Bellflower City Council
October 14, 2024

58 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.

59 Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis Solid Waste
California Integrated
Waste Management
Act (IWMA) of 1989
and Assembly Bill
(AB) 341
The IWMA mandated that state agencies
develop and implement an integrated
waste management plan which outlines
the steps to be taken to divert at least 50
% of their solid waste from disposal
facilities. AB 341 directs CalRecycle to
develop and adopt regulations for
mandatory commercial recycling and sets
a statewide goal for 75 % disposal
reduction by the year 2020.

Consistent. The project would be served
by the City’s solid waste collection and
recycling services. The Project would be
required to comply with AB 341.

Other Sources
Climate Action Team Reduce diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling.

Consistent. The project would be
consistent with the CARB Air Toxics
Control Measure to limit heavy duty diesel
motor vehicle idling to no more than 5
minutes at any given time. Achieve California’s 50 % waste diversion mandate (Integrated Waste Management
Act of 1989) to reduce GHG emissions
associated with virgin material extraction.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the CALGreen Code.

Implement efficient water management
practices and incentives, as saving water
saves energy and GHG emissions.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the CALGreen Code. The Project would
provide drought tolerant landscaping or
other low water landscaping to the greatest
extent feasible. Apply strategies that integrate
transportation and land-use decisions,
including but not limited to promoting
jobs/housing proximity, high-density
residential/ commercial development
along transit corridors, and implementing
intelligent transportation systems.

Consistent. The project would incorporate
physical characteristics that would reduce
vehicle trips and VMT and encourage
alternative modes of transportation for
patrons as it in close proximity to the future
West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor
light rail station and existing bus and other
transit options; rail, bicycle, walking. Reduce energy use in private buildings. Consistent. The project would meet Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Source: Ascent Environmental 2019
Furthermore, not only is the project consistent with currently applicable GHG emission reduction strategies described in Table 10, but the project also would not conflict with or impede the future statewide GHG emission reductions goals. CARB has outlined a number of potential strategies for achieving the 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels in the 2017 Scoping Plan.

Appendix C of the 2017 Scoping Plan includes detailed GHG reduction measures and local actions that land use development projects and municipalities can implement to support the statewide goal.

For project-level CEQA analyses, the 2017 Scoping Plan states that projects should implement feasible mitigation, preferably measures that can be implemented on-site. The project would include GHG reduction features that would be consistent with the measures listed in Appendix C of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The project would be consistent with reducing the rate of growth in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by providing onsite bicycle parking facilities, combining residential and commercial land uses, and being located in an area served by a high level of public transit including bus lines and train stations.

60 SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS
The significance of the project’s GHG emissions was first evaluated based on whether the emissions would be generated in connection with development located and designed consistent with relevant regional and local goals, actions, and recommendations designed to encourage development to reduce trips and VMTs. Transportation-related GHG emissions are the largest source of GHG emissions from the project. This project characteristic is consistent with the assumption in many regional plans, such as the SCAG RTP/SCS, which recognizes that the transportation sector is the largest contributor to the state’s GHG emissions.

Consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS alignment of transportation, land use, and housing strategies, the project would accommodate projected increases in travel demand by implementing smart land use strategies. The project would redevelop the infill land into a residential and commercial, retail space, encouraging alternative modes of transportation by combining land uses, considering the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, and by providing bike parking spaces and racks. The project site provides access to transit options such as carpooling, bus, bicycling, and rail travel. Overall, these project characteristics have the potential to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, thus reducing their associated GHG emissions.

SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS states that 38 percent of all trips in the region are less than 3 miles (SCAG 2016). The RTP/SCS intends to decrease these trips by extending local bikeway networks. The project would be consistent with this RTP/SCS goal by providing parking adjacent to the Class I Bellflower Bike Path, which would allow cyclists to visit the downtown area from their bike and the bike path connects to the longer San Gabriel River Trail path. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS regional and local trip and VMT reduction goals.

Bellflower Green Building Standards Code
The proposed project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (City of Bellflower 2019) that would reduce GHG emissions by increasing energy-efficiency, reducing indoor and outdoor water demand, and installing energy-efficient equipment. The project would also incorporate characteristics that would reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by combining residential and commercial uses next to transit stations and the bicycle paths, thereby encouraging alternative forms of transportation and pedestrian activity. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s Green Building Standards Code.

Bellflower Climate Action Plan
As discussed above, the project would not impede implementation or conflict with policies of the Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS, California Green Building Code, and the Bellflower CAP. In conclusion, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

61 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

Discussion
a) A hazardous material is defined as any material that due to its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health or to the environment if released. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, paints, cleansers, or pesticides. Vehicles traveling along City streets could also use and/or transport potentially hazardous materials such as oil, gasoline, and other similar materials.

Construction the proposed project could potentially transport and/or handle potentially hazardous materials, such as oil, gas, etc. However, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with existing hazardous materials regulations already enacted that protect people and locations from exposure to hazardous materials and substances. For instance, Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the State level to ensure compliance with Federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations, as appropriate, could be monitored by the State (e.g., Cal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) in the workplace or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for hazardous waste), and/or local jurisdictions (e.g., the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Environmental Health Division) to ensure construction materials are properly handled, transported, and disposed of.

62 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) has been prepared for the project by Environmental Help, Inc. on December 20, 2018 and included as Appendix D of this MND. As discussed in the Phase I, because the existing structure onsite has been constructed before 1980, lead-based paint and asbestos can be present within the existing structure on site. The Phase I also indicates that the existing structure contains a hydraulic freight elevator, which can result to hazards to people and the environment if not disposed of properly. Therefore, renovation within Parcel A has the potential to create a hazard of exposing the public to lead-based paint, asbestos and/or hydraulic fluid. Thus, the following mitigation would be required:

Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the partial demolition of the existing structure on-site, a lead-based paint and asbestos survey shall be conducted by a licensed lead and asbestos inspector retained by the project applicant. If any on-site abatement of lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials is necessary, the licensed lead and asbestos inspector shall prepare an abatement work plan for removal of such materials in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. The work plan shall include a monitoring plan to be conducted by a qualified consultant during abatement activities to ensure compliance with the work plan requirements and abatement contractor specifications. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures for the removal of materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. The measures shall be consistent with the abatement work plan prepared for the project and conducted by a licensed lead/asbestos abatement contractor.

MM HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the partial demolition of the existing structure on-site, a plan of removal of disposal shall be prepared for the existing hydraulic fluid elevator located within the existing structure. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures for the removal of this elevator to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. The measures shall be consistent with the abatement work plan prepared for the project and conducted by a licensed engineer.

Once project construction is complete, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the operational phase of the project would be limited to cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and other typical substances associated with the multifamily residential and commercial uses of the proposed project. Transportation, use, and disposal of these materials are required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Significant impacts associated with long-term operation of the site are not expected. Therefore, impacts from any potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Therefore, with the implementation of the above mitigation, lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials would be properly handled, transported and disposed of. Thus, impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) As discussed above, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with existing hazardous materials regulations already enacted that protect people and locations from exposure to hazardous materials and substances. For instance, Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the State level to ensure compliance with Federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations, as appropriate, could be monitored by the State (e.g., Cal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) in the workplace or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for hazardous waste), and/or local jurisdictions (e.g., the Los Angeles County Fire

63 Department and the Los Angeles County Environmental Health Division) to ensure construction materials are properly handled, transported, and disposed of. This would reduce potential hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident of hazardous materials during construction. Further, because there is potential for asbestos and lead-based paint to be present within the existing building on site, there is the potential for the accidental release of these hazardous materials during earthmoving activities and construction of the proposed project.

