13-B — Bellflower City Council, October 14, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

Page 1 of 3 ends

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

ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager

FROM: Jim DellaLonga, Director of Economic Development

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

DATE: October 14, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A parking analysis was presented to the City Council in April 2023 that outlined the current parking supply, peak parking times, and estimated parking needs in the area along Bellflower Boulevard between the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way and Flower Street.

The analysis also addressed potential parking supply impacts of angled parking and parklets. At that time, City Council directed staff to update the Parking Analysis based on changes to California law and to conduct an environmental assessment of the various parking options listed in the updated study.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Receive and file the Updated 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis; or

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

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

CEQA

The proposed actions are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.; “CEQA Guidelines”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15262 and 15306 because they involve only a planning study for possible future actions which has not been approved, adopted, or funded; and the parking analysis consisted of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which does not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. Furthermore, the parking analysis does not constitute a “project” requiring environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(5) because it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Page 1 of 186 ends

o“ 01: BELLFLO
“ s a
"o ROWING TOGETk‘YFS t f t

Staff Report – Updated 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis October 14, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION

The following is a review of the timeline associated with the preparation and finding associated with the North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis (Parking Analysis).

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

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

Public Parking Management Strategies

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

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

December 15, 2022 Special Meeting

Several issues were raised during the City Council special meeting held on December 15, 2022. Parking in-lieu fees were mentioned as one method to plan financially for the parking needs of new developments in the downtown. Concerns were raised about the safety and feasibility of installing parklets and reverse -angled parking on segments of Bellflower Boulevard. While both ideas are intended to improve the pedestrian experience, their effectiveness may depend on the specific characteristics of the roadway and would require further analysis.

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

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

Page 2 of 186 ends

Staff Report – Updated 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis October 14, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

April 10, 2023 City Council Meeting

At the April 10, 2023 City Council meeting, staff was directed to update the Parking Analysis based upon changes to California law, specifically AB 2097, and to conduct an environmental assessment of the various parking management options listed in the Parking Analysis.

According to this direction, the Director of Planning and Building Services, as detailed in the CEQA section, determined that the Parking Analysis is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15262 and 15306, and that the parking analysis does not constitute a “project” requiring environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(5).

Additionally, TJW added Section 6.5 to the Parking Analysis to examine the impact of AB 2097 on the North Downtown Parking situation. AB 2097 went into effect on January 1, 2023, and with minor exceptions, restricts cities from imposing minimum parking standards on development projects within a half -mile radius of a major transit stop also known as a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA). The Metro Light Rail Station on Bellflower Blvd. is considered a major transit stop and HQTA pursuant to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional transportation plan, making AB 2097 applicable to Downtown Bellflower.

The Parking Analysis concludes that if AB 2097 applicable development were to occur within the North Downtown area, based on the parking supply and demand findings and data collected as part of the analysis, a number of areas within the study area have the parking capacity to handle potential changes in parking demand due to AB 2097. Due to the delay in bringing the Parking Analysis back to City Council, the attached final version from TJW includes a number of comments in the AB 2097 discussion from the City Attorney’s Office. However, these comments do not materially change the overall findings of the Parking Analysis.

ATTACHMENT

Updated 2022 North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis ........................................ 4

Page 3 of 186 ends

October 3, 2023

Prepared by:

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

Page 4 of 186 ends

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

October 3, 2023

Mr. Jim Dellalonga

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706

Subject: North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis, City of Bellflower

Dear Mr. Dellalonga:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Page 5 of 186 ends

4.05424—
TJW ENGINEERING, INC.

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 8e

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

CONSULTANTS
(8%k
741/

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis
Bellflower, California

October 3, 2023

Prepared for:

Mr. Jim Dellalonga

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706

Prepared by:

Thomas Wheat, PE, TE
Gene Kim, PE, TE
David Chew, PTP

TJW ENGINEERING, INC.
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
949.878.3509 | www.tjwengineering.com

Page 6 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
i
Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 ASSEMBLY BILL 2097 AND THE FUTURE PROPOSED METRO STATION............................................. 22

6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGE FUTURE PARKING DEMAND .................................................... 25

