity. To ensure conformity with our parking restrictions and that the restrictions meet the parking demand, the Interim Public Safety Director ("Director") is proposing modifications to existing regulations and seeking City Council's direction.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Provide the Director with direction as to desired changes in existing City -owned or controlled parking lots; or
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

DISCUSSION
With the growth of businesses, food eateries, and entertainment options, Downtown Bellflower has become a popular location for people to frequent and visit. Parking in the area has gone through many transformations with the addition of new parking lots, creation of new rules and removal of past restrictions, the construction of the parking structure, and the loss of a parking lot due to the Edgeway development.

We are once again at the beginning stages of another transformation. The Director examined the use of parking lots in the Downtown area in conjunction with the North Downtown Parking Analysis completed by TJW Parking Consultants and the respective parking restrictions which are in place.

1 Staff Report —City-Owned or Controlled Parking Lots
October 14, 2024

DISCUSSION — Continued
Trying to meet the needs of all parties who have a vested interest in parking Downtown (residents, customers, visitors, business owners, and employees), The following are recommendations for the Council to discuss and consider:
• Lot #1, Lot #2, adjust two-hour parking from 7 a.m. - 9 p.m. (except Sunday), and Lot #3 from 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. (except Sunday) to 1 p.m. - 10 p.m. (except Sunday). o These lots are the most highly utilized during peak evening times, Thursdays -Saturdays. Removing the parking restriction during the morning hours will allow for employees, deliveries, and repair work to occur while enforcement activity can still take place when parking is the most impacted.

Also, the change would make all three lots consistent in their restrictions. • Lot #17, open the newly acquired parking areas to allow additional employee parking in the area with five spaces being marked for two-hour parking 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. (except Sunday).
o This area is the second most highly utilized lot in the Downtown area due mostly in part to the United States Post Office. Parking is primarily impacted during the morning to early afternoon hours. Once the Post Office is closed, spaces tend to free up. The City recently acquired two additional parking lots which are being opened for public use, a total gain of 29 spaces. Of these additional spaces the Director is recommending making five of them two-hour parking 7 a.m. - 6 a.m. (except Sunday). There are no proposed changes being requested for the existing two-hour parking located in the City owned lot closest to Flower Street.
• Parking Structure, no parking overnight midnight - 6 a.m. daily. o Currently, there are no parking restrictions at the parking structure and based on the Director's observations and reports from Southwest Patrol, vehicles are being stored for long periods of time. The lack of any formal rules leaves enforcement efforts at a minimum. Also, the removal of vehicles during the overnight hours will reduce vandalism occurrences and persons loitering.
• Budget modification to hire an additional full-time Community Services Officer. o Existing staffing levels are not sufficient to enforce Downtown parking regulations on a consistent proactive basis. An additional full-time staff member will need to be hired to adequately patrol during peak parking lot usage times and to proactively enforce the various time restrictions.

The Director is seeking the City Council's input and additional feedback on what parking restrictions should be in place. Ultimately, any recommendations will need to be brought back to the City Council in the form of a resolution approving the modified requirements.

ATTACHMENT
City -owned or Controlled Lot Map 3
2 3

of BELLFLOWF�
'rRO YG3 TOGEE4
staff 13-D
report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
FROM: Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to execute: 1) Task Order No. 6 with Dudek, for the preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report; and 2) Agreement File No. 805.1, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with De Novo Planning Group, for the preparation of a Specific Plan, Housing Element Amendment, and Environmental Justice Element for City owned property located at 9030 Somerset Boulevard ("Subject Property").

DATE: October 14, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Subject Property — formerly a golf course and open space - consists of approximately 22 acres and is currently under lease to Hollywood Sports Park as an outdoor recreation opportunity to residents of the community and surrounding areas. The State of California has determined that there is a significant regional and statewide need for housing available to various income levels, and local plans have identified the critical need for open space.

Understanding these needs, and in furtherance of the goals and policies set forth in recent updates to the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, the City intends on amending the land use for and rezoning this site to allow for future mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses). In order to accomplish this, a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and a Project Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") are required. In addition, staff determined that a new Environmental Justice Element of the City's General Plan is required. On April 8, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to release the Notice of Preparation ("NOP"), which is the first step in the process of preparing the EIR, and to execute a Task Order with Dudek for preparation of an EIR. Following the April 8, 2024 meeting, the NOP was prepared and was sent to City stakeholders and the public for public comment. On July 10, 2024, a scoping meeting was held as part of the NOP process.

Following the completion of the NOP, a defined scope for the EIR was prepared along with an updated cost proposal from Dudek. Staff also sought out consulting services for the preparation of a Specific Plan related to the Zone Change and amendments to the General Plan, which includes amending the Housing Element and preparing a new Environmental Justice Element. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 6 with Dudek to prepare the EIR and to execute Agreement File No. 805.1 with De Novo Planning Group to prepare the Specific Plan, Housing Element Amendment, and Environmental Justice Element for the Subject Property.

-1-

Staff Report — Dudek Task Order and De Novo Planning Group Agreement October 14, 2024

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 6 with Dudek for preparation of an EIR; and
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 805.1, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with De Novo Planning Group for preparation of a Specific Plan, Housing Element Amendment, and Environmental Justice Element; and 3) Approve a budget amendment to allocate $710,000 for the contract services in Account No. 542-42054-4132; or
4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
Task Order No. 6 with Dudek will not exceed $320,000 for environmental planning consulting services. Agreement File No. 805.1 with De Novo Planning Group will not exceed $390,000 for planning consulting services. These consulting services will be provided under the General Plan/Zoning Update Contract Services Account No. 542-42054-4132.

DISCUSSION
The State of California has identified housing affordability as a significant challenge facing local communities and the state as a whole, and Bellflower residents in particular have consistently ranked the ability to afford housing in our community as one of the most serious issues facing our community. In a 2023 survey, 81% of residents identified a lack of affordable housing as a very or somewhat serious problem facing Bellflower.

The Subject Property consists of approximately 22 acres which is currently zoned for and operated as open space and outdoor recreation available to Bellflower residents and visitors.

Understanding the community's priorities and the statewide need to build housing affordable to all income levels, and although the site is currently under lease to Hollywood Sports Park for those purposes, the City intends on amending the land use for and rezoning the site to allow for alternative uses in the future to include mixed uses, such as high density residential and open spaces uses to assist the City in meeting the demand for affordable housing and its obligations under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"). There is no specific development project proposed at this time.
• Dudek — Task Order
On April 8, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to release the NOP and conduct a scoping meeting, which is the first step in the process of preparing the EIR, and to execute a Task Order with Dudek for preparation of an EIR. The purpose of the NOP is to seek public comments on what should be addressed in the scope of the EIR. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to further receive input on the scope of the EIR. -2-

Staff Report — Dudek Task Order and De Novo Planning Group Agreement October 14, 2024

DISCUSSION — Continued
The NOP was sent to stakeholders and the public on April 22, 2024 and the public review period commenced on April 26, 2024. On July 10, 2024, a scoping meeting was held and no one from the public participated. On July 25, 2024, the 90 -day public review period for the NOP ended and 6 comment letters were received from the following agencies: 1) Native American Heritage Commission, 2) Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, 3) LA County Sanitation Districts, 4) Caltrans, 5) South Coast AQMD, and 6) Metro.

Following the completion of the NOP public review period and the scoping meeting, Dudek prepared an updated scope and budget for the EIR. Dudek's updated cost proposal was based on the updated scope and is estimated at $320,000 to complete the EIR. The City has an existing Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for on -call consulting services related to CEQA review. The preparation and completion of the NOP and the scoping meeting was accomplished under that agreement by Task Order No. 4. Since the estimated cost to complete the EIR exceeds the maximum amount allowed under the existing agreement, Task Order No. 6 was prepared and requires City Council approval for the amount and the scope of work (Attachment A).
• De Novo Planning Group — Agreement File No. 805.1
In order to amend the land use for and rezone the Subject Property to allow for future mixed uses, in addition to the EIR, a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Environmental Justice Element are proposed. The General Plan Amendment includes revising the Land Use Plan in the Land Use Element from Open Space to Mixed Use, and amending the Certified 2021-2029 Housing Element for consistency. The Zone Change includes changing the current zoning from O -S (Open Space) to Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will include illustrative designs and development standards for high -density residential and open space on the Subject Property. Given that two elements of the General Plan will be amended concurrently (e.g. Land Use and Housing), an Environmental Justice Element is also required.

De Novo Planning Group will prepare the Specific Plan, amendments to the Housing Element, and a new Environmental Justice Element of the General Pan. De Novo Planning Group is a land use and environmental planning firm specializing in general plan updates, community planning, environmental studies, and sustainability planning. The City previously obtained consulting services from De Novo Planning Group to prepare new sign regulations, which were adopted in 2020.

To complete the Specific Plan, Housing Element amendment, and the Environmental Justice Element, De Novo Planning Group estimates the project cost to be $390,000. Agreement File No. 805.1 was prepared (Attachment B).

ATTACHMENTS
Dudek — Task Order No. 6 4
De Novo Planning Group — Agreement File No. 805.1 5
-3-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
AGREEMENT FILE NO. 1034
TASK ORDER NO. 6
Date Prepared: October 14, 2024
Consultant/Contractor Name: Dudek
Project Name: Hollywood Sports Park Proposal (General Plan Amendment No. 24-01 and Zone Change No. 24-01)
Account Number: 542-42054-4132
Total Cost: $320,000
Description of services to be performed under this Task Order:

Preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report for the zone change and general plan amendments to allow for the future development of mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses) at the Hollywood Sports Park site located at 9030 Somerset Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 6271-001-900 and 6271-001-901).

Recommended/Approved by:

Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Date
Building Services
Ryan Smoot, City Manager Date
-4-

AGREEMENT FILE NO. 805.1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER AND

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP

FOR PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 14th day of October 2024, by and between the CITY OF BELLFLOWER, a municipal corporation and general law city ("CITY") and De Novo Planning Group, a California Corporation ("CONSULTANT").

1. CONSIDERATION.

A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, below;
B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement;
C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to exceed $390,000 for CONSULTANT's services. CITY may modify this amount as set forth below. Unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement, CITY will pay this sum as specified in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by reference.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit "B," which is incorporated by reference.

B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement.

3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. While performing this Agreement, CONSULTANT will use the appropriate generally accepted professional standards of practice existing at the time of performance utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services. CITY will continuously monitor CONSULTANT's services. CITY will notify CONSULTANT of any deficiencies and CONSULTANT will have fifteen (15) days after such notification to cure any shortcomings to CITY's satisfaction. Costs associated with curing the deficiencies will be borne by CONSULTANT.

-5-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

4. PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement, CONSULTANT must submit a detailed invoice to CITY which lists the hours worked and hourly rates for each personnel category and reimbursable costs (all as set forth in Exhibit "B") the tasks performed, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period, the cumulative percentage completed for each task, the total cost of that work during the preceding billing month and a cumulative cash flow curve showing projected and actual expenditures versus time to date.

5. NON -APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments due and payable to CONSULTANT for current services are within the current budget and within an available, unexhausted and unencumbered appropriation of the CITY. In the event the CITY has not appropriated sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement will cover only those costs incurred up to the conclusion of the current fiscal year.

6. ADDITIONAL WORK.

A. CITY's city manager ("Manager") may determine, at the Manager's sole discretion, that CONSULTANT must perform additional work ("Additional Work") to complete the Scope of Work. If Additional Work is needed, the Manager will give written authorization to CONSULTANT to perform such Additional Work.

B. If CONSULTANT believes Additional Work is needed to complete the Scope of Work, CONSULTANT will provide the Manager with written notification that contains a specific description of the proposed Additional Work, reasons for such Additional Work, and a detailed proposal regarding cost.

C. Payments over $60,000 for Additional Work must be approved by CITY's city council. All Additional Work will be subject to all other terms and provisions of this Agreement.

7. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK.

A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees that it has:

Carefully investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed;
ii . Carefully considered how the services should be performed; and iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement.
-6-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

B. If services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT agrees that CONSULTANT has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, before commencing the services hereunder. Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown conditions that may materially affect the performance of the services, CONSULTANT will immediately inform CITY of such fact and will not proceed except at CONSULTANT's own risk until written instructions are received from CITY.

