and that the specified fees have been paid, the permit must be issued." Emphasis added.
This language is substantially similar to the static language in Title 24 which states this:
IA] 105.3 Application for permit.
To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file an application therefor in writing on a form fumished by the department of building safety for that purpose. Such application shall:
1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made.
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similar description that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building or work.
3. Indicate the use and occupancy for which the proposed work is intended.
4. Be accompanied by construction documents and other information as required in Section 107.
5. State the valuation of the proposed work.
6. Be signed by the applicant, or the applicant's authorized agent.
7. Give such other data and information as required by the building official. 14 105.3.1 Action on application.
The building official shall examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing. If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor. If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and laws and ordinances applicable thereto, the building official shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable.
There is no mention of the District's Chief being any part of the plan review for a building permit. Nor does the Letter identify any such purported authority. All authority as to reviewing plans and issuing building permits lies solely within the power and discretion of the Building Official.
The City is not required to adopt the District's Fire Code At the time of Mr. Patterson's February 2019 email, the City was still utilizing the 2016 LAFC. Because of the District's failure to communicate with the City, however, the City Council opted in December 2019 to adopt the 2019 California Fire Code, with local amendments; it subsequently adopted the 2022 California Fire Code, with local amendments.
The Letter's assertion that the District may impose the LAFC upon the City notwithstanding the City Council's legislative authority is contradicted by the express statutory language of Health and Safety Code § 13869.7(c):
4887-7188-4010 v1
-7-
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Jenny P. Tam
September 26, 2024
(c) The fire protection district shall transmit the adopted ordinance to the city, county, or city and county where the ordinance will apply. The legislative body of the city, county, or city and county, may ratify, modify, or deny an adopted ordinance and transmit its determination to the district within 15 days of the determination. Any modification or denial of an adopted ordinance shall include a written statement describing the reasons for any modifications or denial. No ordinance adopted by the district shall be effective until ratification by the city, county, or city and county where the ordinance will apply. Upon ratification of an adopted ordinance, the city, county, or city and county, shall file a copy of the findings of the district, and any findings of the city, county, or city and county, together with the adopted ordinance expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers, with the Department of Housing and Community Development.
The City Council did not ratify either the 2019 or the 2022 version of the LAFC. It does not, therefore, have any effect within the City of Bellflower. The City is entirely within its statutory rights to take (or not take) such action. Indeed, based upon the District's failure to meet the City's expectations as to plan review, the City Council found that rejecting the LAFC was in the public's best interest.
The City is not required to take action in response to the Letter The Letter asserts that the City must "comply" with the District's demands not later than October 17, 2024. While the City is certainly ready to discuss these matters with the District — as it has repeatedly offered — it is under no time constraint to take legislative action in response to the District. First, the City Council's next regular meeting does not occur until October 14, 2024. Even if the City were inclined to take legislative action in response to the Letter, it could not do so by the artificially imposed deadline. At best, an ordinance could be introduced on October 14th; that would still, however, require a second reading and would not take effect until 30 days afterward.
Second, what is the perceived urgency? The City has offered an alternative to the District's plan review for more than five years with the District's knowledge. Now there is a sudden urgency that the City Council react to the District's demands?! Despite the hyperbole expressed by some of the District's officials, the legal reality remains the same: the City's Building Official reviews building plans and issues building permits; the District's Chief does not. This was always the situation — even before 2019 — and remains so now. It would not change even were the City Council to consider adopting the 2022 LA Fire Code.
4887-7188-4010 v1
-8-
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Jenny P. Tam
September 26, 2024
General Observations
This letter does not respond to every one of the assertions made in the Letter.
That does not mean, however, that the City waives any legal argument in response to the District's position. Among other things, the City's Building Official specifically contacted the State Fire Marshall in February 2019 to confirm there was no objection from that office as to the City's intended action in providing an alternative to permit applicants for plan review. I also note that the City does not have a contract with the District for plan review. This is particularly important considering the ongoing State mandates as to processing building permit applications in an expeditious manner for residential housing projects: the City is not going to assume liability for the District's failure to timely review residential housing plans.
Rather than engage in saber rattling, it seems that the District should take the City's offer (which has been on the table for at least the past five years) to figure out a way forward that is mutually beneficial. Tying up the judicial system with a dispute that may be resolved by public officials who are all trying to do what is best for the public seems irrational. We are all in the same business of serving the public. Let us try to find a way to best accomplish that goal.