7.0 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 26

List of Tables

Table 1: Parking Inventory by Zone/Street ........................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: Thursday May 19, 2022 Occupancy ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Friday May 20, 2022 Occupancy .......................................................................................................... 8 Table 4: Saturday May 21, 2022 Occupancy ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Sunday May 22, 2022 Occupancy ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 6: Peak Hour Occupancy for June 9, 2022 – June 12, 2022 ................................................................... 10 Table 7: Occupancy by Zone for Thursday May 19, 2022 ................................................................................ 13 Table 8: Occupancy by Zone for Friday May 20, 2022 ..................................................................................... 13 Table 9: Occupancy by Zone for Saturday May 21, 2022 ................................................................................ 14 Table 10: Occupancy by Zone for Sunday May 22, 2022 ................................................................................. 14

Page 7 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
ii
Table 11: Bellflower Boulevard Turnover Data ................................................................................................ 15 Table 12: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Friday May 20, 2022 ...................................................... 16 Table 13: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Friday May 20, 2022 ...................................................... 16 Table 14: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Saturday May 21, 2022 ................................................. 17 Table 15: Bellflower Boulevard Duration of Stay on Sunday May 22, 2022 .................................................... 17 Table 16: Bellflower Boulevard On-street Parking Availability ........................................................................ 18 Table 17: Bellflower Boulevard On-street Mixed Parking Availability ............................................................. 19

List of Exhibits

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

Appendices

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

Page 8 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

Page 9 of 186 ends

Legend:

Bellflower City Limits
Not to Scale
2 ǆŚŝďŝt ϭ͗ Wƌoũect >ocatŝoŶ aŶĚ StƵĚǇ ƌea
North Downtown Bellflower Parking Study BEL-22-001
Downtown North Study Area
City of Bellflower
605
91

Page 10 of 186 ends

m
nw ENGINEEIIHG. Inc.

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
3 2.0 PARKING INVENTORY

2.1 AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES

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

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

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

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

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

Page 11 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

Page 12 of 186 ends

Legend:

Project Sites
Not to Scale
5 ǆŚŝďŝt Ϯ͗ WaƌŬŝŶŐ >ocatŝoŶƐ aŶĚ /ŶǀeŶtoƌǇ
North Downtown Bellflower Parking Study BEL-22-001
On-Street Parking
A
45 B
89 C
4 D
13 E
28 F
78 G
293
H
16 I
22 J
44 K
102
L
84 M
278
Flower St
Mayne St
Be
l
l
f
l
o
w
e
r

B
l
v
d
Belmont St
Oak St
Ci
v
i
c

C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
Ad
e
n
m
o
o
r

A
v
e
Study Area Boundary
Bellflower On-Street Parking

Page 13 of 186 ends

L
fiUA
W

A
AW
E
»
?

nw (museums. Inc

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
6 3.0 PARKING OCCUPANCY

3.1 HISTORICAL PARKING OCCUPANCY

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

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

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

3.2 EXISTING PARKING OCCUPANCY

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

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

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

Page 14 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

Page 15 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

Table 3: Friday May 20, 2022 Occupancy

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Lots Bellflower On-Street Remaining On-Street Overall
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Lots Bellflower On-Street Remaining On-Street Overall

Page 16 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

Table 5: Sunday May 22, 2022 Occupancy

Page 17 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
10 3.3 PEAK HOUR OCCUPANCY

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

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

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

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

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8:00PM -
9:00PM
9:00PM -
10:00PM
8:00PM -
9:00PM
9:00PM -
10:00PM
8:00PM -
9:00PM
9:00PM -
10:00PM
1:00PM -
2:00PM
2:00PM -
3:00PM
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Lots Bellflower On-Street Remaining On-Street Overall

Page 18 of 186 ends

HIIIIII

Not to Scale
ϭ1

ǆŚŝďŝt ϯ͗ teeŬĚaǇ WeaŬ KccƵƉaŶcǇ
North Downtown Bellflower Parking Study BEL-22-001
Legend:
95 - 100%
B
C
D
G
I
J
K
L
M
Flower St
Mayne St
Be
l
l
f
l
o
w
e
r

B
l
v
d
Belmont St
Oak St
Ci
v
i
c

C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
Ad
e
n
m
o
o
r

A
v
e
85 - 95%
70 - 85%
50 - 70%
0 - 50%
Study Area Boundary
A
E
F
H
Weekday Permit Parking