8. TERM. The term of this Agreement will be from October 14, 2024 to October 31, 2027. Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will terminate in the following instances:

A. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit "A";
B. Termination as stated in Section 16.

9. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE.

A. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this Agreement until:
i. CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required under Section 23 of this Agreement; and
ii. CITY gives CONSULTANT a written notice to proceed.

B. Should CONSULTANT begin work on any phase in advance of receiving written authorization to proceed, any such professional services are at CONSULTANT's own risk.

10. TIME EXTENSIONS. Should CONSULTANT be delayed by causes beyond CONSULTANT's control, CITY may grant a time extension for the completion of the contracted services. If delay occurs, CONSULTANT must notify the Manager within forty- eight hours (48 hours), in writing, of the cause and the extent of the delay and how such delay interferes with the Agreement's schedule. The Manager will extend the completion time, when appropriate, for the completion of the contracted services.

11. CONSISTENCY. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main body of this Agreement takes precedence over the attached Exhibits; this Agreement supersedes any conflicting provisions. Any inconsistency between the Exhibits will be resolved in the order in which the Exhibits appear below:

Exhibit A: Scope of Work
Exhibit B: Fee Schedule
Exhibit C: Proposal
-7-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

12. CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing, executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties.

13. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a Taxpayer Identification Number.

14. PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.

15. WAIVER. CITY's review or acceptance of, or payment for, work product prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT's performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different character.

16. TERMINATION.

A. Except as otherwise provided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause.

B. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time with CITY's mutual consent. Notice will be in writing at least thirty (30) days before the effective termination date.

C. Upon receiving a termination notice, CONSULTANT will immediately cease performance under this Agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination notice. Except as otherwise provided in the termination notice, any additional work performed by CONSULTANT after receiving a termination notice will be performed at CONSULTANT's own cost; CITY will not be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT for such work.

D. Should termination occur, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT will, at CITY's option, become CITY's property, and CONSULTANT will receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed up to the effective date of notice of termination, not to exceed the total costs under Section 1(C).

E. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its own terms services similar to those terminated.

F. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for damages that might otherwise arise from CITY's termination under this Section.
-8-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS; EXCEPTIONS; WARRANTY. Except as otherwise provided below, all documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT (collectively, "Documents") under this Agreement are CITY's property. CONSULTANT may retain copies of such Documents as desired but will deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY's written notice. CITY agrees that use of CONSULTANT's completed work product, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement, or use of incomplete work product, is at CITY's own risk. CONSULTANT warrants that all Documents it drafts and completes pursuant to this Agreement constitutes original work. Specifically, CONSULTANT understands and agrees that use of artificial intelligence (Al) tools including, without limitation, ChatGPT, Microsoft's Bing Chat, Google's Bard, and Meta's LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta Al), in the performance of this Agreement does not constitute an original work, i.e., submitting Documents generated by such Al tools to CITY and representing it as CONSULTANT's original work constitutes a material breach of this Agreement, constitutes a false claim, and may also violate applicable intellectual property right laws including, without limitation, United States Copyright Law. Accordingly, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement as to ownership, CITY specifically rejects ownership of such Documents. CONSULTANT is required to indemnify and defend CITY to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law should it violate this Section.

18. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance of service under this Agreement, no copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including graphic art work, prepared pursuant to this Agreement, will be released by CONSULTANT to any other person or public CITY without CITY's prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic display information to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and distributed solely by CITY, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties.

19. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. CONSULTANT agrees to the following:

Indemnification for Professional Services. CONSULTANT will save harmless and indemnify and at CITY's request reimburse defense costs for CITY and all its officers, volunteers, employees and representatives from and against any and all suits, actions, or claims, of any character whatever, brought for, or on account of, any injuries or damages sustained by any person or property resulting or arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission by CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT's officers, agents,
employees, or representatives, in the performance of this Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct.
ii. Indemnification for other Damages. CONSULTANT indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful -9-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

misconduct. Should CITY be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, CONSULTANT will defend CITY (at CITY's request and with counsel satisfactory to CITY) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise.

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

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

D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 23, and any approval of said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification.

20. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services.

CONSULTANT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.

21. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the manner in which is it performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY.

CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees.

Any provision in this Agreement that may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only.

22. AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT will maintain full and accurate records with respect to all services and matters covered under this Agreement. CITY will have free access at all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcript therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities. CONSULTANT will retain such financial and program service records for at least three (3) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.
-10-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

23. INSURANCE.

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

Type of Insurance Limits
Commercial general liability $2,000,000
Professional Liability $1,000,000
Business automobile liability $1,000,000
Workers compensation Statutory requirement
B. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of the most recent ISO-CGL Form. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Liability policies will be endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees as "additional insureds" under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed "primary" such that any other insurance that may be carried by CITY will be excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on ISO Form No. CG 20 10 11 85 or 88, or equivalent. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence," not a "claims made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY.

C. Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage is available, or on a "claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to renew the insurance for a period of three (3) years after this Agreement expires or is terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this Agreement, and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.

D. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 06 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto).

E. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement and such other evidence of insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required by CITY from time to time. Insurance must be -11-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of "A:VII."
F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at CONSULTANT's expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate pursuant to Section 16.

G. Self -Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this Agreement must allow CITY, as additional insured, to satisfy the self -insured retention ("SIR") and deductible of the policy in lieu of CONSULTANT (as the named insured) should CONSULTANT fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible is subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONSULTANT as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should CITY pay the SIR or deductible on CITY's behalf upon the CONSULTANT'S failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, CITY may include such amounts as damages in any action against CONSULTANT for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by CITY due to the breach.

24. USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY's prior written approval to use any consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must approve of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation.

25. INCIDENTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY monthly to provide the status on the project, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative description of progress during the past month for each major task, a description of the work remaining and a description of the work to be done before the next schedule update.

26. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:

If to CONSULTANT: If to CITY:

Attention: Amanda Tropiano
De Novo Planning Group
108 E. Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 453-7711
[email protected]
Attention: Elizabeth C. Oba
City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706
(562) 804-1424
[email protected]
-12-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.

27. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY's conflict of interest regulations.

28. ❑ This Section applies only if box is checked. POLITICAL REFORM ACT. CONSULTANT agrees that it will be considered a public official subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974 for purposes of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees and warrants that it has no financial interests which may be materially affected by the project for which the Initial Study, as specified in the SERVICES, is being prepared. Such financial interests may include, without limitation, interests in business entities, real property, or sources of income exceeding $500 received within the past year. CONSULTANT further warrants that, before executing this Agreement, it reviewed the Political Reform Act of 1974 and the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, including, without limitation, Chapter 7 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 18700, et seq., in order to determine whether any conflict of interest would require CONSULTANT to refrain from performing the SERVICES or in any way attempting to use its official position to influence the governmental decisions underlying the subject environmental clearances.

29. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.

30. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT's or CITY's obligations under this Agreement.

31. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Los Angeles County.

32. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws applicable to this Agreement.
-13-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

33. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written. There are Click here to enter text.

Attachments to this Agreement. This Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent successors and assigns.

34. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.

35. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.

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

37. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties on any number of separate counterparts, and all such counterparts so executed constitute one agreement binding on all the Parties notwithstanding that all the Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. In accordance with Government Code §16.5, the Parties agree that this Agreement, agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by electronic transmission. Such electronic signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

38. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.

39. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

40. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood, explosion, acts of terrorism, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties' reasonable control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other.
-14-

City of Bellflower
Agreement File No. 805.1
De Novo Planning Group

41. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public CITY.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF BELLFLOWER DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
Ryan Smoot, City Manager Amanda Tropiano, Principal
ATTEST:

Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney Taxpayer ID No. 26-2962235 ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
-15-

October 4, 2024
Elizabeth Oba
Director of Planning and Building Services
City of Bellflower Community Development Department
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706
Subject: Updated Proposal for the Hollywood Sports Park Project Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Oba:

Dudek appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to the City of Bellflower (City) for professional environmental services on the Hollywood Sports Park Project. As part of Dudek's initial task for this project, Dudek assisted the City with the circulation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and conducted a scoping meeting. Six comment letters from various organizations were received during the scoping period.

At this time, Dudek understands the City has decided to move forward with the project, including development of a specific plan, revisions to elements of the City's General Plan, and zoning code amendments. These actions require the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), as anticipated by the NOP and scoping process.

The EIR is envisioned to provide a mostly programmatic level of analysis, though the development of a specific plan document may enable the EIR to include some project -level analyses.

Dudek understands that another consultant will be preparing the specific plan, general plan elements, and other planning documents. Dudek will use those documents to inform the EIR project description and serve as the basis for the analysis. Based on the passage of time since the authorization for the NOP work and to reflect additional details about the EIR process, Dudek proposes the included scope of work and budget for preparation of an EIR for the project.

Project Understanding
The City of Bellflower Planning and Building Services department circulated the NOP for the project know as Hollywood Sports Park Proposal (General Plan Amendment No. 24-01 and Zone Change No. 24-01). The scoping period began on April 26, 2024 and closed on July 25, 2024. A scoping meeting was held on July 10, 2024.

The project would include the future development of mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses) within City -owned property currently being utilized by the Hollywood Sports Park, a 22.0 -acre site used for recreational activities and events that include outdoor paintball, airsoft, softpellet tag, and gelburst. The project site, which is located at 15240 Lakewood Boulevard, 9030-9146 Somerset Boulevard, and 9215 Flora Vista DUDEK.COM
-16-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT E!R PROPOSAL
Street (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 6271-001-900 and 6271-001-901), is owned by the City and leased to the operator of the sports park. The site is currently designated Open Space by the City's General Plan Land Use Element, and 0-S Open Space by the City's Zoning Code. Project boundaries include Somerset Boulevard to the north, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) right-of-way to the south; and Lakewood Boulevard further to the west. Surrounding uses include strip commercial along Somerset Boulevard to the north, single-family residential neighborhoods located to the south and east, and mixed industrial and commercial uses, along with a mobile home park, to the west.

Proposed project approvals would include an amendment to the General Plan (GPA No. 24-01), which would amend the Land Use Plan in the Land Use Element to revise the project site from the current Open Space land use designation to the proposed Mixed Use land use designation, and amend the Housing Element for consistency; as well as a Zone Change (ZC No. 24-01) to amend the Zoning Map in the Zoning Code to change the project site from the existing 0-S Zone to the "Specific Plan".

Dudek understands at this time, actual mixed -use development and design plans have not been created and are not being reviewed or considered by the City. Therefore, to quantify potential impacts to the greatest extent possible, a development scenario has been formulated based on a maximum development density and those permitted uses as established by the proposed GPA and ZC. Proposed GPA No. 24-01 will allow high -density residential uses and open space uses. For purposes of analysis, Dudek anticipates 20.5 acres of the 22.0 -acre Project Site could be utilized for high -density residential uses (100 dwelling units/acre maximum); while the remaining 1.5 acres could be utilized for open space uses. Based on this 100 du/acre maximum density, the

20.5 -acre portion of the Project Site could allow for a gross of 2,050 residential units. However, given that parking, landscaping, common areas, internal streets, and other infrastructure would reduce developable residential area, it is assumed that there will be a 20 percent reduction of the 2,050 dwelling units. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, it is estimated that 1,640 dwelling units could be developed at the Project Site. Regarding open space uses, it is anticipated that outdoor active open space and recreational activities would be allowed.

Dudek understands the City would like the EIR to analyze the impacts of implementing the GPA and ZC using the maximum -density development scenario that has been envisioned. The EIR would be relied upon to the extent possible as future development approvals are considered by the City. Future projects are anticipated to utilize CEQA streamlining provisions for later projects under a program EIR. The focus of this proposal effort has been on updating the scope of work for Task 2 (EIR) based on current information and project understanding. Task 2 would be processed as an individual task order under Dudek's existing master services agreement with the City.

Dudek's Task 2 proposal anticipates the technical analysis and level of documentation that would be needed based on our current understanding of the project and the City's CEQA compliance needs.