Very trul yours,
BU''E, ��MI, M & SORENSEN, LLP
ail H. Berge
City Attorn
C: City Council
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Supervisor Janice Hahn
KHB
Enclosure
4887-7188-4010 v1
-9-
BELLFLOWER CODE
105.3 Application for permit. To obtain a permit, the applicant must first file an application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the Building Official for that purpose. Such application must:
1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made.
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similar description that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building or work.
3. Indicate the use and occupancy for which the proposed work is intended.
4. Be accompanied by construction documents and other information as required in Section 107.
5. State the valuation of the proposed work.
6. Be signed by the applicant, or the applicant's authorized agent.
7. Give such other data and information as required by the Building Official. 105.3.1 Action on application. The Building Official will examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and amendments within a reasonable time after filing.
If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of applicable law, the Building Official must reject such application in writing.
No building permit or other similar applicable permit bearing on property development or use including additions, modifications or revisions may be issued unless and until the review and approval of all other departments and agencies having legal authority for review of construction projects have found the construction project to be in compliance with all applicable code provisions or entitlements.
When the Building Official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of applicable law, the Building Official must issue a permit in accordance with applicable law.
105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work is deemed expired 12 months after the completion of any submittal review unless a permit has been issued. The Building Official is authorized to grant one extension of time of an unexpired application for additional periods not exceeding 12 months. The extension must be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.
For the purpose of this section, contact by a City representative indicating the review is completed is deemed completion of any submittal review. 105.4 Permit issuance. The application, plans, specifications, computations, and other data filed by an applicant for a permit will be reviewed by the Building Official. Such plans may be reviewed by other City officials to verify compliance with applicable law. If the Building Official finds that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans, specifications and other data filed therewith conform to applicable law, and that the specified fees have been paid, the permit must be issued.
When the Building Official issues the permit where plans are required, they must endorse in writing or stamp the plans and specifications. Such approved plans and specifications cannot be changed, modified or altered without authorization from the Building Official, and all work regulated by the codes must be done in accordance with the approved plans. 15-B:6 Publication, Jul 2024
-10-
COUNTY
mim COUNSEL
County of Los Angeles
Dawyn R. Harrison
County Counsel
of LOs
®UFORot-
September 17, 2024
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney - City of Bellflower
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90071
Re: City of Bellflower's Unauthorized Fire Protection
Services
Dear Mr. Berger:
The Office of the County Counsel represents the County of Los Angeles ("County") and the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County ("Fire District"). It has come to our attention that the City of Bellflower ("City"), having been part of the Fire District since 1949, has been conducting fire protection services without authorization from the Fire District. Namely, (1) the City adopted and has been enforcing the California Fire Code, rather than the Los Angeles County Fire Code'; (2) has been independently conducting plan checks and approvals; and (3) has named the City's City Manager as the Fire Chief.
Since such acts are improper and unauthorized by the Fire Chief of the Fire District, the Fire District demands that the City immediately cease and desist from performing independent plan checks and approvals, making public representations that the City has independent authority to enforce fire codes, designating the City Manager as the Fire Chief, and to immediately take action to adopt the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
Unauthorized Adoption of the California Fire Code
The City's fire protection services are under the authority of the Fire District. On April 12, 1949, the County ordered the 1 Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code.
HOA.104956941.3
Fire Department's Legal Advisory Unit
:1320 N. Eastern Avenue, Executive Office
Los Angeles, California 90063
TEL 323.881.2384
U11213,633,0901
Karl H. Berger
September 17, 2024
consolidation of fire protection services of several cities, including the City, to be within the Fire District. When the City submitted a petition to the County for its incorporation in 1957, the City chose to remain within the Fire District for its fire protection services. In addition, the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles ("LAFCO") continues to recognize that the City's fire protection services are within the Sphere of Influence of the Fire District.' There has been no evidence that LAFCO, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, or the State of California recognizes any fire department other than the Fire District as the City's regularly - organized fire department.