Page 19 of 186 ends

I"'I L-J
m
nw Emma-us. Inc

85 - 95%
70 - 85%
50 - 70%
0 - 50%
Study Area Boundary
Weekday Permit Parking
Not to Scale
ϭ2

ǆŚŝďŝt ϰ͗ teeŬeŶĚ WeaŬ KccƵƉaŶcǇ
North Downtown Bellflower Parking Study BEL-22-001
Legend:
95 - 100%
B
C
D
G
I
J
K
L
M
Flower St
Mayne St
Be
l
l
f
l
o
w
e
r

B
l
v
d
Belmont St
Oak St
Ci
v
i
c

C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
Ad
e
n
m
o
o
r

A
v
e
A
E
F
H

Page 20 of 186 ends

.J
r-1 I._J
W
nw Emma-us. Inc

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

4.1 PARKING TRENDS

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

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

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

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

Page 21 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

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

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

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

Page 22 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

4.2 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD TURNOVER

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

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

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

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

Page 23 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

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

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

Page 24 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

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

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

Page 25 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
18 5.0 ANGLED PARKING AND PARKLETS

5.1 ANGLED PARKING DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

Page 26 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

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

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

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

5.2 PARKLET DISCUSSION

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

Page 27 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

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

Page 28 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
21 6.0 FUTURE DEMAND

6.1 FORMER BREW REFINERY PROJECT

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

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

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

6.2 THE EDGEWAY

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

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

Page 29 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis
BEL-22-001
22 6.3 FEASIBILITY OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN NORTH DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER If further development or parking modifications were to occur within the north Downtown Bellflower area, certain lots and on-street parking areas would be able to accommodate increased demand or reduced parking supply. Zones E, G, H, K, M, Civic Center Drive, Flower Street east of Civic Center Drive, and Flower Street west of Civic Center Drive could accommodate increased demand or a reduction in parking supply. In the event that a development or modification would impact a zone that cannot directly accommodate increased demand or a reduction in parking supply, vehicles can be directed to any nearby zones which have parking availability.

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

6.5 ASSEMBLY BILL 2097 AND THE FUTURE PROPOSED METRO STATION Assembly Bill 2097 is a recently passed California law that restricts public agencies or local cities from imposing a minimum parking requirement on development projects that are located within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop. The bill’s intent is to promote the development of lower-cost housing in walkable, transit-friendly areas and neighborhoods by reducing the need for constructing additional parking spaces to accommodate housing developments. The policy reasons, that mandatory parking requirements can cause an oversupply of parking spaces, reducing available housing development space and increasing housing costs.

Further, the parking surplus, due to the mandatory parking supply, can reduce the desire to use available public transit, encourage car ownership and use, and increase traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. As part of this statement, the bill also authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose minimum automobile parking requirements on a housing development project if the agency can make substantial supportive written findings that not imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a negative impact on the public agency’s ability to meet its share of specified housing needs or existing residential or commercial parking within 1/2 mile of the housing development. it was signed two years ago and took effect 1/1/2023; is that "recent"?

Page 30 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis
BEL-22-001
23 Additionally, the bill does not apply to a housing development project that (1) dedicates a minimum of 20% of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities, (2) contains fewer than 20 housing units, or (3) is subject to parking reductions based on any other applicable law – nor, does it apply to event centers and projects that include a hotel, motel or other transient lodging. The bill would prohibits these provisions from reducing, eliminating, or precluding the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a housing development project that is located within 1/2 mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Currently, as part of Metro’s plan to provide better transit within Los Angeles County, Therethere is a planned Metro station for the City of Bellflower, proposed as part of the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor.   Metro believes that the project would provide high-quality reliable transit service to meet the future mobility needs of residents, employees, and visitors who travel within and through the study area.

This new transit service is expected to increase mobility and connectivity for potentially transit-dependent communities along the corridor, and improve travel times on local and regional transportation networks. The current alternative, aptly named the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), consists of a 14.8-mile light rail transit segment that would connect several cities located between its termini at the Slauson/A Line (Blue) connection and Pioneer stations in Los Angeles County, California. It includes nine stations, five with parking facilities, and a Maintenance and Storage Facility. The project would connect Artesia, Cerritos, Bellflower, Paramount, Downey, South Gate, Cudahy, Bell, Huntington Park, Vernon, unincorporated Florence-Firestone and downtown Los Angeles; the Project is part of the larger 19.3- mile LRT corridor that would connect to Los Angeles Union Station Metro station. The station will also provide approximately 263 parking spaces. The image below depicts the planned corridor.