Finally, Dudek understands that the City is moving forward with the project and EIR in absence of application from a third party such that the City is the project sponsor. Should the City decide to discontinue the project at any time, Dudek would be notified to stop work. In this event, Dudek would stop all work immediately and would not continue to prepare or finalize technical reports or EIR components.

DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024 2
-17-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
Project Management Team
The project management team for the EIR will include Cori Resha, senior project manager, and Emily Seklecki, project manager. Emily will oversee the day-to-day management of the EIR, while Cori will provide senior review and support management of the project. Both Emily and Cori worked on the NOP for the project, and have worked together on many other projects. Their close collaboration during all aspects of the project will ensure that the City is provided with a quality CEQA document that meets the City's needs.

Scope of Work
Task 2 Environmental Impact Report
With the close of the scoping period in July 2024, the City has decided to move forward with preparation of the EIR. Based on the nature of the project description and our understanding of the project, Dudek will prepare the EIR with an eye towards streamlining the CEQA review for later development projects. By providing a programmatic analysis in the EIR, subsequent applications for development within the project site would be able to utilize CEQA streamlining provisions to provide efficiency and expedience during the development review process. As the City has indicated that another consultant will be preparing a specific plan, general plan amendments, and the zoning amendment, Dudek will utilize those documents to provide as much project -level analysis, enhancing the streamlining opportunities for future projects within the specific plan.

Dudek understands the City prepared an EIR in 2000 for approval of a project to replace an existing golf course on the project site with the current sports facility. Dudek will review the prior EIR and incorporate all relevant information into the proposed EIR.

Subtask 2.1: Technical Reports
Preparation of the EIR sections would begin with technical reports as warranted by project information. Dudek will also utilize existing City and other agency planning documents, City ordinances, and a site visit to develop the background and analysis. Technical reports that would be completed for the EIR include the following topics:
■ Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy
■ Biological Resources
■ Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
■ Tribal Cultural Resources
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
■ Noise
■ Transportation
Dudek assumes technical analysis for aesthetics/visual simulations will not be needed because the project will propose development within an urbanized area that will be compatible with existing conditions. Dudek assumes technical analysis will not be needed for historic resources because the site's existing facilities were constructed DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
-18-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
after 2000 and do not meet the age requirements to be considered historically significant. Dudek will provide one draft version (electronic only) of each technical report to the City. Comments on the draft reports would be addressed during the preparation of the final reports. Should additional drafts be needed, a scope and budget augmentation may be needed.

Deliverables
■ Draft technical reports in electronic format (MS Word) ■ Finalized technical reports in electronic format (MS Word and PDF) Subtask 2.2: Administrative Draft EIR
Dudek will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) for City review. Preparation of the ADEIR sections would utilize the technical reports prepared by Dudek as discussed in Subtask 2.1. Dudek will also utilize existing City and other agency planning documents, City ordinances, and a site visit to develop the background and analysis.

Each section will describe the existing regional setting, project site and nearby features, which will constitute the baseline conditions for the evaluation of impacts. Existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the City's General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs, City codes, development standards and design guidelines, will be reviewed and summarized as applicable in the regulatory setting of each technical section of the ADEIR. The methods of analysis and City standards of significance used for determining impacts of the project will be explicitly described in each technical sections of the ADEIR, including any assumptions that are important to understand the conclusions of the analysis.

The analysis of each topic in the ADEIR would evaluate the impacts of the proposed project against existing, baseline conditions (based on the date of the NOP), as well as the project's contribution to cumulative impacts.

Where available, mitigation will be recommended for significant impacts, and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures will be described. The ADEIR would also include evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project as required by CEQA. The alternatives would include a No Project Alternative, and additional development alternatives. The development alternatives would be developed based on the project objectives established for the project, with the goal of reducing any of the significant impacts identified in the ADPEIR. This scope of work assumes development and analysis of two development alternatives. Should additional alternatives for analysis be proposed, a change order may be required.

Deliverables
■ Administrative Draft EIR in electronic format (MS Word) Subtask 2.3: Public Review Draft EIR
Following the City's review and comment of all sections of the ADEIR, Dudek would revise the ADEIR to produce a Screencheck Draft EIR. It is assumed that only limited revisions would be required at this stage to respond to City comments on the administrative draft, and no additional technical analysis would be required. Should comments on the ADEIR warrant additional technical analysis or require a substantial effort to review the document, an amendment may be needed. The Screencheck Draft EIR would be submitted to the City in electronic format (MS Word and PDF) so they City may review the document for any major flaws prior to the document being finalized DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
4 -19-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
into the Public Draft EIR. It is assumed that City comments/revisions on the Screencheck Draft EIR would be minor, as befits a screencheck draft, and that comments requiring additional analysis or substantial revisions may require a modification to the scope and budget. During this stage, Dudek would provide the City will provide a draft version of the notice of availability (NOA) that is required as part of the public review process for the Draft EIR. Dudek will also provide drafts of the notice of completion (NOC) and summary form as required by the State Clearinghouse. It is assumed that comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR would be minimal and not require substantial revisions by Dudek.

Once the Draft EIR is finalized and ready for printing, an electronic version and three hard copies would be delivered to the City.

It is important to note that CEQA requires a Draft EIR to be released for public review and comment for a period of at least 30 but no more than 60 days. Dudek will coordinate with the City to determine the public review period for the Draft EIR, which will be reflected in the Draft EIR and associated notices.

Dudek will upload the public Draft EIR and required forms to the State Clearinghouse's CEQAnet database on the City's behalf. Dudek would also coordinate the mailing of hard copies of the NOA to interested parties, agencies, and stakeholders. Mailing of the NOA is assumed to include no more than 50 recipients and would be transmitted via regular mail service, and there is no need for certified mailing. The City would be responsible for electronic transmittal of the Draft EIR and/or notices to any parties that have requested such notice or documents. The NOA is also required to be published in a newspaper of general circulation; the City would be responsible for coordination and costs associated with newspaper publication. The City would also be responsible for uploading the Draft EIR and notices to its website and physical posting of notices as required. This scope assumes that three hard copies of the Draft EIR (with appendices included on CD or flash drive) would be provided to the City. If the City wishes for additional hard copies of the Draft EIR to be produced and mailed to local libraries, the scope and cost estimate can be modified to reflect this component.

Deliverables
• Screencheck Draft EIR in electronic format (MS Word and PDF) • Public Draft EIR (electronic and up to 3 hard copies), NOA, NOC, and SCH summary form Subtask 2.4:Administrative Final EIR
Following the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR (30-60 days, as discussed above), Dudek would prepare an Administrative Final EIR (AFEIR) in compliance with all CEQA requirements. This task includes bracketing all comments received from agencies, organizations, tribes, and the public and preparing written responses to be included in the AFEIR. If comments received reiterate the same concerns, Dudek will prepare master responses to address those comments. This scope of work assumes receipt of up to 15 comment letters and 75 individual comments. If more than 15 comment letters and/or 75 comments are received or detailed comment letters from attorneys or other organizations that raise complex CEQA issues indicating the potential for project litigation, Dudek may request a budget augment. Should comments on the Draft EIR raise new issues or require that new surveys or technical studies be conducted to complete adequate responses, Dudek will initiate discussions immediately with City staff to evaluate the options for CEQA processing. It is anticipated that during DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
5 -20-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
development of the AFEIR, Dudek would coordinate with City staff to understand and develop the City's preferred language for responding to comments that do not raise issues with the analyses or adequacy of the Draft EIR.

The AFEIR will include the text of the Draft EIR, revised to reflect any changes resulting from the responses to comments or City -initiated changes. All changes to the text of the Draft EIR will be identified in strike out and underline in the AFEIR.

Another required component of the AFEIR is a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Dudek will draft the MMRP document, which identifies the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR to reduce or eliminate significant impacts of the project. The MMRP will include the text of all mitigation measures and include columns indicating the timing and responsibility for the mitigation measures.

As part of the Final EIR process, Dudek will also draft the required CEQA Findings of Fact (FOF) and, if needed, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). An SOC is required when an EIR identifies any impacts of a project that would be significant and unavoidable. While Dudek would draft the SOC, it is assumed that the City would provide information to be used in the SOC, such as any studies indicating the need for the project, any market analyses supporting the project, and any other information that should be considered when deciding whether to approve a project despite its significant environmental impacts. The CEQA FOF document is compiled using the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR, and includes the required findings regarding project impacts and alternatives. The administrative Final EIR submitted to the City for review would include the MMRP, FOF, and SOC, if needed.

Deliverables
• Administrative Final EIR, including responses to all comments received and presentation of all text changes proposed to the Draft EIR in electronic format (Word and PDF). • Required notices (NOC, NOD) in electronic format (Word and PDF). ■ CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in electronic format (Word).

Subtask 2.5: Final EIR
Following receipt of one set of reconciled comments and revisions on the administrative Final EIR, Dudek will revise the document to produce the public Final EIR. Once the public Final EIR is prepared, Dudek will provide the City with electronic versions (Word and PDF) and up to three hard copies. The City shall be responsible for distribution of the responses to agency comments to the respective agencies, which is required at least 10 days prior to project approval. Dudek shall upload the Final EIR to the State Clearinghouse's CEQAnet database. In anticipation of the project moving to a public hearing shortly following the release of the Final EIR, Dudek will prepare a notice of determination (NOD) to be filed following project approval, as required by CEQA.

As part of the Final EIR process, Dudek's project manager and senior project manager would attend and participate as needed in up to two (2) public hearings for the project. Dudek would assist City staff with CEQA language to be used in the staff report. Dudek would also develop PowerPoint slides to be used during public hearings to provide information regarding the CEQA process and the EIR. Following project approval, Dudek will submit the NOD to the Los Angeles County Clerk, along with the required fees (check from the City payable to Los DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
6 -21-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT E1R PROPOSAL
Angeles County to cover the current filing fee and Fish & Game fee). Once filed with the County Clerk and a receipt received for payment of fees, Dudek will upload the NOD to the CEQAnet database, as required by CEQA.

Deliverables
• Final EIR in electronic and hard copy formats.
■ Required notices (NOC, NOD).
■ Attendance of two (2) public hearings and preparation time.

Subtask 2.6: Project Management and Meetings
Dudek's project manager and senior project manager will oversee all aspects of the project related to CEQA compliance, technical support, staff oversight, scheduling, and budget management. Dudek will participate in regular progress meetings with the City during an anticipated 18 -month period of EIR preparation.

Fee Estimate
Work pursuant to this contract will be billed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with Dudek's current rate sheet, not to exceed $317,195.00 for Task 2.

DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
-22-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
Task Milestone
Fee
Task 2
Environmental Impact Report

2.1 Technical Reports

2.1.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy $27,165.00

2.1.2 Biological Resources
$11,820.00

2.1.3 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
$22,830.00

2.1.4 Tribal Cultural Resources
$6,545.00

2.1.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
$12,615.00

2.1.6 Noise
$16,665.00

2.1.7 Transportation
$21,600.00

2.2 1
Administrative Draft EIR
$27,165.00

2.3 Public Review Draft EIR
$11,820.00 ,

2.4 Administrative Final EIR
$22,830.00

2.5 Public Final EIR
$6,545.00

2.6 Project Management and Meetings
$12,615.00 ".

Total
$317,195.001
Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City with this important project. Please contact me at 916 438 5303 or [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Corinne Resha,JD
Senior Project Manager
Att.: Fee Estimate
DUDEIC
OCTOBER 4, 2024 8
-23-

Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Task 1: Specific Plan
CONSULTANT will prepare a Specific Plan that will allow for the future development of mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses) at the Hollywood Sports Park site located at 9030 Somerset Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 6271-001-900 and 6271-001-901) ("Project Site"). Specific tasks associated with the preparation of the Specific Plan are detailed in Exhibit C (Proposal).

Task 2: Housing Element Amendment
CONSULTANT will prepare an amendment to the City's Housing Element to recognize the Project Site as an underutilized site that could be developed as higher density residential, and the Project Site will be identified as a new "Housing Opportunity Area." Specific tasks associated with the preparation of the Housing Element Amendment are detailed in Exhibit C (Proposal).

Task 3: Environmental Justice Element
CONSULTANT will prepare a new Environmental Justice Element of the City's General Plan. Specific tasks associated with the preparation of the Environmental Justice Element are detailed in Exhibit C (Proposal).