The Fire District therefore has the final authority to enforce the fire code on the City's behalf. The County's Charter imposes the responsibility on the Fire Chief of the Fire District to "enforce and observe all orders and ordinances... "3 which includes the Los Angeles County Fire Code. California Health and Safety Code ("HSC") section 13861 authorizes a fire district to adopt ordinances and establish and enforce rules and regulations for the administration, operation, and maintenance of its services. It has done so by adopting the Los Angeles County Fire Code. In order for the Fire District to perform its services, including the enforcement of fire codes, it must utilize its adopted fire code. The City's fire protection services, being within the Fire District, must therefore immediately adopt and utilize the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
Unauthorized Independent Plan Approval Process
In addition to the City's legally improper and unauthorized adoption of the California Fire Code, the City's use of an independent plan checker and approval of such plans are also not permitted by the Fire District or the law. The City publishes on its website that it has a plan review process and represents to the public via City Municipal Code section 15.40.010 that "[p]ursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7(h)(1)B), the Building Official, or designee, is authorized to enforce the Fire Code."
The City's reliance on and interpretation of HSC section 13869.7(h)(1) as its authority to designate a building official to enforce fire codes is in error. The subsection reads:
2Please see: https://lalafco.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/special_district_map/CFPD.pdf 3 Los Angeles County Charter, Article VI. Duties of Officers, Section 24 1/3.
HOA.104956941.3
-12-
Karl H. Berger
September 17, 2024
A city, county, or city and county that ratifies an ordinance relating to fire and panic safety pursuant to this section shall delegate the enforcement of the ordinance to either of the following:
(A) The chief of the fire protection district that adopted the ordinance, or his or her authorized representative.
(B) The chief building official of the city, county, or city and county, or his or her authorized representative.
(Emphasis added).
The emphasis of "pursuant to this section" is important because the entire section of 13869.7 applies to actions taken by fire protection districts and so does the entirety of section 13869. Further, section 13869.7 specifically refers to the enforcement of locally adopted local amendments which may be more stringent than those adopted by the State and allows the Fire District to enforce those more stringent requirements.
Under HSC section 13146, only "[t]he chief of any city, county, or city and county fire department or of any fire protection district, and their authorized representatives, shall enforce within its jurisdiction the building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal... " The first exception, under HSC section 13146(a)(4), is to allow the State Fire Marshal to enforce building standards if requested upon by the chief fire official or the governing body. The second exception, under HSC section 13146(a)(1), allows the agency with jurisdiction to delegate enforcement of building standards for R-3 dwellings. The City's designated plan checker is neither from the State Fire Marshal's office nor have they been approved by the Fire District to enforce R-3 dwellings.
There is no question that the Fire District is the proper authority to enforce the City's building standards as it relates to fire and panic safety. HSC section 13145 makes this clear:
"The State Fire Marshal, the chief of any city, county, or city and county fire department or district providing fire protection services... and their authorized representatives, -shall enfor_ce_in_their_:respective ,.ar_eas_:building standards__ relating to fire and panic safety adopted by the State Fire Marshal and published in the California Building Standards Code and other regulations that I -10A.104956941.3
-13-
Karl H. Berger
September 17, 2024
have been formally adopted by the State Fire Marshal for the prevention of fire or for the protection of life and property against fire or panic." The City cannot enforce the fire and panic safety component of building standards independent from the authority of its fire department or its fire chief.
Further, the City's designated plan checker, who approves plans, is not a person employed by the Fire District as required by Health and Safety Code section 13146.5, which states,
"The provisions of Sections 13145, 13146 and 13146.3 shall, so far as practicable, be carried out at the local level by persons who are regular full- time members of a regularly organized fire department of a city, county, or district providing fire protection services, and shall not be carried out by other persons pursuant to Section 34004 of the Government Code." (Emphasis added.)
HSC section 13146.5 prohibits the City from independently designating a non - Fire District individual to enforce the fire and panic safety provisions of the building standards. The Fire District has performed fire protection services for the City since 1949 and it has not determined that continuing to do so would not be practicable.
Additionally, Government Code section 34004 prohibits a city from imposing such a duty on one of its officers unless already authorized by state law or regulation. There is no legal authority that allows the City to have an independent plan approval process.
The California Office of the State Fire Marshal ("SFM") directly addressed whether a building official can assume the responsibilities of enforcing fire and panic safety regulations.4 The SFM opined that the statutory provisions of HSC sections 1314 and 13146,
"...specifically authorize the local fire chief, or their designated representative to enforce State Fire Marshal regulations (exception for R-3 as specified in 13146(a)). The fire chief can appoint the building official as an authorized representative, however, the ultimate responsibility lies with the fire chief.