Page 31 of 186 ends

Emu-u. \ m -
I I“)nn N.
.1 ‘
I : Malnlmnca aid
Slang: Funny IMSFI
9mm;

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis
BEL-22-001
24 As AB 2097 and the proposed Metro Station apply to the City of Bellflower, and the Downtown Bellflower area, the proposed station is located at the northwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard and Pacific Avenue.

Hence, per AB 2097 and its requirements for developments within a half-mile of a transit stop, also described as a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA), subjects the Downtown Bellflower area to the stipulations within the assembly bill. Additionally, it should be noted that when considering AB 2097’s requirements for developments near major transit stops, they not only apply to the proposed Metro light rail station in the Downtown Bellflower study area, but potentially also to bus stops and the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has published a map showing the HQTAs for the SCAG Region (see map below). Bellflower is impacted by three HQTAs. However, only one, the previously described proposed Metro light rail station, impacts the Downtown Bellflower study area. what does this mean?

Page 32 of 186 ends

4 Flower SI
Walnut 5!
Park St
Anesia Blvd
0, Ramona SI
, ,‘Rbse Si
Cedar St ‘ ‘ I Am;
High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) 2045 - SCAG Region
Bellflower, California
rum . :.'; 7 g; cm, IF vfi vs: .I Jimperialy
Map in
Dd

ru
fl Av
e

¥
Wo

P5
Study Area
onn St . '
. Alllndlon o
\
’C
a

Ih
i
l
l

Av
e

hi1
SCAG Map and Ink: Updmd: Fahruarv 2021
North Downtown Bellflower
“g
n
a
w
!

II
J
Q
I
D
I
H
I
?

_J
‘

Le
i
b
a
c
n
e
r
A
v
e

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis
BEL-22-001
25 The findings from this parking study demonstrate if further development or parking modifications were to occur within the north Downtown Bellflower area that are subject to the requirements of AB 2097, with the exception to Bellflower Boulevard, Belmont Street and Oak Street, and Flower Street west of Bellflower Boulevard, the remaining roadways could accommodate the lack of parking requirement for the Downtown Bellflower area. Based on the parking supply and demand findings and data collected within this report, there are several areas within the Downtown Bellflower area that have the parking capacity to handle the changes in parking demand due to AB 2097.

6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGE FUTURE PARKING DEMAND
As outlined throughout the study, the north Downtown Bellflower area has the parking capacity to handle both current and potential parking demand; however, the capacity is currently not being fully utilized. To direct drivers to lots or streets with ample parking supply, one or more of the following recommendations could be implemented:
Implement parking meters on Bellflower Boulevard, Zone A, and Zone B. While the 2-hour parking limit can remain, any time longer than 2-hours would be charged to the driver. Enforcement would need to be implemented to make sure all vehicles parked on Bellflower Boulevard are utilizing the parking meter. These recommendations may direct drivers to use other lots if they are staying for more than 2 hours and/or do not want to potentially pay for parking. Signage throughout Bellflower Boulevard directing drivers to other parking areas with ample parking supply. Drivers may currently be parking on Bellflower Boulevard because they do not know about the Zone M and Zone G parking structures, for example. The signs could also include restrictions (if any) that are in place at the locations drivers are being directed towards. Enforcement of parking restrictions should be implemented during the peak demand times. Extend restricted timeframes to match peak demand hours. Because Zones A-D and Bellflower Boulevard experience high demand on Friday and Saturday outside of their current 2-hour restricted timeframe, the restriction could be extended to 10:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM. what does this mean?

Page 33 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
26 7.0 CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

Page 34 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

If further development or parking modifications were to occur within the north Downtown Bellflower area, Zones E, G, H, K, M, Civic Center Drive, Flower Street east of Civic Center Drive, and Flower Street west of Civic Center Drive could accommodate increased demand or a reduction in parking supply. In the event that a development or modification, such as the implementation of AB 2097 and the construction of the proposed Metro Bellflower station, would impact Downtown Bellflower in a way that increased demand or a reduction in parking supply cannot be directly accommodated, vehicles can be directed to any nearby zones which have parking availability.