Task 4: Study Session and Public Hearings
CONSULTANT will facilitate and be present for up to six (6) study sessions and/or public hearings related to the consideration and adoption of the Specific Plan, Housing Element Amendment, and Environment Justice Element.
-24-

Exhibit B
Fee Schedule
CONSULTANT must complete the Scope of Work provided in Exhibit A of this Agreement for a not -to -exceed cost of $390,000.

CONSULTANT's hourly rates for consultant services are as follows:

Position
Hourly Rate
Principal
$185
Principal Planner
$160
Senior Planner + Designer
$125
Associate Planner
$115
Assistant Planner
$95
The subconsultant costs are as follows:

Subconsultant
Costs
EPS
$10,000
JZMK
$60,000
Fuscoe
$50,000
Mailing will be billed at cost.
-25-

Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
October 7, 2024
Duane Morita
Consultant to the City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Dr, Bellflower, CA 90706
[email protected] 1 (714) 457-5712
711111111111111111
SUBJECT: Proposal to Prepare Planning Documents Related to Hollywood Sports Park Proposal

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
On behalf of De Novo Planning Group, thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to prepare planning documents related to the Hollywood Sports Park Proposal, including preparation of 1) a Specific Plan, 2) an amendment to the City of Bellflower's Housing Element, and 3) a new Environmental Justice Element for the City of Bellflower. We understand that the City is already in the process of preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report to assess the future development of mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses) within City owned property currently being utilized by Hollywood Sports Park, and that work effort will be completed under a separate contract.

The Project Site consists of the existing 22.0 -acre Hollywood Sports Park site which is located at 9030 Somerset Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 6271-001-900 & 6271-001- 901) ("Project Site"). The Project Site is currently utilized for recreational activities and events that include outdoor paintball, airsoft, soft -pellet tag, and gel burst, set within movie remnants, rock walls, and other settings.

The Project Site is currently designated Open Space by the City's Land Use Plan in the General Plan's Land Use Element and 0-S Open Space by the City's Zoning Map in the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC"). The City proposes to re -designate the Project Site to "Mixed -Use" and "Specific Plan" in the General Plan's Land Use Element and BMC, respectively. The Certified 2021-2029 Housing Element will be amended to identify the Project Site as an underutilized residential site that could be developed as higher density residential and will include the Project Site as a new Housing Opportunity Area. The Housing Element, as currently certified, can achieve and satisfy the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. With the proposed GPA and ZC, the Project Site will be able to accommodate approximately 1,640 housing units which would serve as additional buffer to the City's RHNA obligation. This Proposal facilitates development of additional housing in the City in accordance with policies and objectives in the Housing Element.

Given that the City will be amending two or more Elements concurrently (Land Use and Housing), the City is obligated to prepare a new Environmental Justice Element in accordance with State law. This proposal includes the necessary planning actions to prepare the requested Specific Plan, amendment to the Housing Element, and new Environmental Justice Element.

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
180 E MAIN STREET, SUITE 108 ITUSTIN, CA 92780
[email protected] I (714) 453-7711
-26-

Hollywood Sports Park Project 2

SCOPE OF WORK
We have prepared the following work plan based on our understanding of the project.

TASK 1: SPECIFIC PLAN
De Novo, partnering with Economic and Planning Systems, JZMK Architects, and Fuscoe Engineering, will prepare a Specific Plan for the Project Site in accordance with State law. The Specific Plan will include narratives, diagrams, photos, and graphics to help illustrate important information. We expect that the Specific Plan will include the following chapters:

Introduction: Vision Statement Purpose and Intent, Authority and Scope, General Plan Consistency, Relationship to City and County Plans and Programs, Relationship to Environmental Assessment Context: Site Description, Existing Circulation and Site Accessibility, Surrounding Land Uses and Development, Topography and Hydrology, Geology and Soils, Biological Resources, and Environmental Considerations (note that the Specific Plan project team expects to receive information on geology, soils, biological resources, and environmental considerations from the team preparing the associated CEQA documentation) Land Use Plan: Land Use Objectives, Plan Overview, and Illustrative Site Plan Mobility Plan: Proposed transportation components, including improvements that support the planned land use, Development standards for the primary components of public and private infrastructure.

Development and Design Standards: Statement of Purpose and Intent, Definition of Terms, Approved land use types; Development ratios, density, massing'and form; building setbacks and easements; site access; open space and site amenities; public realm guidelines; plant palette for public and private realm.

Infrastructure and Phasing: Grading, Sewer Plan, Water Plan, Drainage Plan, Solid Waste Plan, Project Phasing Schedule (note that this information will be prepared by JZMK Architects and Fuscoe Engineering and provided to the team preparing the associated CEQA documentation)
Administration: Responsibility, Interpretation, Implementation, General Notes, Severability, Maintenance Responsibility, General Capital Improvement Financing Mechanisms Administrative Draft chapters of the Specific Plan will be presented to Staff for review and comment. Staff will provide consolidated comments on each chapter. Based on this input, the team will prepare a Public Review Draft Specific Plan for circulation. Following public review, including hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council, the team will prepare a Final Specific Plan (adopted).

Deliverables:
• Administrative Draft Specific Plan in PDF/digital format; Public Review Draft Specific Plan in PDF/digital format and 15 printed copies; Final (Adopted) Specific Plan in PDF/digital format and 15 printed copies -27-

Hollywood Sports Park Project 3
TASK 2: HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
The City of Bellflower City Council adopted the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element on January 20, 2022 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found the adopted housing element to be in full compliance with State Housing Element Law on September 9, 2022.

De Novo will prepare an amendment to the City's Housing Element to recognize the Hollywood Sports Park site as an underutilized residential site that could be developed as higher density residential and will include the Project Site as a new Housing Opportunity Area. In its adopted Housing Element, the City already demonstrates a surplus of available sites at all income levels. The Hollywood Sports Park site would be added to the City's sites inventory and shown as additional surplus available at the appropriate income levels as determined by the site's expected density.

We expect that the amendment to the City's Housing Element will include revisions to the following sections:

1. Housing Plan

2. Housing Constraints/Governmental Constraints

3. Housing Resources/Housing Opportunity Areas (including a new Large Sites analysis)

4. Housing Resources/Summary of Available Sites

5. Housing Resources/Consistency with AFFH

6. Appendix B: Housing Opportunity Areas
Only the amended sections need to be submitted to HCD for review. Additionally, the City's existing Housing Element certification carries forward even as HCD is reviewing amended sections of the Housing Element.

For the purposes of this proposal, De Novo assumes two rounds of public review of draft revisions and two rounds of HCD review and comment. Should additional rounds of review be required by the State in order to resolve issues raised by the Housing Element review team, that work will be charged on a time and materials basis.

Deliverables:
• Administrative Draft Review Housing Element Amendment; Screencheck Draft Review Housing Element Amendment; Public Review Draft Housing Element Amendment #1; Public Review Draft Housing Element Amendment #2; two rounds of responses to HCD comments including ongoing coordination via email/phone/virtual meetings with assigned HCD reviewer TASK 3: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT

3.1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement is an important part of the public planning process when preparing an Environmental Justice Element. The key components of our community engagement program are described below.

ADVERTISEMENTS/EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
We propose sharing project information on the City's website and via existing City social media accounts. De Novo will prepare text and graphics (as needed) for posting information about workshops and meetings, as well as availability of draft documents. We assume that City staff will post the material online and print and deliver hard copies as necessary (for example, if mailed letters on the City's letterhead need to be sent to select stakeholders).

We will also prepare a project factsheet for posting online and to have available for future in -person activities.

Project advertisements, the project factsheet, and pop-up event materials will be prepared in English and Spanish. -28-

Hollywood Sports Park Project 4

ONLINE SURVEY
To gather broad input on the topic of environmental justice (which will help inform the scope of the new Element), De Novo will prepare and post an online survey to collect public input. This effort will allow community members to share insights on the seven mandatory environmental justice topics (see Task 2) as well as general input related to the disadvantaged community in Bellflower. The online survey will be conducted in English and Spanish.

OPEN HOUSE
At the beginning of the work program, we will prepare for and facilitate an open house specifically dedicated to the topics of environmental justice in Bellflower. This could include confirming the identification of areas within the community that warrant special attention (potentially beyond area identified by CalEnviroScreen), activities focused on the seven mandatory environmental justice topics, or other ideas of local interest.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS (4)
Assembling and coordinating with a list of key community stakeholders with knowledge of local environmental justice issues will allow the project team and the City to engage in more specific discussions than could occur at public workshops and open houses. Our team will plan and facilitate the stakeholder interviews to discuss key environmental justice and community health and wellness issues facing Bellflower. These interviews will be conducted virtually and, if necessary, City Staff will provide translation services. The list of stakeholders could include regional agencies and nonprofit representatives, County representatives, representatives from faith -based institutions, the school district, and other local and regional stakeholders.

Deliverables:
• Content for website and online engagement; project factsheet; preparation and facilitation for one community Open House; one online survey; up to four (4) stakeholder interviews on environmental justice; public engagement summary report.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE BACKGROUND REPORT
De Novo will conduct a comprehensive analysis regarding environmental pollution exposure in Bellflower using CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and other available resources. We will research the social, economic, and pollution data sets. We will review other environmental and health databases and resources to identify indicators measuring citywide inclusivity and equity, as well as underlying socio-economic variables including home purchasing power, unemployment rate, educational attainment, and poverty levels. The information will be consolidated into a Background Report which will be used, in concert with public input, to develop the scope of the Environmental Justice Element. An Administrative Draft will be provided and City Staff will provide one set of consolidated comments.

Deliverables:
• Administrative Draft and Final Environmental Justice Element Background Report

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT
SB 1000 went into effect in 2018, requiring local governments to identify environmental justice communities (called "disadvantaged communities") in their jurisdictions and address environmental justice in their general plans. This law has several purposes, including to facilitate transparency and public engagement in local governments' planning and decision -making processes, reduce harmful pollutants and the associated health risks in environmental justice communities, and promote equitable access to health -inducing benefits, such as healthy food options, housing, public facilities, and recreation.
-29-

Hollywood Sports Park Project 5
In September 2023, the California Attorney General published guidance to help local governments comply with SB 1000. The documents discuss the historical background of environmental justice, including the legacy of discriminatory land use policies that led to pollution inequities that persist today. A key goal of SB 1000 is to reduce disproportionate pollution burdens, including the unequal impacts of climate change.

SB 1000 requires jurisdictions to first identify "disadvantaged communities" (or DACs); using the findings of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 as a starting point, only a limited area of Bellflower is considered a DAC. For this area (at a minimum), the City must be responsible for addressing a minimum of seven EJ-related issues:
• Pollution exposure (including air quality)
• Public facilities
• Food access
• Safe and sanitary homes
• Physical activity
• Community engagement
• Prioritization of improvements and programs addressing the needs of DACs De Novo will prepare an Environmental Justice Element, consistent with current guidance provided by the California Attorney General, for Staff review and comment. We assume that De Novo will receive one consolidated set of Staff comments on the Administrative Draft Element. Using these comments, De Novo will prepare a Public Review Draft Element for presentation to the public, Planning Commission and City Council. Based on direction from City Council, De Novo will prepare a final (adopted) Environmental Justice Element.

Deliverables:
• Administrative Draft, Public Review Draft, and Final (Adopted) Environmental Justice Element TASK 4 STUDY SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
De Novo's Principal and/or Principal Planner will facilitate up to six (6) study sessions and/or public hearings related to the Project. It is expected that the Specific Plan will need to be adopted prior to adopting an amendment to the Housing Element. Adoption of the Environmental Justice Element is expected to occur concurrent with one of the other items (Le., concurrent with the Specific Plan or concurrent with the Housing Element). This scope of work excludes preparation of Staff Reports, Resolutions, and Ordinances.