With the implementation of mitigation MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2, impacts to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As described above, once project construction is complete, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the operational phase of the project would be limited to cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and other typical substances associated with the multi-family residential and commercial uses of the proposed project. Transportation, use, and disposal of these materials are required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Therefore, with compliance with these regulations, potential impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
c) No schools are present within a quarter mile of the site. However, the nearest school to the project site is Priscilla’s Music School, located approximately 0.29-mile northwest of the site. School Ten, Inc. is located approximately 0.33 mile southwest of the project site. Ramona Elementary School is also 0.46 mile southwest of the site. As discussed under threshold a, above, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with federal, state, County, and City regulations relating to control of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the likelihood of accidents and risks associated with release of hazardous materials. The project would also be required to implement MM-HAZ-1 which would reduce potential impacts from asbestos and lead based paint, and MM-HAZ-2, which would require proper removal and disposal of the existing freight elevator. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Government Code Section 65962.5, amended in 1992, requires CalEPA to develop and update annually the Cortese List, which is a list of hazardous waste sites and other contaminated sites. While Government Code Section 65962.5 makes reference to the preparation of a list, many changes have occurred related to web-based information access since 1992, so information regarding the Cortese List is now compiled on the websites of DTSC, the State Water Board, and CalEPA. The Phase I (Appendix D) performed a review of standard, federal, state, and tribal environmental records searches of the project site and near the project site. The environmental records search performed in the Phase I identified one nearby site that could result in hazardous materials on site. This site is associated with a previous dry cleaner on an adjacent site. Because the potential for subsurface impact still exists and is related to release of tetrachloroethylene (TCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) on this adjacent site, a plume in groundwater under the southeast corner of the site exists. The Phase I recommends that, because of this existing hazardous condition, no subterranean parking lot should be constructed as part of the project. Because subterranean parking is not proposed, this existing hazardous condition would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Phase I concluded that the existing TCE and PCE on the southeastern corner of the site should not create unhealthful conditions at the project site. To further ensure that potential impacts associated with the plume does not result, the following mitigation measure is required. It should be noted, however, that there are approximately ten full or partially filled five-gallon paint/tar containers present at the project site. However, these containers have a low migration potential to affect other areas of the site. Therefore, once removed, these containers should not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. All impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation.

64 MM HAZ-3: The project applicant shall install a vapor barrier below the proposed building foundations following grading and prior to building construction to ensure that TCE contaminated soil/groundwater does not adversely affect project occupants. The vapor barrier shall be designed per the requirements of the project toxicologist and the RWQCB. e) The closest airport to the project site is the Long Beach Airport, located approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site, and is not located within the sphere of the airport’s land use plan. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive airplane noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur. f) The City also has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) which is placed into operations for extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and human-caused events. Bellflower Boulevard is identified as a disaster movement route in the EOP (City of Bellflower 2017). However, the proposed project includes redevelopment of the site and would result in less than significant impacts at both the intersection of Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street and the intersection of Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street (Appendix F). Therefore, the proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. g) The project site is located within a highly developed area of the City. The project site is not located within an area designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as a fire hazard severity zone or a local responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2007a; CAL FIRE 2007b).

65 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;

iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Discussion
a) The State Water Resources Control Board, through its nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs), has developed Regional Water Quality Control Plans (or Basin Plans) that designate beneficial uses and water quality objectives for California’s surface waters and groundwater basins, as mandated by both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Water quality standards are thus, established in these Basin Plans and provide the foundation for the regulatory programs implemented by the State.

The Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan, which covers the project site, specifically designates beneficial uses for surface waters and ground waters; sets objectives to conform with the State’s anti- degradation policy; and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In other words, the Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan provides all relevant information necessary to carry out Federal mandates for the anti-degradation policy; 303(d) listing of impaired waters; and related total maximum daily loads; and provides information relative to NPDES and Waste Discharge Requirement permit limits. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, States are required to identify water bodies that do not meet their water quality standards (LARWQCB 2014).

Construction of the proposed project would require site work for grading, clearing, partial demolition of the existing building, and construction of structures and infrastructure improvements. These construction activities could result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil which could then affect water quality.

DE

DE

|Z
I
%

DD

66 However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all existing regulations that ensure protection of water quality standards. For instance, all projects that would result in disturbance of one acre of land or more (including laydown and stockpile areas) is required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires development of a SWPPP, implementation of erosion and sediment best management practices, monitoring, and reporting. Pursuant to the Construction General Permit, prior to terminating permit coverage, the proposed project site must be stabilized and not pose any additional sediment discharge risk than it did prior to the commencement of construction activity.

During operations of the proposed project, there is the potential for the proposed project to generate pollutants. Potential pollutants generated by the project post-construction that could affect water quality include sedimentation runoff from post-construction areas left exposed; fertilizer-derived nutrients from an increase in landscaped surface area; heavy-metal runoff from parking lots; organic compounds derived from hydrocarbons, solvents, and pesticides; trash and debris deposited in drain inlets; and hydrocarbons such as oil and grease from paved areas. Nonetheless, the project site is already disturbed and developed with an existing commercial structure and a graded lot. As such, the project would not result in additional impervious surfaces on site that could drastically alter the drainage pattern of the site and thus or result in waste discharge that would substantially surface or ground water quality. Further, all development within the City must comply with the Planning and Land Development Program requirements described in Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001), Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges Within the Coast Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except Those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4 (LA County MS4 Permit) (LARWQCB 2012). The LA County MS4 Permit requires implementation of post-construction BMPs that would reduce stormwater pollution. As such, due to compliance with existing construction and post-construction regulations, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is located within the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin (Central Basin) (Department of Water Resources 2019). The Central Basin is a high priority basin under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires that all basins designated as high or medium priority by DWR form a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) to prepare and submit a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or directly submit an alternative analysis in lieu of forming a GSA. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) submitted an alternative analysis on the basin condition that demonstrates that the basin has operated within a sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years (Water Replenishment District of Southern California 2016). The project site is already developed with impervious surfaces and therefore is not considered a significant groundwater recharge area. As discussed in Section 19, water service at the site is provided by the Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company (BSMWC). Although BSMWC serves a lot of its customers from groundwater supplies, primary groundwater production wells are several miles away from the City and not within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not decrease groundwater supplies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c.i) The project site is developed with impervious surfaces. The closest river to the project site is the San Gabriel River, which runs in the north-south direction through the City boundaries, approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The proposed project would not result in the alteration of the San Gabriel River. Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets. As discussed under Threshold b, above, the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site. Therefore, the drainage pattern of the project site will not be significantly altered with implementation of the proposed project. Further, per the LA County MS4 Permit, the proposed project would be required to prepare an erosion control plan which would incorporate BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants (County of Los

67 Angeles 2017). Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant. c.ii) As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces.

Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets.

The proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site.

Therefore, the drainage pattern of the project site will not be significantly altered with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.
c.iii) As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces.

Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets.

Because the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site, the proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the LA County MS4 Permit, which requires implementation of post-construction BMPs that would reduce potential stormwater pollution.

Thus, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. c.iv) As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces.

Onsite runoff within the project site is presently conveyed to catch basins located along City streets.

Because the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site, the proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern in a way that would impede or redirect flood flows. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. d) According to maps provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located within Zone X, which is outside of the 100-year flood zone area. Zone X includes areas of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood, areas of one percent annual chance of flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance of flood (FEMA 2019). The proposed site is located approximately 16 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Thus, the proposed project would not be located within a tsunami area. There are no existing lakes or reservoirs near the project site; thus, no seiche hazards are expected at the project site. Therefore, because no flood, tsunami, or seiche hazards are present nearby, there would be no impact.
e) The project site is located within the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan), designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. As discussed under Threshold c.i), above, the nearest river to the project site is the San Gabriel River, which is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site. Various portions of the San Gabriel River are listed as impaired by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the Basin Plan (SWRCB 2016; LARWQCB 2014). As discussed under Thresholds c.i through c.iv, above, the proposed project would not result in the alteration of the San Gabriel River. Further, the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site that would result in significant alteration of the drainage pattern and drainage would be collected on site and thus not discharged into San Gabriel River. The proposed project would not affect the water quality in the San Gabriel River. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the objectives of the Los Angeles Basin Plan for Coastal Watersheds. Impacts would be less than significant impact.