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

 Implement parking meters on Bellflower Boulevard, Zone A, and Zone B. While the 2-hour parking limit can remain, any time longer than 2-hours would be charged to the driver. Enforcement would need to be implemented to make sure all vehicles parked on Bellflower Boulevard are utilizing the parking meter. These recommendations may direct drivers to use other lots if they are staying for more than 2 hours and/or do not want to potentially pay for parking.

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

 Signage throughout Bellflower Boulevard directing drivers to other parking areas with ample parking supply. Drivers may currently be parking on Bellflower Boulevard because they do not know about

Page 35 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
28 the Zone M and Zone G parking structures, for example. The signs could also include restrictions (if any) that are in place at the locations drivers are being directed towards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 36 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

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

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

Page 37 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Analysis

BEL-22-001
30 APPENDIX

Page 38 of 186 ends

APPENDIX A

BELLFLOWER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY

Page 39 of 186 ends

North Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis
March 2020

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

Page 40 of 186 ends

@m‘Oto/z
BEllFlflWER

HUMEGRUWN, HUIHENIIE, URBHN
mc.‘|957smca
56%m
E ccccccc Development

2 Downtown Bellflower Parking Analysis
March 2020

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Page 41 of 186 ends

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

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

Walkability

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

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

Page 42 of 186 ends

4 Baseline Data

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

Downtown North Study Area

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

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

Adjusted Baseline Data

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

Page 43 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

Day and Time Limited Parking

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

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

Summary

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

Page 44 of 186 ends

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

Demand and Capacity Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 45 of 186 ends

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Page 46 of 186 ends

8 Exhibit A
Downtown Bellflower Areas

Downtown North Study Area
Downtown South
Study Area
Downtown South
Study Area
Downtown North Study Area
NORTH

Page 47 of 186 ends

9 Exhibit B
Downtown Bellflower Walking Distances

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

Page 48 of 186 ends

Typical Walking Distances
Between Pa rking and
Downtown Attractions
Rea Inns; Ctr
Structure
f I 11m:e ,ju -
‘l .'
i- 3'
."I
t; I . SteelCraft
I 7 “If"? — : II

‘
PM
.
.II‘
'1 I I_| ,-

10 Ex
h
i
b
i
t

C
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n

N
o
r
t
h

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a

P
a
r
k
i
n
g

L
o
t
s

Page 49 of 186 ends

LEGEND
Public Lot Design-tor
\ Curbside Parking
0 Curbside Spices
Time Restricted
Curbside SPICE!
G) Loading Restricted
Curbside Spaces
. L; iii :33? ’9' k ,
i-aa _.
"0"" 4: W‘Tni*--:~ré:; *- 4.»
7)——-'»r‘nw,=r.Q J " 2

11 Ex
h
i
b
i
t

D
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

D
a
i
l
y

P
e
a
k

P
a
r
k
i
n
g

D
e
m
a
n
d

Page 50 of 186 ends

Projected Daily Peak Parking Demand
1300
Capacity = 1244 I Remaining Spa-s = 235 H I
110° w] new shucture &
curbside spaces
900
700
500
300
100
lm 8:00PM 1:00PM HNPM 11:30AM 6:00PM 1WPM IINAM 7:00PM 9110PM 12130PM 8:00PM 8:00PM lZflJPM 7:00PM Friday Saurdav ‘ Sunday Thursday ‘ Friday Sammy ‘ Sunday Friday ‘ Sau rdav Sunny ‘ Thursday‘ Friday ‘ Saturday ‘ Sunday ‘4/12/2019‘ 4/19/2019 4/14/2019 4/13/2019 4/19/2019 4/20/2019 4/21/2019 4/26/2019 4/27/2019 4/20/2019 6/27/2019 6/28/2019 6/29/2019 I 6/30/2019‘

APPENDIX B

K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY

Page 51 of 186 ends

ijim. K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Parking Requirements
Required
Land Use Parking Ratio Quantity Parking
New Development in Town
Center District 1 space per 400 SF 16,264 SF 41
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd,Suite 210,Tustin,CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email:[email protected] 40—Page 52 of 186-40-
It! TRAFHC m lllz.
rmw.m.m.nfiu.m
December 18, 2019 (Revision)
Wayne Lu & Mathew Shenaida
Dream Building Development
5582 Imperial Highway
South Gate, CA 90280
Re: Parking Study- Brew Refinery & Restaurant
16710 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower
Dear Wayne & Mathew,
Per your request, we have conducted a parking study for the proposed restaurant.