Deliverables:
• Preparation for an attendance at six study sessions and/or public hearings -30-

De No vo Planning Gro up
Hollywood Sports Park Planni ng Projects

TASK/ACTIVITY
Principal
Principal Planner
Senior Planner +
Designer
Associate Pla nner
Assistant Planner
De Novo Subtotal
Economics
Architecture
I nfrastructure
Direct C ost

ACTIVITY
TOTALS
EPS
JZMK
Fuscoe
Mailing
TOTALS
hours
$185
hours
5160
hours
5125
hours
$115
hours
$95
hours
Fee
Fee
Task 1: Specific Plan
60 $11,100
100
$16,000
260
541,600
120
$13,800
60 $5,700
340
$88,200
$10,000
$60,000
$49,766
$207,966
Task 2: Housing Elemen t Ame ndment
24 $4,440
40 $6,400
20 $3,200
100
$11,500
40 $3,800
204
$29,340
$29,340
Task 3: Env iro nmental Justice Element
40 $7,400
80 $12,800
100
516,000
120
$13,800
140
$13,300
380
$63,300
$15,000
$78,300
Task 4: Study Sessions/Public Hearings
36 $6,660
48 $7,680
36 $5,760
0 $0
24 $2,280
108
$22,380
522,380

PROJECT SUBTOTAL
160
$29,600
268
$42,880
416
566,560
340
539,100
264
525,080
1032
$ 203,220
$ 10,000
$ 60,000
$ 49,766
$ 15,000
$337,986

TOTAL FEE
$337,986
CONTINGENCY (15%)

TOTAL FEE WITH CONTINGENCY (NOT TO EXCEED FEE)
$50,698
$388,684

Hollywood Sports Park Project

SCHEDULE
7 Task
Month
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Task 1: Specific Plan
Task 2: Housing Element
Amendment
Task 3: Environmental
Justice Element
Task 4: Study Sessions and
Public Hearings

PROPOSAL TERMS
We truly appreciate being considered for this project. We are confident that our experience, record of success, and Principal -level attention to the project will prove to be extremely valuable to the City. Amanda Tropiano is the Principal contact and is authorized to sign agreements and bind De Novo Planning Group in our proposal. Ms.

Tropiano can be reached at (714) 453-7711 or [email protected].

Amanda Tropiano
Principal
-32-

Amanda Tropiano

PRINCIPAL

EDUCATION
MA, Urban and Regional Planning,
University of California, Irvine
BA, Urban Studies and Planning,
University of California, San Diego
BA, Political Science: Comparative
Politics,
University of California, San Diego
Study Abroad Program,
University of Sussex

ORGANIZATIONS
Urban Land Institute
International Association for Public
Participation (IAP2)
American Planning Association
Congress for New Urbanism
Amanda Tropiano is a principal with De Novo Planning Group and is responsible for leading the firm's Southern California practice. Amanda has successfully managed a wide variety of land use and environmental planning projects for public and private sector clients, including numerous General Plans, specific plans, corridor plans, strategic plans, sustainability programs, visioning projects, transit - oriented development plans, zoning documents, outreach programs, and CEQA projects. Amanda is also an IAP2 trained public outreach practitioner and has completed project management training with PSMJ. Amanda consistently brings to the table her passion, creativity, and strategic thinking to make sure every project exceeds her client's expectations. Amanda brings a unique project management style to her clients, where she relies on collaboration, communication, and creativity to identify and proactively address potential opportunities and challenges. She is a skilled public speaker and enjoys working with members of the public, stakeholders, and elected and appointed officials throughout the planning process.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
General Plan Update, Housing
Element, Safety Element, and EIR,
City of Lake Forest
General Plan Update and EIR,
City of Laguna Niguel
General Plan Update, Rezoning, ODS,
and EIR,
City of Lomita
Housing Element, Rezoning Program,
ODS, and CEQA Compliance,
City of Laguna Hills
Housing, Safety, and Circulation
Element Update
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
General Plan Update, Hawthorne Blvd
Specific Plan Update, and EIR,
City of Lawndale
General Plan Update, Housing
Element, EIR, and CAP,
City of San Jacinto
General Plan Update, Housing
Element, Zoning Update, and EIR,
City of Indian Wells
General Plan Update, Housing
Element, Zoning Update, and EIR,
City of San Marcos
Housing Element Update and EIR,
City of Sausalito
Focus General Plan Update and EIR,
City of Glendale
General Plan Update and EIR,
County of Orange
General Plan Update and EIR,
City of La Verne
1300 Bristol Mixed -Income Project,
City of Newport Beach
Housing Element Update,
City of Temecula
Springs Specific Plan and EIR,
Sonoma County
Irvine Neighborhood Plan,
City of Irvine
General Plan Update and EIR,
City of Westminster*
General Plan Update and EIR,
City of Menifee*
SAVI Ranch Land Use and Mobility
Vision Plan,
City of Yorba Linda*
Vision Plan,
City of Carson*
Downtown Bellflower Transit -
Oriented Development Specific Plan
City of Bellflower*
* Project was completed by Ms. Tropiano while she was employed at another planning firm
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
UNION
-33-

Perry A. Banner

PRINCIPAL PLANNER

EDUCATION
BA, Economics
University of Western Ontario, London,
Canada
Diploma, Urban and Regional
Planning Technology
Fanshawe College, London, Canada
Ross Minority Program in Real
Estate
University of Southern California, Los
Angeles

ORGANIZATIONS
American Planning Association
Congress for New Urbanism
Perry Banner brings a combined 20 years of experience in local government and private practice planning to the firm with work in both the United States and Canada. Perry possesses a diverse range of skills, including project management, land use analysis, and policy development. His capabilities also include economic development and real estate development.

Perry has successfully managed a wide variety of urban planning projects, including general plans, community plans, specific plans, transit -oriented development plans, zoning documents, and public outreach programs. His passion lies in helping communities, neighborhoods, and their residents visualize the future and giving them the tools to make well-informed decisions. He believes in questioning conventional wisdom and always looking at problems from multiple angles and viewpoints to find effective and innovative solutions to develop plans that create results. Perry also supports private sector clients in navigating public agency approval processes.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
General Plan Update, Zoning Code
Update and EIR
City of Lomita
General Plan Update and EIR
City of San Marcos
General Plan Update and EIR
City of San Jacinto
General Plan Update and EIR
City of Lawndale
General Plan Update and EIR
City of Rolling Hills Estates*
Community Plans Continuum Project
County of San Bernardino*
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
City of Stanton
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
City of Hawthome
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
City of Westminster
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
City of Sausalito
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
City of Sonoma
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
City of Matinez
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Safety
Element Update and EJ Element
City of Glendora
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and
Safety Element Update
City of Lawndale*
Meredith International Centre Specific
Plan Amendment
Craig Development Corp/City of Ontario*
Pueblo Viejo Implementation Strategy
Plan and Design Guidelines
City of Coachella*
One Metro West Specific Plan and
EIR (Peer Review)
City of Costa Mesa*
Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance
City of Orange
TOD Overlay — Marine Avenue Green
Line Station
Cities of Lawndale, Hawthorne and
Redondo Beach*
Commercial Cannabis Program
City of Pasadena*
Short-term Rental Program
City of Pasadena*
SOMO Village Development Project
City of Rohnert Park
Pilot Travel Center (Palmdale)
Pilot Company
141st and Normandie Townhomes
Project IS/MND
The Olson Company
* Project was completed by Mr. Banner while he was employed at another agency or planning firm.

De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning. Design, and Environmental Firm
B1•■
-34-

Megan Thorne, MCP, LEED AP BD+C
SENIOR PLANNER + DESIGNER

EDUCATION
MCP, City Planning, Urban Design
Concentration
University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia
BS, Urban, Rural, and
Environmental Planning,
Brigham Young University, Provo
Research,
Cambridge University (UK), Pembroke
College

ORGANIZATIONS
Urban Land Institute
AICP Certified, American Planning
Association
AICP Certification # 35377
U.S. Green Building Council
LEED AP BD+C,
Credential Id # 10433552-AP-BD+C
Megan Thorne is a senior planner and project manager with De Novo Planning Group. With over 15 years of professional planning experience, Megan has worked on a wide variety of planning projects for public and private sector clients, including numerous specific plans, general plans, corridor plans, site plans, design guidelines, strategic plans, sustainability programs, visioning projects, transit - oriented development plans, zoning documents, outreach programs, and 3D visualizations. Megan possesses the ability to think creatively and envision change while keeping projects grounded with achievable benchmarks and implementable policy goals. She excels at communicating complex information and policy ideas in a compelling and simple manner. As a designer, Megan has differentiated herself with her hand -drawing abilities as well as her technical skills. Her technical expertise includes 3D modeling, graphic design, and web design. She continues to pioneer ways new technology can improve old processes from community outreach approaches to the web -publication of planning documents.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Burbank Media District Specific Plan
City of Burbank*
Rialto Specific Plan Update
City of Rialto*
River Walk Specific Plan
Stanislaus County
Downtown Bellflower Transit -
Oriented Development Specific Plan
City of Bellflower*
West Carson Transit -Oriented
Development Specific Plan
City of West Carson*
Morena Corridor Specific Plan
City of San Diego*
Long Beach Southeast Area (SEASP)
Specific Plan
City of Long Beach*
Stanton Plaza Specific Plan
Amendment and EIR Addendum
City of Stanton*
Airport Gateway Specific Plan
Inland Valley Development Agency*
Harmony Specific Plan
Lewis Companies, City of Highland*
De Anza Revitalization Plan
City of San Diego*
Fontana Downtown Design
Guidelines
City of Fontana
Irvine Neighborhood Plan
City of Irvine
General Plan Update and EIR
City of San Jacinto
General Plan Update and EIR
City of La Veme
General Plan Update and EIR
City of Lake Forest
General Plan Update and EIR
City of Westminster*
General Plan Update and EIR
City of San Marcos
South El Monte Zoning Code Update
City of South El Monte*
Hemet Zoning Code Update
City of Hemet*
ADU Ordinance and Guidebook
City of lone
City of Bellflower Sign Code Update
City of Bellflower
Temecula CAP Baseline Study
City of Temecula*
OCCOG Geospatial Solutions
Orange County Council of
Governments*
Housing Policy Leadership Academy
Southem Califomia Association of
Govemments*
Livermore Downtown Visioning & Site
Planning
City of Livermore*
* Project was completed by Ms. Thome while she was employed at another planning firm De Novo Planning Group
A Land [Ise Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
-35-

Erik Anderson, AICP

ASSOCIATE PLANNER

EDUCATION
Master of City and Regional
Planning,
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
BA, Political Science,
University of California, Los Angeles

ORGANIZATIONS
American Planning Association
Association of Environmental
Professionals
Congress for the New Urbanism

LICENSES/CERTIFICATIONS
American Institute of Certified
Planners, 2023, No. 343661
AWARDS
2019 California Planning Foundation,
Central Coast Section Scholarship
2019 & 2020 Errett Fisher Foundation
Scholarship
Erik has worked on a diverse range of projects for public and private sector clients, with a focus on environmental and sustainability planning, land -use planning, and policy development. Erik provides project support in the preparation of CEQA documentation and long-range planning documents, including General Plans, Housing Elements, Zoning updates, and Local Hazard Mitigation Plans. His experience includes grassroots lobbying with a non-profit environmental organization and work in the legal field. Erik is passionate about serving communities and creating innovative work through place -based development strategies

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
General Plan Update, Zoning Update,
and EIR,
City of Lomita
Housing Element, Rezoning Program,
and ODS CEQA Compliance,
City of Laguna Hills
General Plan Update, Zoning Update,
and EIR
City of San Jacinto
General Plan Update, Hawthorne Blvd
Specific Plan Update, and EIR
City of Lawndale
Zoning Update and Addendum to
General Plan EIR
City of Westminster
General Plan Land Use and Zoning
Amendments EIR
City of Gardena
General Plan Update and EIR
City of Red Bluff
Downtown Core EIR
City of Fontana
Mountain House Incorporation IS/ND
San Joaquin County
SR -120 Interchange IS/MND
City of Lathrop/Caltrans
Circulation Element Update IS/ND
City of Bell Gardens
U -Haul Expansion IS/MND
City of Gardena
2354 San Clemente IS/MND
City of Laguna Beach
385 Nyes Place IS/MND
City of Laguna Beach
1500 Raymond Ave Industrial IS/MND
City of Fullerton
1901 Via Burton Industrial CEQA
City of Fullerton
Applied Medical Expansion IS/MND
City of Lake Forest
2500 North Hollywood Way Hotel EIR
City of Burbank
The Harper Mixed Use Project EIR
City of West Hollywood
The Commons at Aliso Viejo ISIMND
City of Aliso Viejo
Paradise Chevrolet IS/MND
City of Temecula
Focused General Plan Update
City of Glendale
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Laguna Hills, CA
Housing and Safety Element Update
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
Cities of Lawndale, Glendale,
Hawthorne, La Verne, Avalon, Lake
Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita,
Westminster, Martinez, Temecula, and
San Jacinto
De Novo Planning Group
A land Use Planning, D
gn, and Environmental Firm
■ R ■
-36-

Abdul Jama

ASSISTANT PLANNER

EDUCATION
BA, Political Science,
University of California, San Diego
Master of City and Regional
Planning,
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

ORGANIZATIONS
American Planning Association
Association of Environmental
Professionals
AWARDS
2023 City and Regional Planning
Outstanding Student Award
2023 Academic Award of Excellence,
APA Central Coast Division
Abdul is an Assistant Planner with De Novo Planning Group. He has earned a Master Degree in City and Regional Planning from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.