As discussed under Threshold b, above, the project site is located within the Central Basin (DWR 2019), a high priority basin under SGMA. The Water Recharge District (WRD) submitted an alternative analysis on the basin condition that demonstrates that the basin has operated within a

68 sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years (Water Replenishment District of Southern California 2016). The project would not directly involve groundwater use, as no wells are proposed on-site. Further, the site is already developed with one existing structure and a graded lot. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces on site that would interfere with groundwater recharge in the area. The proposed project would not obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

69 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Discussion
a) The project site is currently developed with a vacant commercial building and a parking lot with limited landscaping and is surrounded by development on all sides. Surrounding land uses include the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment west of Bellflower Boulevard), commercial uses and an associated parking garage (currently under construction) are located to the north; Bellflower Boulevard, the Bellflower Bike Trail (segment east of Bellflower Boulevard), surface parking lots, commercial uses, and the existing Pacific Electric Train Depot are located to the northeast; the Mayne Events Center and Los Angeles County Fire Museum to the east; Mayne Street, vacant commercial uses, and a surface parking lot to the south; single and multi-family residential uses to the southwest; and single and multi-family residential uses located immediately to the west (see Figure 2, project site and Surrounding Land Uses). Further, the proposed project would incorporate features that would improve circulation at the project site. As shown on the site plan in Figure 4, direct ingress/egress vehicular access to the Project would be provided at-grade from Oak Street, via a 24-foot wide dual lane driveway. Egress only would be allowed from the site onto Mayne Street. Pedestrian access would be provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street. The Project would provide sidewalk improvements as well as maintain the above-ground utilities (i.e., electrical lines) located along both Mayne Street and Oak Street. As such, due to the developed nature of the site and its surroundings, and due to the circulation improvements proposed on-site, the project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b) The project site is designated Mixed Use (MU) and Downtown Bellflower Station Area Specific Plan (Planning Area 3) in the General Plan. Development within Parcel A would involve a redevelopment of the existing structure and complete façade renovation/public plaza at Mayne Street and Bellflower Boulevard. Development within Parcel B would involve construction of a new five story, mixed-use, 91-unit condominium building with a 39,800 SF development footprint and 650 Square feet of commercial retail is included on the ground floor, in the north east corner of the building. Therefore, due to the commercial components incorporated into the proposed project, the project would be consistent with the existing general plan land use designation of the project site.

The project site is zoned TOD SP and includes the following underlying zone and overlay: 1) -Town Center (TC) District, Area 1 and Bellflower Village Overlay Zone – North (BVOZ-N). The TC zoning allows for various land uses such as office, restaurants, coffee house, game arcades, and pawn shops.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the development standards of the TOD SP document (City of Bellflower 2019). These requirements include site dimension, height limits, and parking requirements. The p roject would be consistent with the permitted, conditionally permitted, and administrative conditionally permitted uses within the TOD SP. The land use requirements within the BVOZ-N area are outlined in the Specific Plan, which incorporates land use development standards and objectives within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan encourages the development and redevelopment of the City’s downtown area into a creative, vital, and visionary neighborhood featuring a robust mix of residential and commercial uses (City of Bellflower 2019). The proposed

|:
|
|
:
|

|:
|
|
:
|

XIII
DX
I

70 project incorporates a mixed-use development, which would include both residential and commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

71 12. MINERAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. Mineral Resources.

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Discussion
a) The City is urban and almost completely developed. No mineral resources are known to occur on or around the project site (Department of Conservation1982). Further, the project site is entirely disturbed. Therefore, valuable mineral resources are not known to exist within the City or the project site and the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.

No impact would occur.
b) The City is urban and almost completely developed. The City’s General Plan Conservation Element does not identify any areas known to produce oil, natural gas, or coal deposits (City of Bellflower 1994). Further, the project site is entirely disturbed. Therefore, valuable mineral resources are not known to exist within the City or the project site and the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

72 13. NOISE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. Noise.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion
a) Noise is defined as unwanted sound; however, not all unwanted sound rises to the level of a potentially significant noise impact. To differentiate unwanted sound from potentially significant noise impacts, the City has established noise regulations that take into account noise-sensitive land uses.

The following discussion includes a brief description of the fundamental principles of noise and commonly used noise descriptors, a summary of applicable noise standards, and an evaluation of project-generated construction and operational noise.

Noise Principles and Descriptors
Audible sound is a physical disturbance in a medium, such as air, that is capable of being detected by the human ear. Sound waves in air are caused by variations in pressure above and below the static value of atmospheric pressure. Sound is measured in units of decibels on a logarithmic scale.

The “pitch” (high or low) of the sound is a description of frequency, which is measured in hertz. Most common environmental sounds are composed of a composite of frequencies (Harris 1998).

The time-varying characteristic of environmental noise over specified periods of time is described using statistical noise descriptors in terms of a single numerical value, expressed as A-weighted decibels (dbA). The noise descriptors used in this analysis are summarized below (Harris 1998):
 Leq: The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe the noise level over a specified period of time, typically 1-hour, expressed as Leq. The Leq may also be referred to as the “average” sound level.
 Lmax: The maximum, instantaneous noise level.
 CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level is the average noise level over a 24-hour day that includes an addition of 5 dBA to the measured hourly noise levels between the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and an addition of 10 dBA to the measured hourly noise levels between the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours, respectively.

73 TOD SP Document
Section 4.5.4 requires Applicants for new noised-sensitive development (e.g., residential) must demonstrate to the Director that all habitable rooms would meet the45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard before the City issues building permits.

In addition, applicants must demonstrate that residential outdoor common areas and recreational areas within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of the transit line (which is the level considered normally acceptable for multifamily residential uses) will achieve 60 dBA CNEL to ensure compatibility with the ambient noise environment, or 65 dBA CNEL for areas where the acoustical analysis demonstrates that achieving a level of 60 dBA CNEL is clearly not feasible. Noise reduction measures could include increased setback from the rail right-of-way, shielding with noise barriers, or placing outdoor noise- sensitive areas behind buildings.

Section 17.48.240.2 prohibits loading/unloading activities abutting any residential building between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day, including crates, containers, garbage cans, or similar objects.

Section 17.48.240.6 states any live music, or music systems (e.g., CD players, radios, tape players, digital audio players) shall be conducted, designed, installed, and operated in a manner which is not disturbing to surrounding Town Center (TC) District uses and abutting residential districts.

City of Bellflower General Plan Noise Element (1994)
In addition to the previously described provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, the City has also established noise guidelines in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan that are used for planning purposes. These guidelines are based in part on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the California State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and are intended for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. Table 11 provides the guidelines of land use compatibility for community noise sources. The CNEL noise levels for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (1) “normally acceptable” (2) “conditionally acceptable” (3) “normally unacceptable” and (4) “clearly unacceptable.” A CNEL value of 70 dBA is considered the dividing line between a “conditionally acceptable” and “normally unacceptable” noise environment for noise sensitive land uses, including residences, transient lodgings, schools, and library.

The following policies that are applicable to the project address Citywide noise issues:
 Policy 1.4: Limit construction activities which impact adjacent residential uses to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. during weekdays and Saturdays.
 Policy 1.5: Require construction activities to incorporate feasible and practical techniques which minimize noise impacts on adjacent areas.
 Policy 1.7: Ensure the outdoor noise limits for residential uses do not exceed 60 dBA CNEL for single family uses and 65 dB Ldn for multiple family uses.  Policy 1.8: Ensure the indoor noise limits for all residential uses do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.  Policy 1.9: Actively pursue sound wall mitigation measures with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA).