Please see the letter at the fOR TI link
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/29439508/hea Ith-safety-codes-13145-13146-Sacramento-fire- department
HOA.104956941.3
-14-
Karl H. Berger
September 17, 2024
Also, according to statute, if the building official is designated to enforce such regulations, they must be a full-time member of the fire department." Since the regulations and the SFM make it clear that only a fire chief or their authorized representative can enforce fire and panic safety provisions, the City must therefore cease from their independent plan review and approval process and must cease to represent to the public that they have the authority to enforce fire codes.
Continuing to do so is misleading to the public and creates inconsistent enforcement of the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
Unauthorized Designation of the City Manager as the Fire Chief Additionally, the City must cease in its designation of the City's City Manager as the Fire Chief. Under the City's Municipal Code section 15.40.020 Amendments, it amended the municipal code definitions to be:
"Fire Chief. The City Manager for the City of Bellflower, or designee.
Fire Code Official. 'Fire Code Official' will have the same definition as 'Fire Chief."
As stated above, the City lacks the authority to and cannot make this designation pursuant to HSC sections 13145, 13146, 13146.5 and Government Code section 34004. Therefore, the Fire Districts demands the City immediately take action to amend its ordinance to remove its erroneous and publicly misleading definition.
Please submit written confirmation that the City will comply with the Fire District's cease and desist requests that it will immediately (1) stop performing independent plan checks and approvals; (2) stop making public representations that the City has independent authority to enforce fire codes; (3) take action to remove its designation of the City Manager as the Fire Chief, and; (4) take action to adopt the Los Angeles County Fire Code. Please provide such written confirmation no later than Thursday, October 17, 2024.
Should the City fail to comply with this demand to cease and desist, the Fire District will evaluate pursuing any and all available legal remedies, including seeking injunctive -relief and -attorneys' fees —
We look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your anticipated cooperation with our request. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this HOA.104956941.3
-15-
Karl H. Berger
September 17, 2024
matter further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Nothing herein shall serve as a waiver of any of the Fire District and County's rights and remedies, each of which is expressly reserved.
Very truly yours,
DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
JPT:lr
By
JENNY . TAM
Senior Deputy County Counsel
Justice and Safety Division
HOA.104956941.3
-16-
a) 0
0 E E
0 a_ -a CUJ
000
U E o
a)
D
0 CU
1/2
0 CO
0 0
0 06
w
>%
1 A:
o
ml
L
co
>
cu
0 CO
L
a)
E
O
O
m
Q1
Formerly a golf course and open space
Approximately 22 acres
(I)
(a
L
(a
0_
U)
Q
cn
0 0
0 I
0 co
a)
L
a)
4)
L
L -
n
U
4)
O
C
a)
7 . (7
2 0
ui
>' (o
2 D (6
O 0)
0_ •—
Q -0
O C
n
O O
-ctii op
O C
4) c6
O C
73 D
E
O
Co
(o o
Background
• 25 Year term of current lease with three 10 -year
options to extend by tenant
• Under consideration by METRO for potential
Maintenance Service Facility (MSF)
• City Council initially expressed opposition to the
MSF concerns regarding a lack of open space in
the community and other issues.
• In 2018 (Resolution No. 18-67) the City
expressed the specific conditions under which it
could support METRO's acquisition of the
property and establishment of the MSF on the
site.
1) "...the Light Rail Maintenance Facility will be developed as an aesthetically pleasing, state of the art yard that meets all current noise, air quality, and traffic mitigation measures and coexists harmoniously with the surrounding business and residential communities;
2) the MTA will develop a valid "Bellflower First" hiring policy when staffing the facility; 3) the purchase price paid for the property will be based on the fair market and will be sufficient to offset the cost of establishing adequate supplemental and/or replacement open space opportunities within the City of Bellflower; 4) the establishment of a rail maintenance facility at the Lakewood/Somerset site will satisfy completely the MTA's "3% Local Match" in funding from each City along the light rail construction route;
5) the MTA will set aside and develop a location of not less than 1.5 acres of active "open space" within or adjacent to the proposed light rail maintenance facility site to serve the residential community living on Somerset Boulevard and the Bellflower Community as a whole in a manner to be approved by the Bellflower City Council; 6) upon development of the facility, MTA will be solely responsible for compensation and relocation, if necessary, of the long-term leaseholder currently operating a paintball facility at the Lakewood/Somerset Site."