Abdul has a deep interest in community development and environmental planning.

He has worked on a diverse range of projects for public and private sector clients, with a focus on environmental, land -use planning, and policy development. Abdul provides project support in the preparation of CEQA documentation and long- range planning documents, including General Plans and Local Hazard Mitigation Plans. His past experience included overseeing the entitlement process for technological infrastructure such as telecommunication towers and Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations. Abdul is excited to provide top quality environmental, land use and policy development to all communities and individuals.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
General Plan Update
City of Lomita
General Plan Update
City of Laguna Niguel
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Glendora
3201 Walnut Industrial IS/MND
City of Signal Hill
Downtown Concept Plan
City of Desert Hot Springs*
Downtown Campbell Vision Plan
City of Campbell*
* Project was completed by Mr. Jama while enrolled as a Graduate Student in City and Regional Planning at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
De Novo Planning Group
A land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
EINEM
-37-

Education
Master of Public Policy, UC
Berkeley, 1995
BA in Economics, UC Santa
Cruz, 1988
Previous Employment
Budget Analyst for City of San
Francisco (1995)
Research Analyst, Fisher Center
for Real Estate and Urban
Economics (1994-5)
Business Analyst, Port Authority
of New York/New Jersey (1994)
Print Media Journalist, States
News Service, Washington, DC
(1989-1992)
Affiliations
International Downtown
Association
International Economic
Development Council
Publications/Presentations
"Retail versus Housing:

Rethinking the Fiscal Paradigm"
Meta -hosted webinar,
June 10, 2022
"Bay Area Downtowns: Place
Types and Post Pandemic
Prospects." San Mateo Council
of Cities, May 22, 2022
"Repositioning Languishing
Assets: Building for the Missing
Middle."ULI Urban
Revitalization Council, Fall 2020
"COVID-19: Cross -Cutting
Trends toward a New Reality."
Lambda Alpha International
Spring / Summer, 2020
"Town Centers: Typologies and
Policy Directions," Bay Area
Planning Directors Association
(BAPDA), Spring 2017 Meeting
"Urban -Suburbia," Urban Land
Magazine, October 2008
Jason Moody
Managing Principal
ABOUT
As a Managing Principal at EPS, Jason has worked at the firm for over 20 years and has been instrumental in building the firms presence in Southern California.

He has extensive experience in the areas of real estate market and financial analysis, socio-economic forecasting, regional economics, and corridor revitalization. He regularly works for both public and private sector clients, focusing on the feasibility and economic implications of individual projects as well as larger areas, including mixed -use districts, corridors, and entire cities. Jason has applied this expertise in numerous land use planning and policy efforts, including General Plans, Specific Plans, and Master Plans, as part of multidisciplinary teams.

SELECTED REDEVELOPMENT & REVITALIZATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE Redevelopment Feasibility and Policy Guidance for Tustin Specific Plans EPS evaluated development economics and provided policy guidance designed to stimulate private investment in two specific plan areas targeted by the City, one along the Red Hill Ave. commercial corridor and the other focused in the historic downtown.

Development Strategies for Westminster Mixed Use Districts EPS is leading a multi -disciplinary team to evaluate regulatory and programmatic initiatives to promote re -investment and development within the mixed -use districts of the City of Westminster - areas that currently serve as traditional auto -oriented commercial corridors.

Lake Forest General Plan Update and Mixed -Use Zoning Codes EPS was part of a team that developed the City of Lake Forest's General Plan Update, which was APA Orange County's 2021 Comprehensive Plan of the Year, and that project was followed by a mixed -use zoning codes effort to advance the vision and transform largely industrial areas into high -quality mixed -use developments.

Fullerton Rail District Specific Plan
EPS is providing economic, market, and development feasibility analysis to support the Fullerton Rail District Specific Plan, a 35 -acre underutilized legacy industrial area with public land, located within the Downtown.

Westminster Mall Specific Plan
EPS provided analysis of development feasibility and public financing options for the Implementation Chapter of the Westminster Mall Specific Plan designed to reposition and revitalize an under -performing shopping center with mixed -use development. The Specific Plan was approved in 2022 and won the 2023 APA Orange Section "Economic Planning & Development Award of Excellence".

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1330 Broadway, Suite 450 " Oakland, CA 94612 The Economics of Land Use 510.841.9190 " [email protected] ' www.epsys.com -38-

JASON MOODY
2 SELECTED REDEVELOPMENT & REVITALIZATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) Mission Viejo Civic Core Strategic Plan and Visioning Effort EPS served as the lead economist on a multi -disciplinary team retained by the City of Mission Viejo to strategically redevelop its civic and commercial core. The EPS developed strategies to re -position a relatively antiquated cluster of retail centers to better adapt to emerging trends in consumer shopping patterns.

Fiscal and Economic Peer Review of Santa Ana Cabrillo Town Center EPS was retained by the City of Santa Ana to provide a third -party peer review of a fiscal and economic impact analysis of the residential mixed use Cabrillo Town Center project.

Duarte Huntington DriveJTown Center Revitalization Strategy EPS served as the lead economist on the multi -disciplinary consultant team for the Duarte Town Center Specific Plan, a proposed mixed -use activity center intended to serve as Duarte's civic and cultural hub. EPS conducted several follow up studies for the City, including negotiation support for individual projects and "complete streets" financing analysis.

Glendora Commercial Corridor Revitalization Study
EPS provided market analysis to support reinvestment strategies for two separate commercial corridors for the City of Glendora, one for Arrow Highway and the other for the historic Route 66.

Market and Financial Analysis to Support State Corridor Housing Legislation EPS is providing market and financial analysis to support the California State Assembly draft new legislation to support housing, including AB 2011, approved in 2022 to support housing along major commercial corridors and SB 423 which would modify and extend SB 35.

Rolling Hills Estates Commercial District Market Study
Working for the City of Rolling Hills Estates, EPS evaluated the market conditions affecting revitalization of the Peninsula Commercial District and provided strategic policy recommendations to the City Council.

Downtown Rialto Revitalization and TOD Strategy
EPS provided market and financial analysis to support a comprehensive commercial revitalization and TOD strategy for downtown Rialto, a bedroom community in the San Gabriel Valley.

Carlsbad Village Revitalization Strategy
EPS is providing economic analysis and strategic implementation recommendations to help the City of Carlsbad leverage the location and historic setting of its Downtown to create a more successful mixed -use district.

Downtown San Clemente Development Framework
EPS provided market analysis and financial feasibility testing of targeted opportunity sites to support a Development Framework document intended to guide planning efforts for downtown San Clemente, a historic beach town in Southern California.

Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan
EPS evaluated market and development feasibility issues relevant to implementing a comprehensive revitalization plan along the El Camino Real corridor in Redwood City.

San Bruno Transit Corridor Area Strategic Plan
EPS was retained by the City as part of a multi -disciplinary team to evaluate the market and financial feasibility of revitalization strategies and specific opportunity sites for a mixed -use corridor encompassing the City's downtown and both BART and Caltrain stations.

Signal Hill the Signal Hill Civic Center Master Plan
EPS evaluated financing options to support a master plan to include a new Community Center, a performing arts amphitheater, and related infrastructure to be integrated within the City of Signal Hill's existing civic center and community park.
-39-

JZMK PROPOSAL

LOMITA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Andrew Watkins is an architect, urban designer, and planner with over 20 years of professional experience. Andrew is licensed in California and Massachusetts.

As a principal at JZMK, his work focuses on large-scale urban design projects that explore the confluence of ecology and urbanism. Andrew has led the design of community
plans, urban design and new city planning projects in
diverse locales, the United States, China, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Botswana, Ethiopia, Germany, Italy, Armenia and Mexico.

Andrew's work focuses on place making and creating
high -quality public realms. His project experience includes urban and suburban revitalization as well as green -field development, with new community work totaling over 20,000 acres of development featuring more than 50,000 homes,
retail, commercial and light industrial districts.

Andrew has particular interests in projects that engage wellness and the ecological systems of food, mobility, waste, shelter and water.

A Full Member of ULI, he is part of the national Residential Neighborhood Development Council, Health Leaders
Network and serves locally as part of the Building Healthy Places Council and For Sale Housing Council. Andrew holds a Bachelors of Architecture from Syracuse University and a Masters of Architecture in Urban Design from the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University.

ANDREW WATKINS

PRINCIPAL, DIRECTOR OF URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING

ROLE ON PROJECT

YEARS EXPERIENCE

EDUCATION

PRINCIPALS IN CHARGE AND PROJECT

MANAGER
20 MASTERS IN ARCHITECTURE IN

URBAN DESIGN

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE,

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL

OF ARCHITECTURE
CONTACT [email protected]

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

LAKE FOREST GENERAL PLAN
CLIENT: CITY OF LAKE FOREST
LOCATION: LAKE FOREST CALIFORNIA
Urban design and planning services were provided for the City of Lake Forest General Plan Update. Lake Forest was pursuing a modern General Plan that would reflect contemporary community values and priorities — and provide the framework to balance quality of life with improved economic and fiscal conditions. As part of the larger General Plan Land Use Map, five focus areas were identified as potential locations for future growth, to support economic development, maintain fiscal sustainability, and help create activity nodes.

LAKE FOREST MIXED -USE ZONING
CLIENT: CITY OF LAKE FOREST
LOCATION: LAKE FOREST CALIFORNIA
The Lake Forest Mixed Use Zoning Code builds on the City's recently adopted General Plan Update 2040 by developing new codes for five mixed -use activity centers/focus areas. The code include five distinct types of mixed -use designations that focus on high quality public realms and allow for a blend of residential and non-residential uses at varying densities and intensities. The new mixed -use development areas will provide diverse housing options as well as the flexibility to attract new and desirable development typologies.

SAN MARCOS GENERAL PLAN
CLIENT: CITY OF SAN MARCOS
LOCATION: SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
The San Marcos General Plan provides contemporary updates on the key topics of land use, equity, housing, economic development, transportation, and parks and recreation. The process is a community -driven effort to ensure the community's needs and objectives are reflected in an update intended to guide development over the next 10 to 20 years. 4 -40-

EDUCATION
► MESM, Master of Environmental Science and Management
Donald Bien School of Environmental Science and Management University of California, Santa Barbara
► BS, Science - Ecology and Systematic Biology
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
► Certified Professional in Stormwater Duality (CPSWQ)
► QSD/ QSP Certified

AFFILIATIONS
► BIA/0range County
► National Association of Environmental Professionals
► Urban land Institute
► U.S. Green Building Council
FEI TEAM MEMBER SINCE 2001
FEI PRINCIPAL SINCE 2011

IAN ADAM, MESM, CPSWQ, QSD
i'T"E Vice President, Specialty Practices/Stormwater Manager j O"'`= Irvine, CA Ian is Vice President, Specialty Practices and Fuscoe's Stormwater Management team leader. His specialty is water resources, with an emphasis in water quality regulations, sea -level rise policy, Clean Water Act Citizen Suits and resource agency negotiation. Since joining Fuscoe in 2001, Ian has served as an effective leader and technical resource for numerous projects and clients.