74 Table 11
Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Uses
Land Use Categories
Day-Night Average Exterior Sound
Level (CNEL, dB)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes A A A/C C N U U Residential Multi- Family A A A/C C N U U
Transient Lodging, Hotel, Motel A A A/C C N U U
School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing Home A A A/C A/C C/N N U Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheater C C C C/N U U U
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports C C C C C/N U U
Playground, Neighborhood Park A A A A A/U N/U U
Golf Course, Riding Stable, Water Recreation,
Cemetery

A A A A A/N A/N U
Office Building, Business, Commercial, Professional A A A A A/C C/N N Agriculture, Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities A A A A A/C C/N N Notes:

Based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, “General Plan Guidelines,” 1990. To help guide determination of appropriate land use and mitigation measures vis-a-vis existing or anticipated ambient noise levels.

A = Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption buildings involved are conventional construction without any special noise insulation.

C = Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development only after a detailed analysis of noise mitigation is made and needed noise insulation features are included in project design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning would suffice.

N – Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development generally should be discouraged. A detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and noise insulation features included in the design of a project.

U – Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: City of Bellflower General Plan, Noise Element, 1994.

Construction Noise
The project construction schedule is anticipated to begin in March 2021 and be complete in March 2023. Construction hours are proposed to be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The project is proposed to be completed in one phase, with Theater renovation and residential building demolition occurring concurrently 4.

Noise from construction activities would be generated by the operation of vehicles and equipment involved during various stages of construction: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary depending on factors such as the type and number of equipment, the specific model (horsepower rating), the construction activities being performed, and the maintenance condition of the equipment.

Individual pieces of construction equipment anticipated to be used during project construction could produce maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 90 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source (FHWA 2006). These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions. Equipment operating under full power only occurs during a portion of a day.

Thus, estimate usage factors, consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, were used to estimate average hourly noise levels for each piece of equipment. Then, to evaluate project anticipated construction noise levels that would occur throughout the day, the evaluation

4 Demolition of existing building has already occurred. By presenting demolition activities, the modeling reflects a conservative estimate of noise impacts during construction.

75 assumed that up to four construction equipment pieces would operate simultaneously at 75 feet from the nearest residence, with demolition and renovation activities occurring simultaneously.

Based on modeling conducted, combined maximum noise levels could reach 85.3 dBA Lmax and average hourly levels could reach 79.4 dBA Leq at the nearest residential receptors located approximately 75 feet to the west of the project site. Refer to Appendix E (Noise Calculations) for modeling inputs and outputs.

The City of Bellflower has not adopted construction-related noise thresholds. However, construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities are prolonged and occur during sensitive times of the day, thus, having the potential to disturb people when sleeping. As discussed above, construction activities would be required to comply with City Policy 1.4 that limits construction activities to the day-time hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.), when people are not generally sleeping and are less sensitive to noise. In addition, for comparison purposes, noise levels can be compared to OSHA standard limit of noise exposure which are 90 dB or less over eight continuous hours, or 105 dB or less over one continuous hour. Modeling conducted assumed a worst-case scenario with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously throughout the day and predicted noise levels would not exceed OSHA limits. Thus, because construction activities would be temporary (i.e., two years), would occur during the daytime hours when people are less sensitive to noise, and would not exceed OSHA’s recommended maximum exposure levels, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Traffic Noise
The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways, as well as nearby commercial activities. Long-term operations of the project would have a minimal effect on the noise environment within the proximity of the project area. Noise generated by the project would result primarily from the increased traffic on local roads.

Vehicle trips attributed to operation of the project would increase the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along the major thoroughfares within the project vicinity which was analyzed to determine if any traffic-related noise impacts would result from project implementation. The street segments selected for this analysis include residential land uses which are the most affected by traffic increases generated by the project. Traffic noise modeling was conducted in accordance with FHWA and Caltrans guidance for both the existing and the existing plus project conditions and based on traffic data included in the Traffic Impact Assessment completed for the project (Appendix F). Traffic noise model inputs and outputs are included in Appendix E. Predicted noise levels under both existing and existing plus project conditions are shown below in Table 12.

Table 12
Modeled Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadways Adjacent to Following
Intersections
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at
100 feet from Roadway (dBA CNEL)
Exceed
Threshold? Existing a
Existing
+Project a Change
Ardmore Avenue, Flower Street to Oak Street 55.4 55.8 0.4 No Ardmore Avenue, Oak Street to Mayne Street 54.9 55.2 0.2 No Oak Street, West of Ardmore Avenue 55.4 55.6 0.2 No
Oak Street, Ardmore Avenue to Orchard
Avenue

55.2 55.6 0.4 No

7V

LA

76 Roadways Adjacent to Following
Intersections
Calculated Traffic Noise Levels at
100 feet from Roadway (dBA CNEL)
Exceed
Threshold? Existing a
Existing
+Project a Change
Oak Street, Orchard Avenue to Project site 56.5 56.9 0.3 No Oak Street, Project site to Bellflower
Boulevard

56.5 57.3 0.8 No
Mayne Street, Orchard Avenue to Project site 56.9 57.4 0.6 No Mayne Street, Project site to Bellflower
Boulevard

56.9 58.2 1.3 No
Bellflower Boulevard, South of Flower Street 64.0 64.1 0.1 No Bellflower Boulevard, Flower Street to Oak
Street

63.4 63.6 0.2 No
Bellflower Boulevard, Oak Street to Mayne
Street

63.6 63.9 0.3 No
Bellflower Boulevard, Mayne Street to
Alondra Boulevard

64.0 64.2 0.2 No
Bellflower Boulevard, North of Alondra
Boulevard

63.4 63.5 0.1 No
Alondra Boulevard, West of Bellflower
Boulevard

64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Alondra Boulevard, East of Bellflower
Boulevard

64.6 64.7 0.1 No
Flower Street, Orchard Avenue to Bellflower
Boulevard

61.1 61.1 0.1 No
Flower Street, East of Bellflower Boulevard 61.6 61.8 0.2 No Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. 2019
As shown above in Table 12, operation of the project would not result in a substantial increase in project-related traffic noise levels over existing traffic noise levels.

With respect to the community noise assessment for operational noise levels, changes in noise levels of less than 3 dBA are generally not discernable to most people, while changes greater than 5 dBA are readily noticeable and would be considered a significant increase. Therefore, the significance threshold for mobile source noise is based on human perceptibility to changes in noise levels (increases) with consideration of existing ambient noise conditions and City’s guidelines for noise compatible land use in Table 11. As shown above in Table 12, the increase in noise levels on all modeled roadway segments would be substantially less than the 3 dBA, with the greatest increase being slightly over 1 dBA. Increases in traffic noise as a result of the project would not be perceptible to the human ear. As a result, project-related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. b) The project would not result in any major operational sources of vibration (e.g., rail lines, transit stations), and therefore, this discussion focusses on short-term construction-generated vibration.

Prior to the analysis, a brief discussion of vibration principles is included.

‘ A

77 Foundations of Vibration
Vibration can be interpreted as energy transmitted in waves through the ground or man-made structures, which generally dissipate with distance from the vibration source. Because energy is lost during the transfer of energy from one particle to another, vibration becomes less perceptible with increasing distance from the source.

Vibration sources include the use of heavy-duty equipment during construction and operational sources include major transit (e.g., rail, transit stations) development. Maintenance operations and traffic traveling on roadways can also be a source of such vibration. If its amplitudes are high enough, ground vibration has the potential to damage structures, cause cosmetic damage or disrupt the operation of vibration-sensitive equipment such as electron microscopes and advanced technology production and research equipment. Ground vibration and groundborne noise can also be a source of annoyance to individuals who live or work close to vibration-generating activities.