Housing Need
• The State of California has determined that there is a significant regional and statewide need for housing available to various income levels • Local plans have identified a significant need to maintain and create more open space in the community
• Bellflower is required to plan for 3,735 Housing Units by 2029 • State has mandated "No Net Loss" provisions
• City Council Adopted, and the State Certified the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element in September 2022 including a planned buffer over and above it's RHNA requirements
• 81% of residents identified a lack of affordable housing as a very or somewhat serious problem facing Bellflower
Potential Housing Site
• The City intends to consider amendments to its General Plan and Zoning Code to rezone the site to maintain the ability to meet the community's most pressing needs in the future.
• The rezone would allow for alternative uses in the future to include mixed uses, such as high density residential and open spaces uses • Addresses the priorities of our residents by allowing for the development of housing units affordable to working families
• Would assist the City in meeting its State mandated obligations under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") in the future. • Would secure the City's ability to maintain open space and recreational opportunities in Bellflower
No specific development project proposed at this time
Project EIR
• The appropriate CEQA document for the General Plan Amendments and Zone Change is a Project Environmental Impact Report
• 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 an EIR
• The purpose of the NOP and scoping meeting is to seek public comments on what should be addressed in the scope of the EIR
• 90 -day public comment period for the NOP: April 26, 2024 — July 25, 2024. The scoping meeting was held on July 10, 2024
• Following completion of the NOP and scoping meeting, Dudek prepared an updated scope and budget (estimated at $320,000)
• Task Order No. 7 was prepared since the estimated cost to complete the EIR exceeds the amount allowed under the existing agreement
Specific Plan & General Plan
Amendments
• Zone Change: Changing the current zone from 0-S (Open Space) to Specific Plan • General Plan Amendments:
1. Land Use Element: Revising the Land Use Plan in the Land Use Element from Open Space to Mixed Use
2 Housing Element: Amending the Certified 2021-2029 Housing Element for consistency
3 Environmental Justice Element: Since two elements of the General Plan will be amended concurrently, a new Environmental Justice Element is required
• De Novo Planning Group will prepare the Specific Plan, amendments to the Housing Element, and a new Environmental Justice Element at an estimated cost of $390,000 • Agreement No. 805.1 was prepared
Tonight's Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 7 with Dudek for preparation of the EIR; and
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
Approve a budget amendment to allocate $710,000 for contract services in Account No. 542-42054-4132; or
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
AGENDA ITEM 13-B
UPDATED DOWNTOWN
BELLFLOW ER PARKING ANALYSIS
AGENDA ITEM 13-C
CITY OWNED AND CONTROLLED
PARKING LOTS PARKING RULES
AND REGULATIONS
UPDATED NORTH
DOWNTOWN BELLFLOW ER
PARKING
ANALYSIS
PARKING STUDY AREA
METHODOLOGY
Parking Inventory
Thursday 5/19/22
Occupancy Surveys
Thursday to Sunday, 5/19/22 to
5/22/22
Thursday to Sunday, 6/9/22 to
6/12/22
Turnover Survey
Thursday to Sunday, 5/19/22 to
5/22/22
Civic Center Parking Structure
DOWNTOWN PARKING
INVENTORY
1 N um be Spaces
293
Regional Transit Center Parking Structure
278
Public Parking Lots
525
On -Street Parking
187
Total 1,283
Former M Fbwer Parking Lots
29 U pdated Total
1,312
DOWNTOWN PEAK
OCCUPANCY HOURS
Peak occupancy hours:
Weekdays:8 p.m.— 10 p.m.
Saturdays:8 p.m. — 10 p.m.
Sundays: I p.m. — 3 p.m.
BELLFLOWER BLVD.
TURNOVER SU RVEY
• 45 Spaces along the street in the Study Area
• Ave. Length of Stay/Unique Vehicles
• Thu — I.98 hrs/209
• Fri-2.17hrs/218
• Sat -2.23/199
• Sun — I.98/86
• 26% - 30% of vehicles parked longer than 2 hrs.