For the past decade, Ian's experience with local and regional professional thoroughbred stabling operations has led to him to become an expert on CAM NPDES permitting, including the negotiation of unique individual permits with the top management levels of all three Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Diego, Santa Ana and Los Angeles). Ian has also worked extensively in the California Coastal Zone, processing Coastal Development Permits, addressing Sea -Level Rise technically and politically, and working in partnership with Coastal Staff on individual projects, Specific Plans and Local Coastal Programs. Through this experience, Ian is uniquely trained to address complex drainage and water quality projects for both public and private clients, especially those needing site -specific solutions, multi -phased schedules and high-level regional board involvement. For the past two years, Ian has been assisting local municipalities and counties on regional stormwater improvement projects, including both feasibility and final design.

Ian has worked on over 60 General Plan Updates and Specific Plans throughout California to assist municipalities and developers with infrastructure assessments, zoning approvals, EIR technical support and long term capital improvement planning, including:
► City of Santa Ana General Plan Update
► Doheny Village Specific Plan
► City of Westminster General Plan Update
► City of Fountain Valley General Plan
► City of Long Beach, Long Beach Southeast Area Specific Plan ► City of Bellflower TOD Specific Plan
-41-

of BELLF1,o,„��
•R0wING TOGET-o4
staff
eport
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
FROM: Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to execute: 1) Task Order No. 7 with Dudek, for the preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report; and 2) Agreement File No. 805.1, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with De Novo Planning Group, for the preparation of a Specific Plan, Housing Element Amendment, and Environmental Justice Element for City owned property located at 9030 Somerset Boulevard ("Subject Property").

DATE: October 14, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Subject Property — formerly a golf course and open space - consists of approximately 22 acres and is currently under lease to Hollywood Sports Park as an outdoor recreation opportunity to residents of the community and surrounding areas. The State of California has determined that there is a significant regional and statewide need for housing available to various income levels, and local plans have identified the critical need for open space.

Understanding these needs, and in furtherance of the goals and policies set forth in recent updates to the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, the City intends on amending the land use for and rezoning this site to allow for future mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses). In order to accomplish this, a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and a Project Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") are required. In addition, staff determined that a new Environmental Justice Element of the City's General Plan is required. On April 8, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to release the Notice of Preparation ("NOP"), which is the first step in the process of preparing the EIR, and to execute a Task Order with Dudek for preparation of an EIR. Following the April 8, 2024 meeting, the NOP was prepared and was sent to City stakeholders and the public for public comment. On July 10, 2024, a scoping meeting was held as part of the NOP process.

Following the completion of the NOP, a defined scope for the EIR was prepared along with an updated cost proposal from Dudek. Staff also sought out consulting services for the preparation of a Specific Plan related to the Zone Change and amendments to the General Plan, which includes amending the Housing Element and preparing a new Environmental Justice Element. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 7 with Dudek to prepare the EIR and to execute Agreement File No. 805.1 with De Novo Planning Group to prepare the Specific Plan, Housing Element Amendment, and Environmental Justice Element for the Subject Property.

-1-

Staff Report — Dudek Task Order and De Novo Planning Group Agreement October 14, 2024

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 7 with Dudek for preparation of an EIR; and
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 805.1, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with De Novo Planning Group for preparation of a Specific Plan, Housing Element Amendment, and Environmental Justice Element; and 3) Approve a budget amendment to allocate $710,000 for the contract services in Account No. 542-42054-4132; or
4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
Task Order No. 7 with Dudek will not exceed $320,000 for environmental planning consulting services. Agreement File No. 805.1 with De Novo Planning Group will not exceed $390,000 for planning consulting services. These consulting services will be provided under the General Plan/Zoning Update Contract Services Account No. 542-42054-4132.

DISCUSSION
The State of California has identified housing affordability as a significant challenge facing local communities and the state as a whole, and Bellflower residents in particular have consistently ranked the ability to afford housing in our community as one of the most serious issues facing our community. In a 2023 survey, 81% of residents identified a lack of affordable housing as a very or somewhat serious problem facing Bellflower.

The Subject Property consists of approximately 22 acres which is currently zoned for and operated as open space and outdoor recreation available to Bellflower residents and visitors.

Understanding the community's priorities and the statewide need to build housing affordable to all income levels, and although the site is currently under lease to Hollywood Sports Park for those purposes, the City intends on amending the land use for and rezoning the site to allow for alternative uses in the future to include mixed uses, such as high density residential and open spaces uses to assist the City in meeting the demand for affordable housing and its obligations under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"). There is no specific development project proposed at this time.
• Dudek — Task Order
On April 8, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to release the NOP and conduct a scoping meeting, which is the first step in the process of preparing the EIR, and to execute a Task Order with Dudek for preparation of an EIR. The purpose of the NOP is to seek public comments on what should be addressed in the scope of the EIR. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to further receive input on the scope of the EIR. -2

Staff Report — Dudek Task Order and De Novo Planning Group Agreement October 14, 2024

DISCUSSION — Continued
The NOP was sent to stakeholders and the public on April 22, 2024 and the public review period commenced on April 26, 2024. On July 10, 2024, a scoping meeting was held and no one from the public participated. On July 25, 2024, the 90 -day public review period for the NOP ended and 6 comment letters were received from the following agencies: 1) Native American Heritage Commission, 2) Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, 3) LA County Sanitation Districts, 4) Caltrans, 5) South Coast AQMD, and 6) Metro.

Following the completion of the NOP public review period and the scoping meeting, Dudek prepared an updated scope and budget for the EIR. Dudek's updated cost proposal was based on the updated scope and is estimated at $320,000 to complete the EIR. The City has an existing Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for on -call consulting services related to CEQA review. The preparation and completion of the NOP and the scoping meeting was accomplished under that agreement by Task Order No. 4. Since the estimated cost to complete the EIR exceeds the maximum amount allowed under the existing agreement, Task Order No. 7 was prepared and requires City Council approval for the amount and the scope of work (Attachment A).
• De Novo Planning Group — Agreement File No. 805.1
In order to amend the land use for and rezone the Subject Property to allow for future mixed uses, in addition to the EIR, a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Environmental Justice Element are proposed. The General Plan Amendment includes revising the Land Use Plan in the Land Use Element from Open Space to Mixed Use, and amending the Certified 2021-2029 Housing Element for consistency. The Zone Change includes changing the current zoning from O -S (Open Space) to Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will include illustrative designs and development standards for high -density residential and open space on the Subject Property Given that two elements of the General Plan will be amended concurrently (e g Land Use and Housing), an Environmental Justice Element is also required.

De Novo Planning Group will prepare the Specific Plan, amendments to the Housing Element, and a new Environmental Justice Element of the General Pan. De Novo Planning Group is a land use and environmental planning firm specializing in general plan updates, community planning, environmental studies, and sustainability planning. The City previously obtained consulting services from De Novo Planning Group to prepare new sign regulations, which were adopted in 2020.

To complete the Specific Plan, Housing Element amendment, and the Environmental Justice Element, De Novo Planning Group estimates the project cost to be $390.000. Agreement File No. 805.1 was prepared (Attachment B).

ATTACHMENTS
Dudek — Task Order No. 7 4
De Novo Planning Group — Agreement File No. 805.1 13
-3-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
AGREEMENT FILE NO. 1034
TASK ORDER NO. 7
Date Prepared: October 14, 2024
Consultant/Contractor Name: Dudek
Project Name: Hollywood Sports Park Proposal (General Plan Amendment No. 24-01 and Zone Change No. 24-01)
Account Number: 542-42054-4132
Total Cost: $320,000
Description of services to be performed under this Task Order:

Preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report for the zone change and general plan amendments to allow for the future development of mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses) at the Hollywood Sports Park site located at 9030 Somerset Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 6271-001-900 and 6271-001-901).

Recommended/Approved by:

Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Date
Building Services
Ryan Smoot, City Manager Date
-4-

October 4, 2024
Elizabeth Oba
Director of Planning and Building Services
City of Bellflower Community Development Department
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706
Subject: Updated Proposal for the Hollywood Sports Park Project Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Oba:

Dudek appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to the City of Bellflower (City) for professional environmental services on the Hollywood Sports Park Project. As part of Dudek's initial task for this project, Dudek assisted the City with the circulation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and conducted a scoping meeting. Six comment letters from various organizations were received during the scoping period.

At this time, Dudek understands the City has decided to move forward with the project, including development of a specific plan, revisions to elements of the City's General Plan, and zoning code amendments. These actions require the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), as anticipated by the NOP and scoping process.

The EIR is envisioned to provide a mostly programmatic level of analysis, though the development of a specific plan document may enable the EIR to include some project -level analyses.

Dudek understands that another consultant will be preparing the specific plan, general plan elements, and other planning documents. Dudek will use those documents to inform the EIR project description and serve as the basis for the analysis. Based on the passage of time since the authorization for the NOP work and to reflect additional details about the EIR process, Dudek proposes the included scope of work and budget for preparation of an EIR for the project.

Project Understanding
The City of Bellflower Planning and Building Services department circulated the NOP for the project know as Hollywood Sports Park Proposal (General Plan Amendment No. 24-01 and Zone Change No. 24-01). The scoping period began on April 26, 2024 and closed on July 25, 2024. A scoping meeting was held on July 10, 2024.

The project would include the future development of mixed -uses (high -density residential and open space uses) within City -owned property currently being utilized by the Hollywood Sports Park, a 22.0 -acre site used for recreational activities and events that include outdoor paintball, airsoft, softpellet tag, and gelburst. The project site, which is located at 15240 Lakewood Boulevard, 9030-9146 Somerset Boulevard, and 9215 Flora Vista

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
Street (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 6271-001-900 and 6271-001-901), is owned by the City and leased to the operator of the sports park. The site is currently designated Open Space by the City's General Plan Land Use Element, and 0-S Open Space by the City's Zoning Code. Project boundaries include Somerset Boulevard to the north, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) right-of-way to the south; and Lakewood Boulevard further to the west. Surrounding uses include strip commercial along Somerset Boulevard to the north, single-family residential neighborhoods located to the south and east, and mixed industrial and commercial uses, along with a mobile home park, to the west.

Proposed project approvals would include an amendment to the General Plan (GPA No. 24-01), which would amend the Land Use Plan in the Land Use Element to revise the project site from the current Open Space land use designation to the proposed Mixed Use land use designation, and amend the Housing Element for consistency; as well as a Zone Change (ZC No. 24-01) to amend the Zoning Map in the Zoning Code to change the project site from the existing 0-S Zone to the "Specific Plan".

Dudek understands at this time, actual mixed -use development and design plans have not been created and are not being reviewed or considered by the City. Therefore, to quantify potential impacts to the greatest extent possible, a development scenario has been formulated based on a maximum development density and those permitted uses as established by the proposed GPA and ZC. Proposed GPA No. 24-01 will allow high -density residential uses and open space uses. For purposes of analysis, Dudek anticipates 20.5 acres of the 22.0 -acre Project Site could be utilized for high -density residential uses (100 dwelling units/acre maximum); while the remaining 1.5 acres could be utilized for open space uses. Based on this 100 du/acre maximum density, the

20.5 -acre portion of the Project Site could allow for a gross of 2,050 residential units. However, given that parking, landscaping, common areas, internal streets, and other infrastructure would reduce developable residential area, it is assumed that there will be a 20 percent reduction of the 2,050 dwelling units. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, it is estimated that 1,640 dwelling units could be developed at the Project Site. Regarding open space uses, it is anticipated that outdoor active open space and recreational activities would be allowed.

Dudek understands the City would like the EIR to analyze the impacts of implementing the GPA and ZC using the maximum -density development scenario that has been envisioned. The EIR would be relied upon to the extent possible as future development approvals are considered by the City. Future projects are anticipated to utilize CEQA streamlining provisions for later projects under a program EIR. The focus of this proposal effort has been on updating the scope of work for Task 2 (EIR) based on current information and project understanding. Task 2 would be processed as an individual task order under Dudek's existing master services agreement with the City.

Dudek's Task 2 proposal anticipates the technical analysis and level of documentation that would be needed based on our current understanding of the project and the City's CEQA compliance needs.

Finally, Dudek understands that the City is moving forward with the project and EIR in absence of application from a third party such that the City is the project sponsor. Should the City decide to discontinue the project at any time, Dudek would be notified to stop work. In this event, Dudek would stop all work immediately and would not continue to prepare or finalize technical reports or EIR components.

DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
2 -6-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
Project Management Team
The project management team for the EIR will include Cori Resha, senior project manager, and Emily Seklecki, project manager. Emily will oversee the day-to-day management of the EIR, while Cori will provide senior review and support management of the project. Both Emily and Cori worked on the NOP for the project, and have worked together on many other projects. Their close collaboration during all aspects of the project will ensure that the City is provided with a quality CEQA document that meets the City's needs.

Scope of Work
Task 2 Environmental Impact Report
With the close of the scoping period in July 2024, the City has decided to move forward with preparation of the EIR. Based on the nature of the project description and our understanding of the project, Dudek will prepare the EIR with an eye towards streamlining the CEQA review for later development projects. By providing a programmatic analysis in the EIR, subsequent applications for development within the project site would be able to utilize CEQA streamlining provisions to provide efficiency and expedience during the development review process. As the City has indicated that another consultant will be preparing a specific plan, general plan amendments, and the zoning amendment, Dudek will utilize those documents to provide as much project -level analysis, enhancing the streamlining opportunities for future projects within the specific plan.

Dudek understands the City prepared an EIR in 2000 for approval of a project to replace an existing golf course on the project site with the current sports facility. Dudek will review the prior EIR and incorporate all relevant information into the proposed EIR.

Subtask 2.1: Technica Reports
Preparation of the EIR sections would begin with technical reports as warranted by project information. Dudek will also utilize existing City and other agency planning documents, City ordinances, and a site visit to develop the background and analysis. Technical reports that would be completed for the EIR include the following topics:
• Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy
■ Biological Resources
• Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
■ Noise
• Transportation
Dudek assumes technical analysis for aesthetics/visual simulations will not be needed because the project will propose development within an urbanized area that will be compatible with existing conditions. Dudek assumes technical analysis will not be needed for historic resources because the site's existing facilities were constructed DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
3 -7-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
after 2000 and do not meet the age requirements to be considered historically significant. Dudek will provide one draft version (electronic only) of each technical report to the City. Comments on the draft reports would be addressed during the preparation of the final reports. Should additional drafts be needed, a scope and budget augmentation may be needed.

Deliverab es
• Draft technical reports in electronic format (MS Word) • Finalized technical reports in electronic format (MS Word and PDF) Subtask 2.2: Admin'strative Draft EIR
Dudek will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) for City review. Preparation of the ADEIR sections would utilize the technical reports prepared by Dudek as discussed in Subtask 2.1. Dudek will also utilize existing City and other agency planning documents, City ordinances, and a site visit to develop the background and analysis.

Each section will describe the existing regional setting, project site and nearby features, which will constitute the baseline conditions for the evaluation of impacts. Existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the City's General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs, City codes, development standards and design guidelines, will be reviewed and summarized as applicable in the regulatory setting of each technical section of the ADEIR. The methods of analysis and City standards of significance used for determining impacts of the project will be explicitly described in each technical sections of the ADEIR, including any assumptions that are important to understand the conclusions of the analysis.

The analysis of each topic in the ADEIR would evaluate the impacts of the proposed project against existing, baseline conditions (based on the date of the NOP), as well as the project's contribution to cumulative impacts.

Where available, mitigation will be recommended for significant impacts, and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures will be described. The ADEIR would also include evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project as required by CEQA. The alternatives would include a No Project Alternative, and additional development alternatives. The development alternatives would be developed based on the project objectives established for the project, with the goal of reducing any of the significant impacts identified in the ADPEIR. This scope of work assumes development and analysis of two development alternatives. Should additional alternatives for analysis be proposed, a change order may be required.

Deliverab es
• Administrative Draft EIR in electronic format (MS Word) Subtask 2.3: Pu c Review Draft E R
Following the City's review and comment of all sections of the ADEIR, Dudek would revise the ADEIR to produce a Screencheck Draft EIR. It is assumed that only limited revisions would be required at this stage to respond to City comments on the administrative draft, and no additional technical analysis would be required. Should comments on the ADEIR warrant additional technical analysis or require a substantial effort to review the document, an amendment may be needed. The Screencheck Draft EIR would be submitted to the City in electronic format (MS Word and PDF) so they City may review the document for any major flaws prior to the document being finalized DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
4 -8-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
into the Public Draft EIR. It is assumed that City comments/revisions on the Screencheck Draft EIR would be minor, as befits a screencheck draft, and that comments requiring additional analysis or substantial revisions may require a modification to the scope and budget. During this stage, Dudek would provide the City will provide a draft version of the notice of availability (NOA) that is required as part of the public review process for the Draft EIR. Dudek will also provide drafts of the notice of completion (NOC) and summary form as required by the State Clearinghouse. It is assumed that comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR would be minimal and not require substantial revisions by Dudek.

Once the Draft EIR is finalized and ready for printing, an electronic version and three hard copies would be delivered to the City.

It is important to note that CEQA requires a Draft EIR to be released for public review and comment for a period of at least 30 but no more than 60 days. Dudek will coordinate with the City to determine the public review period for the Draft EIR, which will be reflected in the Draft EIR and associated notices.

Dudek will upload the public Draft EIR and required forms to the State Clearinghouse's CEQAnet database on the City's behalf. Dudek would also coordinate the mailing of hard copies of the NOA to interested parties, agencies, and stakeholders. Mailing of the NOA is assumed to include no more than 50 recipients and would be transmitted via regular mail service, and there is no need for certified mailing. The City would be responsible for electronic transmittal of the Draft EIR and/or notices to any parties that have requested such notice or documents. The NOA is also required to be published in a newspaper of general circulation; the City would be responsible for coordination and costs associated with newspaper publication. The City would also be responsible for uploading the Draft EIR and notices to its website and physical posting of notices as required. This scope assumes that three hard copies of the Draft EIR (with appendices included on CD or flash drive) would be provided to the City. If the City wishes for additional hard copies of the Draft EIR to be produced and mailed to local libraries, the scope and cost estimate can be modified to reflect this component.

Deliverab es
• Screencheck Draft EIR in electronic format (MS Word and PDF) • Public Draft EIR (electronic and up to 3 hard copies), NOA, NOC, and SCH summary form Subtas• 2.4:Admin'strafve Fina E R
Following the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR (30-60 days, as discussed above), Dudek would prepare an Administrative Final EIR (AFEIR) in compliance with all CEQA requirements. This task includes bracketing all comments received from agencies, organizations, tribes, and the public and preparing written responses to be included in the AFEIR. If comments received reiterate the same concerns, Dudek will prepare master responses to address those comments. This scope of work assumes receipt of up to 15 comment letters and 75 individual comments. If more than 15 comment letters and/or 75 comments are received or detailed comment letters from attorneys or other organizations that raise complex CEQA issues indicating the potential for project litigation, Dudek may request a budget augment. Should comments on the Draft EIR raise new issues or require that new surveys or technical studies be conducted to complete adequate responses, Dudek will initiate discussions immediately with City staff to evaluate the options for CEQA processing. It is anticipated that during DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
5 -9-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
development of the AFEIR, Dudek would coordinate with City staff to understand and develop the City's preferred language for responding to comments that do not raise issues with the analyses or adequacy of the Draft EIR.

The AFEIR will include the text of the Draft EIR, revised to reflect any changes resulting from the responses to comments or City -initiated changes. All changes to the text of the Draft EIR will be identified in strike out and underline in the AFEIR.

Another required component of the AFEIR is a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Dudek will draft the MMRP document, which identifies the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR to reduce or eliminate significant impacts of the project. The MMRP will include the text of all mitigation measures and include columns indicating the timing and responsibility for the mitigation measures.

As part of the Final EIR process, Dudek will also draft the required CEQA Findings of Fact (FOF) and, if needed, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). An SOC is required when an EIR identifies any impacts of a project that would be significant and unavoidable. While Dudek would draft the SOC, it is assumed that the City would provide information to be used in the SOC, such as any studies indicating the need for the project, any market analyses supporting the project, and any other information that should be considered when deciding whether to approve a project despite its significant environmental impacts. Tile CEQA FOF document is compiled using the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR, and includes the required findings regarding project impacts and alternatives. The administrative Final EIR submitted to the City for review would include the MMRP, FOF, and SOC, if needed.

De iverab es
■ Administrative Final EIR, including responses to all comments received and presentation of all text changes proposed to the Draft EIR in electronic format (Word and PDF). • Required notices (NOC, NOD) in electronic format (Word and PDF). • CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in electronic format (Word).

Subtask 2.5:Final EIR
Following receipt of one set of reconciled comments and revisions on the administrative Final EIR, Dudek will revise the document to produce the public Final EIR. Once the public Final EIR is prepared, Dudek will provide the City with electronic versions (Word and PDF) and up to three hard copies. The City shall be responsible for distribution of the responses to agency comments to the respective agencies, which is required at least 10 days prior to project approval. Dudek shall upload the Final EIR to the State Clearinghouse's CEQAnet database. In anticipation of the project moving to a public hearing shortly following the release of the Final EIR, Dudek will prepare a notice of determination (NOD) to be filed following project approval, as required by CEQA.

As part of the Final EIR process, Dudek's project manager and senior project manager would attend and participate as needed in up to two (2) public hearings for the project. Dudek would assist City staff with CEQA language to be used in the staff report. Dudek would also develop PowerPoint slides to be used during public hearings to provide information regarding the CEQA process and the EIR. Following project approval, Dudek will submit the NOD to the Los Angeles County Clerk, along with the required fees (check from the City payable to Los DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
6 -10-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
Angeles County to cover the current filing fee and Fish & Game fee). Once filed with the County Clerk and a receipt received for payment of fees, Dudek will upload the NOD to the CEQAnet database, as required by CEQA.

Deliverables
■ Final EIR in electronic and hard copy formats.
• Required notices (NOC, NOD).
• Attendance of two (2) public hearings and preparation time.

Subtask 2.6: Project Management and Meetings
Dudek's project manager and senior project manager will oversee all aspects of the project related to CEQA compliance, technical support, staff oversight, scheduling, and budget management. Dudek will participate in regular progress meetings with the City during an anticipated 18 -month period of EIR preparation.

Fee Estimate
Work pursuant to this contract will be billed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with Dudek's current rate sheet, not to exceed $317,195.00 for Task 2.

DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
-11-

SUBJECT: HOLLYWOOD SPORTS PARK PROJECT EIR PROPOSAL
Task Milestone Fee
Task 2 Environmental Impact Report

2.1 Technical Reports

2.1.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy

2.1.2 Biological Resources

2.1.3 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources

2.1.4 Tribal Cultural Resources
$27,165.00
$11,820.00
$22,830.00
$6,545.00

2.1.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
$12,615.00

2.1.6 Noise

2.1.7 Transportation
$16,665.00

2.2 Administrative Draft EIR

2.3 2.4
Public Review Draft EIR
Administrative Final EIR

2.5 Public Final EIR

2.6 $21,600.00
$27,165.00
Project Management and Meetings
$11,820.00
$22,830.00
$6,545.00
$12,615.00
Total $317,195.00
Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City with this important project. Please contact me at 916 438 5303 or [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Corinne Resha, JD
Senior Project Manager
Att.: Fee Estimate
DUDEK
OCTOBER 4, 2024
8 -12-

AGREEMENT FILE NO. 805.1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER AND

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP

FOR PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 14th day of October 2024, by and between the CITY OF BELLFLOWER, a municipal corporation and general law city ("CITY") and De Novo Planning Group, a California S Corporation ("CONSULTANT").

1. CONSIDERATION.

A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, below;
B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement;
C As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to exceed $390,000 for CONSULTANT's services. CITY may modify this amount as set forth below. Unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement, CITY will pay this sum as specified in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by reference.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit "B " which is incorporated by reference.

B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement.

3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. While performing this Agreement, CONSULTANT will use the appropriate generally accepted professional standards of practice existing at the time of performance utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services. CITY will continuously monitor CONSULTANT's services. CITY will notify CONSULTANT of any deficiencies and CONSULTANT will have fifteen (15) days after such notification to cure any shortcomings to CITY's satisfaction. Costs associated with curing the deficiencies will be borne by CONSULTANT.