In describing vibration in the ground and in structures, the motion of a particle (i.e., a point in or on the ground or structure) is used. The concepts of particle displacement, velocity, and acceleration are used to describe how the ground or structure responds to excitation. Although displacement is generally easier to understand than velocity or acceleration, it is rarely used to describe ground and structure borne vibration because most transducers used to measure vibration directly measure velocity or acceleration, not displacement. Accordingly, vibratory motion is commonly described by identifying the peak particle velocity (PPV).

Construction Vibration
Possible sources of vibration would include heavy-duty construction equipment such as pile drivers, bulldozers, dump trucks, backhoes, rollers, and blasting activities. It is not anticipated that blasting or pile driving would be required, thus, the use of heavy bull dozers would generate the greatest levels of vibration.

When considering potential impacts from construction-related vibration, both structural damage and human disturbance within occupied nearby structures are considered. Regarding structural damage, Caltrans provides guidance for various structure types. In accordance with Caltrans guidance, a residential structure could be damaged if exposed to vibration levels that exceed 0.5 PPV/second (Caltrans 2013). As documented in Appendix E, vibration levels would not exceed 0.044 PPV/second at a distance of 40 feet. Regarding human disturbance from construction activities, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) considers a vibration level of 65 vibration decibels (VdB) to be the threshold of perceptibility for humans. Based on FTA’s vibration criteria, a significant impact would occur if vibration levels exceeded 80 VdB within places where people normally sleep (FTA 2018). As discussed above, construction activities would take place during the daytime hours when people are generally not sleeping and would therefore not be disrupted. Thus, this analysis focusses on the potential for structural damage to nearby existing buildings. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.
c) The project is located within the City of Bellflower, not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public airport. Therefore, the project would not expose people to excessive airport-related noise and there would be no impact.

78 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. Population and Housing.

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

Discussion
a) The proposed project would introduce 62 one-bedroom units and 29 two-bedroom units to the project site, for a total of 91 units. According to the 2018 U.S. Census data, the City had an estimated population of 77,131 persons and an average household size of 3.3 persons in 2018 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). Due to the addition of 91 units, the proposed project is estimated to introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site. This represents an approximately 0.4 percent increase over the City’s existing population. This increase is not considered substantial and thus would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area. Further, the proposed project would be located on a developed site that is already served by existing infrastructure. Thus, the project would not result in indirect unplanned growth in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) The proposed project is already developed with an existing structure and no residential uses currently exist on site. Due to the fact that the proposed project site does not contain any housing, no people would be displaced as a result of the project. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or people, and no impact would occur.

79 15. PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. Public Services.

Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a.i) The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the City and the project site. The LACFD provides traditional fire and life safety services to approximately 4 million residents living in 1.23 million housing units in 58 cities and all unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County (LACFD 2017). The LACFD has two stations located within the City: Station 23, located at 9548 East Flower Street, approximately 0.32 miles southwest of the project site; and Station 98, located at 9814 Maplewood Avenue, approximately one-mile northeast of the project site (LACFC 2019).

Construction of the proposed project could temporarily increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, and could cause the occasional exposure of combustible materials, such as wood, plastics, sawdust, coverings and coatings, to heat sources including machinery and equipment sparking, exposed electrical lines, welding activities, and chemical reactions in combustible materials and coatings. Typical of any development, however, all construction managers and personnel should be trained in fire prevention and emergency response, as required by OSHA.

Further, fire suppression equipment required by any typical construction would also be maintained in accordance with the 2019 California Fire Code, and Chapter 15.40 Fire Code, of the Bellflower Municipal Code. Compliance with these regulations would reduce potential impacts of fire hazards to insignificant levels. Construction-related traffic could result in increased travel time due to flagging or stopping of traffic to accommodate trucks entering and exiting the construction site. However, all potential impacts would be temporary and on an intermittent basis and truck routes for material and equipment deliveries and disposal, would require approval by the City’s Public Works Department.

Therefore, impacts regarding emergency response times and emergency access during construction would be less than significant.

Following construction, operation of the proposed project would introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site, which would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. However, the proposed project would be subject to fire protection design standards, as applicable, per the 2016 CBC, the 2016 Los Angeles County Fire Code, and Chapter 15.40 of the City’s Municipal Code, to ensure adequate fire protection. Further, the proposed project would be located an urban infill development site within an existing fire service area and is already served by LACFD. As such, due to the minimal increase of residents and employees at the project site, and the fact that the site is already served by LACFD, and with compliance all federal, state, and local fire

DD
D
D
D

EE
E
&
&

GU
E
S
S

GU
E
S
S

80 and emergency response regulations, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire or police facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii) Police protection for the City and the project site is provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), which is under contract with the City’s local law enforcement services. The LASD serves an area of approximately 4,084 square miles with a population of approximately 10 million persons. The LASD provides general law enforcement services to 42 contract cities; 141 unincorporated communities; 216 facilities, hospitals, and clinics located throughout the County; nine community colleges; the Metropolitan Transit Authority; and 37 Superior Courts. The LASD further provided services such as laboratories and academy training to other law enforcement agencies located within the County. In addition, the LASD is responsible in securing approximately 18,000 inmates daily in seven custody facilities which includes providing food and medical treatment. The LASD includes approximately 18,000 employees (LASD 2017). The nearest station is the Bellflower Sheriff Substation Sub Station located at 16615 Bellflower Boulevard.

Construction of the proposed project could require the storage of equipment and building materials, which could result in theft, graffiti, and vandalism. Typical of any development, perimeter fencing will be required for those developments that store equipment and building materials onsite.

After construction, operations of future development could increase the demand for police protection services through the addition of approximately 301 persons at the project site. However, the project site is already developed and served by existing law enforcement, which is 0.003 percent of LASD’s serving population of 10 million. Further, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation at the project site and therefore this increase in population has already been accounted for in the City’s plans for growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities.
a.iii) As discussed above, the proposed project would introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site, which could increase student enrollment within those schools located in the City. However, the applicant would be required to pay appropriate school fees to alleviate potential burden on existing school capacities for the residential component of the project to alleviate potential burden on existing school capacities. Therefore, with payment of appropriate fees, impacts to schools would be less than significant.
a.iv) As discussed above, the proposed project would introduce approximately 301 persons to the project site, which could increase demand for parks within the City. Typical of any development, the applicant would be required to pay park fees for the residential portion of the project in order to alleviate potential burden on existing parks. Therefore, with payment of appropriate fees, impacts to parks would be less than significant.
a.v) The proposed project does not propose any land uses that would directly result in the need for other additional public services. The additional population resulting with the proposed project represents about a 3.3 percent increase over the existing City population, which is not considered significant.

The proposed project would not result in the need or alteration of any other public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

81 16. RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. Recreation.

Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion
a) As discussed under Section 9, the proposed project could potentially increase population by approximately 301 persons, which could increase demand on parks and recreational facilities nearby.

However, the applicant would be required to pay park fees for the residential portion of the project in order to alleviate potential burden on existing parks. Therefore, with payment of appropriate fees, impacts to parks would be less than significant.
b) The proposed project does not include the construction of recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts would occur.

82 17. TRANSPORTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. Transportation.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a) The proposed project’s potential impacts related to applicable plans, ordinances, and policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Gandini and included as Appendix F of this MND.

The TIA conservatively assumed that the proposed project would generate 2,207 new vehicle trips per day for both weekdays and weekends, including 39 trips during the AM peak hour and 115 trips during the PM peak hour (Appendix F). The following analysis is based on that report.