UPDATES
AB 2097
CEQA Assessment
AB 2097
Prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements for development projects within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop
Effective I / I /2023
AB 2097
'/2 mile radius around
proposed light rail
station
Alondra
Blvd.
Oak St.
Belmont St.
CM
CEQA ASSESSMENT
Planning and Building Services Director determined that the Parking Analysis is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15262 and 15306, and that the
parking analysis does not constitute a "project" requiring environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§ 1 5378(b)(5).
UPDATED PARKING
STUDY FINDINGS
There is sufficient
parking capacity to
handle both current
and anticipated parking
demand, even with AB
2097.
PUBLIC PARKING
MANAGEMENT
Parking Meters/Paid Parking
Increased Signage
Enforcement
Time Limit/Range Extensions
RECOMMENDATION
AGENDA ITEM 13-B
Receive and file the Updated 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis
AGENDA ITEM 13-C
PARKING LOT REGULATIONS
AND ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSE
1 Review of current parking lot regulations in the downtown area
Review of parking enforcement efforts
Recommendations for changes and seeking input
CURRENT PARKING LOT REGULATIONS
(DOWNTOWN)
• No parking Wednesday mornings
from midnight -6 a.m. (lot
sweeping)
• No Parking beyond 72 -hours
(Vehicle Code requirement)
• Lot #1 and #2, posted 2 -hour
parking from 7 a.m.-9 p.m.
(except Sunday)
• Lot #3, posted 2 -hour parking 7
a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sunday)
• Lot #18 (half of lot), posted 2 -
hour parking 7 a.m.-4 p.m.
Monday -Friday.
• Lot #1 7, posted 2 -hour parking
from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except
Sunday)
CURRENT PARKING LOT REGULATIONS
(CONT.)
• Arkansas Street/Walnut Street lot, posted 2 -hour parking 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sundays) • Bellflower Boulevard between Mayne Street and 91 freeway, posted 2 -hour parking 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sundays)
• Belmont Street between Bellflower Boulevard and Adenmoor Avenue, posted 2 -hour parking 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sundays)
• Flower Street between Bellflower Boulevard and Civic Center Drive, posted 2 -hour parking 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sundays) on southside of Flower Street, northside of Flower Street has 30 -minute green curbs.
• Oak Street, west of Bellflower Boulevard only, posted 2 -hour parking 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sundays) for approximately 100 ft.
• Maple Street, Walnut Street, Arkansas Street, and Park Street, east and west of Bellflower Boulevard, posted 2 -hour parking 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sundays) approximately 100 ft. in both directions.
• Beach Street, east of Bellflower Boulevard only, posted 2 -hour parking 7 a.m.-6 p.m. (except Sundays) for approximately 100 ft.
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
Enforcement for timed parking is usually complaint driven (i.e. more complaints equals more enforcement and less complaints equals less enforcement).
When enforcement is conducted, the 2 -hour parking violation rate is roughly 25% (specifically in the downtown city owned lots). Of those cited, most are usually employees of businesses in the area.
Lack of enforcement attributed to inconsistencies with direction to staff regarding enforcement.
Community complaints range from those wanting no enforcement to those who want enforcement of all regulations on a consistent basis, little middle ground.
L
IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
Inconsistent parking regulations
Current parking restrictions do not meet peak
parking demand times
Inconsistent enforcement of parking regulations
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Lot # I , #2, and #3, adjust 2 -
hour parking to I p.m. -10 p.m.
(except Sunday).
• Lot #17, open the newly
acquired parking areas to allow
additional employee parking in
the area, with 5 of the spaces
being marked for 2 -hour 7am-
6pm (except Sunday).
• Parking Structure, no parking
in the structure midnight -ham
daily.
• Hire an additional fulltime
Community Service Officer to
adequately patrol
proactively enforce
Downtown parking lots.
and
the
r
4t
L
#4
#5
#6
Edgeway
Flower St
Belmont St
n: ets
County
PS
rn
Civic Center Dr
41 111111.1.1.1 NE
U,
I,
l;
I
I
I
J
9 J
A."