Methodology
In accordance with City of Bellflower guidelines, analysis of signalized intersections is based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which compares the volume of traffic using the intersection to the capacity of the intersection. The resulting volume-to-capacity (V/C) represents the portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. Level of service (LOS) is used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (extreme congestion and system failure). The technique used to assess the performance of unsignalized intersections is known as the intersection delay methodology based on the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. The methodology compares the traffic volume using the intersection to the capacity of the intersection to calculate the delay associated with the traffic control at the intersection. LOS is also used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from LOS A to LOS F. The City has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if an intersection is operating at an acceptable LOS without the project but would operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) with the project or if the project related increase in the volume‐to‐capacity ratio equals or exceeds a V/C ratio of 0.91 or more or results in an incremental increase of 0.02 or more.

Existing and Existing Plus Project Analysis
The existing traffic conditions are based on the current roadway conditions shown in Figure 3 of the TIA and traffic counts conducted on October 2019. Refer to the TIA for additional details regarding the roadway classifications, speed limits, and other details.

Intersection Analysis
Under the existing conditions, all intersections operate at acceptable LOS B or better during peak hours for existing conditions. With the addition of project traffic to the existing conditions, all

83 intersections would continue to operate acceptably at LOS C or better (Table 13). Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to intersections under the existing conditions.

Table 13
Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
Study Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc
Ardmore Avenue and Oak Street AWS [8.2] A [8.2] A
Parking Garage Driveway and Mayne Street CSS [9.9] A [10.7] B Project Driveway and Oak Street CSS [10.7] B [11.2] B
Bellflower Boulevard at Alondra Boulevard TS 0.660 B 0.690 B Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street TS 0.552 A 0.603 B Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street TS 0.575 A 0.617 B
Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street TS 0.663 B 0.707 C Notes:
a AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
c Delay is shown in [seconds/vehicle’. Delay is reported for un-signalized study intersections. For intersections with all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on average delay of the worst individual lane (or movements sharing a lane) Source: Appendix F
Opening Year (2023) Without Project
To develop Opening Year (2023) Without Project volume forecasts, Existing volumes were combined with trips generated by other developments. The delay and Levels of Service for Opening Year (2023) Without Project conditions are shown in Table 13. As shown in Table 14, the study intersections are forecast to operate at Levels of Service C or better during the peak hours for Opening Year (2023) Without Project conditions. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to intersections under the Opening Year (2023) Without Project.

Table 14
Opening Year (2023) Without Project Intersection Level of Service Study Intersection Traffic
Controla
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc
Ardmore Avenue and Oak Street AWS [8.3] A [8.3] A
Parking Garage Driveway and Mayne Street CSS [11.7] B [13.5] B Project Driveway and Oak Street CSS [10.5] B [11.0] B
Bellflower Boulevard at Alondra Boulevard TS 0.692 B 0.791 C Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street TS 0.675 B 0748 C Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street TS 0.623 B 0.674 B
Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street TS 0.717 C 0.7697 C Notes:
a AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
c Delay is shown in [seconds/vehicle’. Delay is reported for un-signalized study intersections. For intersections with all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on average delay of the worst individual lane (or movements sharing a lane) Source: Appendix F

84 Opening Year (2023) With Project
Opening Year (2023) With Project volume forecasts were developed by adding project‐generated trips to the Opening Year (2023) Without Project forecast. The Opening Year (2023) Without Project forecasts have been reduced for the parking garage on the northwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street to account for project traffic. Thus, when project traffic is added for Opening Year (2023) With Project conditions, the parking garage trip generation will be at its full trip generation forecast. As shown in Table 15, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Opening Year (2023) With Project conditions. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to intersections under the Opening Year (2023) Without Project.

Table 15
Opening Year (2023) With Project Intersection Level of Service Study Intersection Traffic
Controla
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc ICUb or
[Delay]c LOSc
Ardmore Avenue and Oak Street AWS [8.3] A [8.4] A
Parking Garage Driveway and Mayne Street CSS [11.8] B [13.7] B Project Driveway and Oak Street CSS [10.9] B [11.4] B
Bellflower Boulevard at Alondra Boulevard TS 0.695 B 0.791 C Bellflower Boulevard and Mayne Street TS 0.680 B 0.746 C Bellflower Boulevard and Oak Street TS 0.638 B 0.690 B
Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street TS 0.720 C 0.772 C Notes:
a AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal b ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
c Delay is shown in [seconds/vehicle’. Delay is reported for un-signalized study intersections. For intersections with all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on average delay of the worst individual lane (or movements sharing a lane) Source: Appendix F
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Pedestrian facilities at the project site include a sidewalk that extends from Bellflower Boulevard to the west along both Oak and Mayne Street. The proposed project would provide pedestrian improvements, such as pedestrian access, to be provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street, which would enhance pedestrian activity within the project site. Bellflower Bike Trail is located along Pacific Avenue, approximately 85 feet north of the project site. The proposed project does not propose bicycle facilities or improvements and would not result in impacts to the Bellflower Bike Trail or other bicycle facilities nearby. Bicycle racks will be included in the adjacent parking structure. therefore, as the proposed project would promote the effectiveness for the performance of the pedestrian system and not impact the existing bicycle system, impacts would be less than significant.

Transit
Bellflower Bus North Route services Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street, while Bellflower Bus South Route services Bellflower Boulevard, and Oak Street. A bus stop is situated on the west side of Bellflower Boulevard south of Oak Street and near the project site. Route 127, provided by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), also services Bellflower Boulevard north of Alondra Boulevard and Route 128 services Alondra Boulevard in the study area. Lastly, Long Beach Transit also provides bus services near the project site. Long Beach Transit bus routes include Route 91, which services Bellflower Boulevard and Alondra Boulevard, and Route 93, which services Bellflower Boulevard, Alondra Boulevard, and Flower Street. A bus stop is situated on the west side

85 of Bellflower Boulevard and south of Oak Street, and on the east side of Bellflower Boulevard north of Mayne Street. As discussed in the TIA, using methodology included Metro’s 2010 Congestion Management Program, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 108 daily transit trips, including two a.m. peak hour and 6 PM peak hour trips. A light rail station is anticipated to be constructed at Bellflower Boulevard and Flower Street for the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor by 2028. Upon completion of the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor station, the proposed project would generate approximately 309 daily transit trips, including 5 a.m. peak hour and 16 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the existing transit services available in the project vicinity and the relatively low transit trip generation, the proposed project is forecast to have a less than significant impact on transit service.
b) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b) now requires that all traffic impacts be analyzed based on VMT. Traditionally, traffic impacts were analyzed based on levels of service on roadways and intersections. All cities will be required to conduct future traffic analysis based on VMT by July 1, 2020, unless adopted earlier by the lead agency. The City has not elected this provision ahead of the standard schedule and, therefore, this section does not yet apply. No impact would occur. c) As shown in Figure 4, Site Plan, the proposed project includes circulation improvements of the site.

Direct ingress/egress vehicular access to the Project would be provided at-grade from Oak Street, via a 24-foot wide dual lane driveway. Egress only would be allowed from the site onto Mayne Street.

Pedestrian access would be provided from the existing sidewalks along Mayne Street and Oak Street. More specifically, the project would provide a north to south driveway at Oak Street which would provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane with southbound stop-control. Both the existing eastbound and westbound lane on Park Lane would be shared through left and right turn movements, while the new southbound lane at the project driveway will allow shared left, through, and right turn movements. At project driveway at Mayne Street would provide one outbound lane with a northbound stop-control. The new northbound lane at this driveway will allow share left and right turn movements.

The proposed driveways would be required to comply with all applicable City standards and regulations relating to traffic circulation and access and would be designed to ensure that significant safety hazard would not result. Impacts would be less than significant. d) As discussed under Threshold c, above, the project would provide two access points that may be utilized during an emergency. In addition, the project driveway would be provided in accordance with City standards that ensure adequate emergency access. Overall, the project would provide adequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

86 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.

Has a California Native American Tribe requested consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1(b)? Yes No Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?

Discussion
a) The project site is developed with existing structures and improvements. None of these existing structures and improvements are listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources as defined by PRC Section 5020.1(k) or of any known value to a Native American Tribe.