1 . -
ITEM I I .A -PUBLIC HEARING PROPERTY PURCHASE
ITEM I 3.A -CONSIDERATION OF A LOAN
AGREEMENT
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9903 FLOWER STREET (APN 7109-013-033) 0 e,otvek
Economic Development
DISCUSSION -SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 9903 FLOWER STREET, JUST WEST
OF CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
APPROXIMATELY 48,495 SF (I. I I ACRE) IN AREA
APPROX. 24,100 SF OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITE;
PROPERTY RECENTLY LISTED FOR SALE FOR $3.9M
7.50 49.1 .: 1.27,.51ees -48:50.
Economic" Development
DISCUSSION - LOAN AGREEMENT
PLAN "A"
• CITY LOANS $3,660,000 TO CITYVENTURES FOR ITS ACQUISITION OF THE 9903 FLOWER STREET
2 -YEAR TERM TO OBTAIN ENTITLEMENTS FORA PROJECT
IF CITYVENTURES BACKS -OUT OF THE PROJECT OR IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN
PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS WITHIN THE TERM, THE PROPERTY AUTOMATICALLY
REVERTS TO THE CITY PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST
• INTEREST WILL BEAT THE CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) RATE
0 • LOAN REPAYMENT WILL BE DEFERRED TO WHEN CITYVENTURES
RECEIVES FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FORA POTENTIAL
PROJECT.
ex t/i) Cl/
Economic" Development
DISCUSSION - LOAN AGREEMENT
PLAN "A"
MEETS 3 MAJOR OBJECTIVES FOR THE PARTIES INVOLVED.
CITY -WANTS TO SEE A HIGH -QUALITY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE
SELLER -WANTS A QUICK CLOSE OF ESCROW TO REDUCE
HOLDING TIME
CITY VENTURES - GETS TIME TO DESIGN AND ENTITLE A QUALITY
PROJECT WITH REDUCED ENTITLEMENT RISK/COST
go tue>i,
Economic" Development
DISCUSSION -PURCHASE & SALE AGMT
PLAN "B"
CITY OFFERED $3,600,000 WITH A 30 -DAY CLOSE OF ESCROW
AGREED ON A PRICE OF $3,650,000 60 -DAY CLOSE OF ESCROW 45 -DAY DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD PLUS 15 DAYSTO CLOSE
RECENT COMPARABLE SALES IN DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER SUPPORTTHE NEGOTIATED PRICE SUMMARY REPORT INCLUDED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 52201
DESCRIBES THE KEY DEAL -POINTS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
EXPLANATION OF WHY THE ACQUISITION WILL ASSIST IN THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
IT'S THE CITY'S INTENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FORA USE THAT
WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER v
ALL PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE CITY'S 13 go tu eA,
GENERAL FUND
Economic" Development
RECOMMENDATION
AGENDA ITEMS
Authorizing the City Manager to enter into either or both of the Agreements as approved by the City Attorney. This provides the City with maximum flexibility to pivot from Plan "A" to Plan "B" without having to return to City Council for consideration.
Property Owner/Seller is very motivated. This dual -plan strategy maintains the quick close of escrow, a priority of the Property Owner/Seller No cost difference between the Plan Options, with Plan "A" providing the opportunity to earn interest during the term of the loan. go tue>i,
Economic" Development
RECOMMENDATION
AGENDA ITEM I I -A
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, TAKE TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING RECEIVING AND FILIING A REPORT REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 52201; AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE,ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.24-58 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 OPERATING BUDGET TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE
PROPERTY PURCHASE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; OR
ALTERNATIVELY, DISCUSS AND TAKE ANOTHER ACTION RELATED TO
THIS ITEM
0 go 14) eA,
Economic" Development
RECOMMENDATION
AGENDA ITEM 13.A
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OPERATING BUDGETTO ALLOCATE FUNDS FORTHE LOAN AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LOAN AGREEMENT AND
ANY ASSOICATED DOCUMENTS WITH CALIFORNIA LAND INVESTMENTS,
LLC (CITY VENTURES HOLDINGS, LLC) IN FORMS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; OR
ALTERNATIVELY, DISCUSS AND TAKE ANOTHER ACTION RELATED TO THIS ITEM
go tue>i,
Economic" Development
SUBJECT PROPERTY
.•
4191 35.60
7109013032
in 7109013031
1 N
NOT TO
SCALE
.51
23.301 77:01 • 49!50 101/65.10 0"61f41 88.23
ur
RI.
7109013033
642
710901.2003
1.27.51 -48.50.
1 go 14)eh,
Economic" Development
•