To confirm that Native American resources would not be disturbed, in accordance with AB52, staff sent letters on April 15, 2019, requesting consultation with the following Native American Tribal Governments: Gabrielino Tongva Nation; Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The Torrez Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians submitted a letter dated June 3, 2019 and had no comments. Project impacts would be less than significant. b) As discussed in Section 5, there are no existing structures within the project site that could be considered to be historically significant based on set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). Furthermore, none of the Native American Tribes identified any specific historical or cultural resource that could be deemed significant during the consultation process. The potential for unknown buried tribal cultural resources is considered low in this fully developed urban environment where heavy soil disturbance has occurred. Although unlikely, if any previously unknown subsurface artifacts are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, MM-CUL-1 would be implemented, which requires grading to be halted in the event of an archaeological discovery and the resource to be addressed by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with the City’s criteria. Therefore, impacts to unknown Tribal resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

87 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion
a) Water: Water service is provided to the project site by the Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company (BSMWC) (City of Bellflower 2016). Customer needs are served through local groundwater with supplemental quantities coming from recycled water. BSM owns roughly three quarters of the ground water supplies needed to serve its customers and leases the remainder from the City of Bellflower (BSMWC 2019). Currently, the project site is already entirely disturbed and not used as a local groundwater recharge facility as the area is mostly built out with a relatively high impervious condition. The primary groundwater production wells are several miles away from the City (BSMWC 2011). The proposed project is located on an already developed site and is surrounded by development on all sides.

As discussed under Threshold b, below, BSMWC has the capacity to serve the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Sewer: Regarding sewer service, two sanitary systems exist in the City. One of the systems are local lines operated by the City of Bellflower and the other are trunk sewers operated by Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) (City of Bellflower 2014). The City Public Works Department manages the City’s sanitation sewer collection system and serves a population of approximately 77,000 people. The collection system consists of about 99 miles of gravity sewer lines. Sewage is collected by City collector facilities and then conveyed to trunk sewers owned and maintained by LACSD District #2, which then treats the sewage at the regional Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (LCWRP) or the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated only at the JWPCP (City of Bellflower 2019d). Wastewater generated within the proposed project would flow into local sewer lines, owned by the City and eventually into the regional LASD sewer lines (City of Bellflower 2019d).

88 The City prepared a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) in 2014 to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system (City of Bellflower 2014). The SSMP includes the entire City and therefore the project site. The SSMP performed an evaluation of the existing wastewater collection system within the City, including sewer line and manhole inspections, gas trap manholes, and sewer line cleaning. The proposed project was included in the City of Bellflower Sewer Master Plan (SMP) performed in March 2007. The purpose of the SMP was to evaluate the existing wastewater collection system in the City of Bellflower, which included modeling infrastructure to determine any deficient segments and propose improvements for the future. The SMP noted three tiers of deficiencies for sewer lines across the City, based on depth of flow to diameter of pipe (d/D) ratio. Priority 1 Improvement lines are located along Alondra Boulevard, Clark Avenue and Woodruff Avenue. Priority 2 Improvement lines are on Alondra Boulevard and Clark Avenue (City of Bellflower 2019c). The proposed project is not located within areas of these needed improvements and no new or expanded services would be required as a result of the proposed project. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

Drainage: The project site is already developed with one existing structure and a graded lot. As such, the project would not result in additional impervious surfaces on site that could drastically alter the drainage pattern of the site. Thus, the project is not expected to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage. Impacts would be less than significant.

Electric and Telecommunications: Electric service is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE); telecommunication service is provided by multiple carriers. The proposed project is located on an already developed site and is surrounded by development on all sides. While on-site utility improvements would be required to service the proposed mixed-use project, such utilities are included in the project and addressed by the environmental analysis included herein. Construction of these utilities would not result in environmental effects aside those outlined in this Initial Study. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) The proposed project would increase the intensity of uses on the project site, resulting in increased water use. CalEEMod default water usage rates were used to estimate the anticipated water demand of the proposed project. Based on the CalEEMod generation rates, water use per day during project operation would be approximately 43,912 gallons per day or 16 million gallons per year (Appendix A).

As discussed under Threshold a, above, the project site is within the water service boundaries of the BSMWC. The BSMWC serves potable water to an area of approximately 2.63 square miles of the City and approximately 46,230 people. According to BSMWC’s 2011 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), BSMWC would have adequate supplies to serve its service area for a one, two, and three- year period during a single dry year and multiple dry years. With a 50 percent reduction of purchased water, BSMWC would still be able to provide 5,662 acre-feet per year of water or 5.1 million gallons per day to its service area. The water consumption estimated for the proposed project would consist of 0.9 percent of the water supply provided by BSMWC to its service area even with a 50 percent reduction in purchased water. Therefore, because BSMWC has adequate supplies to serve its service area during a single dry year and multiple dry years, and because water consumption estimated to occur as a result of the proposed project would be minimal, impacts would be less than significant. c) As discussed under threshold a, above, LASD provides wastewater service to the project site.

CalEEMod default water usage rates were used to estimate the anticipated water demand of the proposed project. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated only at the JWPCP (City of Bellflower 2019d). Based on the CalEEMod generation rates, wastewater use per day during project operation would be approximately 30,137 gallons per day or 11 million gallons per year (Appendix A). The JWPCP currently has the capacity to handle approximately 100 million gallons of wastewater per day. The proposed project would result in 0.03 percent of JWPCP’s current capacity.

89 Therefore, the increase in wastewater attributed to the project would be nominal and adequate capacity is available to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) The proposed project would generate solid waste and recycling during both the construction and operation of the project. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires the City to divert 50% of its waste from landfills. In an effort to comply with AB 939, on December 8, 2003 the Bellflower City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1055, the C&D Waste Management Plan Ordinance of the City of Bellflower. The ordinance requires diversion, via reuse or recycling of 100% of all inert debris, such as concrete and dirt, and 50% of the remaining C&D debris generated by all construction and renovation projects whose total cost, or projected cost are greater than or equal to $50,000. On September 13, 2010, the City Council amended the C&D Ordinance to include all demolition projects of any valuation. The project applicant would be required to submit a waste management plan (WMP) prior to being issued a building or demolition permit for partial demolition within Parcel A (City of Bellflower 2019c).

During operations, trash and recycling services are provided by CR&R. According to CR&R, waste generated in Bellflower is sent to the CR Transfer and Material Recovery Facility in Stanton, Southeast Resource Recovery Facility in Long Beach, with most of the loads going to the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility (DART) in Downey (City of Bellflower 2019a). DART is permitted to receive, handle and process up to 5,000 tons per day of waste 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.

Residual waste from the facility is transferred to a fully permitted Class III landfill or transformation facility. In 2019, the average annual tonnage was estimated to be 720 tons per day (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 2017). Impacts would be less than significant, as the proposed project’s solid waste generation would not exceed the permitted capacity.

CalEEMod default water usage rates were used to estimate the anticipated solid waste demand of the proposed project. Based on the CalEEMod generation rates, waste use per day during project operation would be approximately 144 tons per year or 0.4 tons per day (Appendix A). Thus, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 0.05 percent of the total waste handled at the DART facility. All waste would be disposed of in accordance with AB 939, which mandates that 50% of solid waste generated be diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, or composting. Once constructed, solid waste and recycling generated from the project site would be typical of that generated by similar residential and commercial uses, and could potentially include small amounts of hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials would be disposed of in compliance with city requirements. Therefore, due to the nominal increase in solid waste generated for the proposed project, and through compliance with existing regulations, the propose project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) As discussed under Threshold d, above, the proposed project would be required to submit a WMP prior to being issued a building or demolition permit for partial demolition within Parcel A, for compliance with the City’s C&D Ordinance. During operations, the project would be required to comply with AB 939, which requires that 50% of solid waste generated be diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, or composting. Therefore, based on compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

90 20. WILDFIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire.

Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Yes No
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Discussion
a-d) The project site is not located within an area designated by CAL FIRE as a fire hazard severity zone or a local responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2007a; CAL FIRE 2007b). The proposed project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, expose occupants to wildfire related pollutants, require infrastructure that would contribute to wildfire hazard or expose people to significant flooding or landslide risk due to wildfire. No impact would occur.

91 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion
a) As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Additionally, as addressed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, proposed project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) As addressed throughout this Initial Study, both project construction and operations could result in individual-level impacts that could be potentially significant without the incorporation of mitigation.

Thus, when coupled with impacts related to the implementation of other related projects located throughout the broader geographic area, the proposed project would potentially result in cumulative- level impacts if these individual-level significant impacts were left unmitigated. (See Section 5, Cultural Resources, Section 7, Soils and Geology, and Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; for recommended mitigation measures.)
The proposed project is an infill development on a site that is already developed with an existing commercial structure and a graded lot. As a result, the area surrounding the project site is built out; few properties are found in the immediate area with substantial future development potential; and any upcoming development activity in the project area is expected to be limited. As mitigation measures would be required for impacts to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) As evaluated throughout this document, the proposed project could result in impacts to Cultural Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore, effects on human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

92 D. PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT AND

CONSULTED PERSONS AND AGENCIES
City of Bellflower
 Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning and Building Services  Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
 Jason P. Clarke, Senior Planner
 Jim Dellalonga, Director of Economic Development
 Jerry Stock, City Engineer
 Duane Morita, Consultant
Ascent Environmental
 Eric Ruby, Project Director
 Iulia Roman, Environmental Planner
 Alyssa Way, Air Quality and Climate Change Analyst
 Poonam Boparai, Principal/Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist  Dimitri Antoniou AICP, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Noise Specialist  Phi Ngo, GIS Specialist/Resource Analyst
 Gayiety Lane, Production Specialist
Ganddini Group, Inc.
 Bryan Crawford
 Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP

93 E. REFERENCES
Aesthetics
City of Bellflower. 1994. General Plan Open Space/Recreation Element, December 1994. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28094 . Accessed November 2019.
———. 2019a. City of Bellflower Zoning Ordinance. Prepared by the City of Bellflower.

Agricultural Resources
City of Bellflower. 2018. Zoning Map. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31884 . Accessed October 2019.

California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ . Accessed October 2019. ———. 2019. Williamson Act Program. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca . Accessed October 2019.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

Air Quality
SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook . Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2003a. Cumulative Impacts White Paper, Appendix D. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative- impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper-appendix.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2003b. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations. Available: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air- quality-management-plans/2003-air-quality-management-plan/2003-aqmp-appendix- v.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2008. Localized Significance Thresholds. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/LST.html . Accessed November 5, 2019. ———. 2014. Potential Impacts of New OEHHA Risk Guidelines on SCAQMD Programs. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2014/may-specsess- 8b.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 5, 2019.

94 ———. 2016. Air Quality Management Plan Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean- air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp. Accessed November 5, 2019. ———. 2019. Air Quality Network Management Plan, Appendix A. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring-network- plan/aaqmnp-appendix-a6BF4F040D8A9.pdf?sfvrsn=29. Accessed. November 5, 2019.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018. Criteria Air Pollutants. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants#self . Accessed. November 5, 2019.

Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans.

Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline . Accessed October 2019.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Cultural Resources
City of Bellflower. 2000. Building Permit Application. October 18, 2000.

Energy
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Efficiency Standards. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_ Standards_FAQ.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2019.

CEC. 2019. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019_energypolicy/ . Accessed November 8, 2019.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Bellflower. 2016. Ordinance No. 1325. Available:
http://www.qcode.us/codes/bellflower/revisions/1325.pdf . Accessed November 5, 2019.

Raimi + Associates. 2012. Bellflower Climate Action Plan. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24054 . Accessed November 5, 2019.

SCAG. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Available: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf . Accessed November 5, 2019.

SCAG. See
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

CalEPA. See California Environmental Protection Agency.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007a. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. Adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. Available:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6636/fhszs_map.pdf . Accessed October 2019.

95 ———. 2007b. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. September 17, 2007.

Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6827/fhszl06_1_map.pdf . Accessed October 2019.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2017. EnviroStor Database. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public.; Accessed October 2017.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. CalEPA’s List of Active CDO and CAO sites.

Available at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ . Accessed October 2017.

City of Bellflower. 2017 General Plan Safety Element. February 3, 2017. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28096 . Accessed October 2019.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2017. Cortese List. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov . Accessed October 2017.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Hydrology and Water Quality
County of Los Angeles. 2017. Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division & Land Development Division Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP).

California Department of Water Resources. 2019. DWR Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool (BBAT). Last updated February 11, 2019. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ .

Accessed November 6, 2019.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019.FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Available:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home . Accessed November 25, 2019.

LARWQCB. See Los Angeles Reginal Water Quality Control Board.

Los Angeles Reginal Water Quality Control Board. 2012. MS4 Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County ORDER NO. R4-2012-0175, as amended by R4-2012- 0175-A01 NDPES NO. CAS004001. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/lo s_angeles_ms4/2016/OrderR4-2012-0175_corrected_120216.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2019.
———. 2014 (September 11). Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Countries. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_ documentation.html. Accessed November 2019
State Water Resources Control Board. 2016. 2014 and 2016 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml .

Accessed November 6, 2019.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

96 Water Replenishment District of Southern California. 2016. Resolution No. 16-1048. December 8, 2016. Available: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/alternative/print/12 . Accessed November 6, 2019.

Land Use
City of Bellflower. 2019. Bellflower Specific Plan. September 2019.

Mineral Resources
City of Bellflower. 1994. General Plan Open Space/Recreation Element, December 1994. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28094 . Accessed November 2019.

California Department of Conservation. 1982. Mineral Lands Classification Map – Aggregate Resources Only. June 1, 1982. Available:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_143/PartIV/ . Accessed November 8, 2019.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

Noise
California Department of Transportation. 2013 (September). Technical Noise Supplement. Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Harris, C. M. 1998 (September). Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Federal Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

Washington, DC.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Washington,
FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration
Population and Housing
U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Quick Facts: Bellflower City, California. Available:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bellflowercitycalifornia . Accessed November 6, 2019.

Public Services
LACFD. See Los Angeles County Fire Department.

LASD. See Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). 2017. Los Angeles County Fire Department. March 2019. Available: https://wearelacountyfire.org/file/la_county_fire_overview_booklet_0317.pdf .

Accessed November 20, 2019.

97 LACFD. 2019. Fire Station Search by Address. Available: https://locator.lacounty.gov/fire . Accessed November 6, 2019.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 2017. About Us. Available:
https://www.lasd.org/about_us.html , accessed October 2017. Accessed November 6, 2019.

Utilities and Service Systems
Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company. 2011. Urban Water Management Plan Resolution to Adopt. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/Bellflower- Somerset%20Mutual%20Water%20Company/Bellflower%20Urban%20Water%20Mgt%20Pl an.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2019.
———. 2019. About Us. Available: https://bsmwc.com/about-us/ . Accessed November 7, 2019.

BSMWC. See Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company.

City of Bellflower. 2014 (August 11). Sewer System Management Plan. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24194 . Accessed November 8, 2019.
———. 2016. Water System Map. June 2016. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28781 . Accessed:

November 8, 2019.
———. 2019c. Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan. Available:
https://www.bellflower.org/depts/pw/waste.asp . Accessed November 8, 2019. ———. 2019d. Bellflower Specific Plan. September 2019.

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 2017 (March). Transfer/Processing Report for Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Document/GetDocument/316072 . Accessed November 8, 2019.