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

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

Table 1. Parking Requirements
. Required
Land Use Parking Ratio Quantity Parking
New Development in Town
Center District 1 space per 400 SF 16,264 SF 41
K2 Traffic Englneerlng, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd. Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 1714433241 16 Email: kay®k2traffic.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 53 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

K2 T raffle Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 T.7 14—832—21 16 Email: [email protected] -41-

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

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

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

QROf ESS/oN9Regards,
Fti
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. I JENDE KAY HSU ti
rn
N o. T2285
Jende "Kay" su, T.E. Exp.6/30/20
California Licensed TR2285 sT rRq F
9Tf OF CA1
FOEi
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd,Suite 210,Tustin,CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email:[email protected] 42—

Page 54 of 186 ends

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

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

Regards,
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Jende “Kay” su, T.E.

California Licensed TR2285
K2 Traffic Egglneerlng, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 1714—8312-2116 Email: [email protected]

APPENDIX C

INVENTORY AND OCCUPANCY COUNT DATA

Page 55 of 186 ends

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 42 1 59 0 3 0 40 1 69 2 220
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 30 2 70 1 3 0 31 1 41 2 187
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 32 1 81 2 3 0 25 2 44 2 196
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 44 1 78 0 3 0 23 2 62 3 219
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 30 3 76 0 3 0 27 2 54 4 201
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 34 5 75 0 3 0 11 0 35 2 168
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 39 5 69 2 2 0 14 1 15 0 152
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 39 2 83 5 1 0 44 1 1 3 191
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 43 2 83 5 2 0 10 0 0 0 158
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 42 2 83 5 3 1 15 0 0 0 164
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 29 0 65 4 3 1 21 1 0 0 136
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 9 0 50 3 3 1 23 0 0 0 97
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 0 0 20 0 42 1 51 1 54 1
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 0 0 18 0 42 1 60 0 50 1
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 0 0 19 0 42 1 56 1 58 0
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 0 0 17 0 42 1 51 0 64 0
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 0 0 15 0 42 2 36 1 53 0
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 0 0 12 0 42 0 41 1 54 1
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 0 0 16 0 41 1 36 0 51 2
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 1 0 10 0 28 0 47 0 50 0
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 3 1 13 1 29 0 48 1 63 1
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 2 0 21 1 28 1 23 1 72 2
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 2 0 21 1 21 1 23 1 50 2
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 2 0 21 1 23 0 22 0 31 1
45 88 4 13 #VALUE!45 71
278 Regular
HK
16 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces Total Occupied
Parking Spaces
184
176
169
158
239
219
222
‐
‐
‐
80 76
73 79
22 22
25 35
44 49
50 49
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
3 8
12 13
13 12
5 3
6 4
3 2
224
198
181
North Downtown Bellflower
Thursday, May 19, 2022
Zone A B C D Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces Survey Time Period 13 Regular 28 Regular
E
78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces
Parking Lots
FG
28 Parking Spaces
226
219
Zone I J L M
Current Parking Supply 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces Survey Time Period

Page 56 of 186 ends

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

Page 57 of 186 ends

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

Page 58 of 186 ends

Oak Street
West of Bellflower
Oak Street
East of Bellflower Belmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower Street East of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Bellflower
8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking Spaces Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 7 5 31 5 3 12 4 67
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 7 3 37 5 1 13 4 70
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 6 5 26 9 1 5 4 56
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 5 4 27 6 3 9 5 59
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 7 4 31 6 6 10 5 69
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 3 3 32 6 2 9 5 60
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 2 6 28 6 1 4 4 51
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 5 6 35 7 1 2 3 59
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 4 6 35 8 0 1 3 57
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 6 7 36 13 1 1 3 67
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 6 5 35 14 3 7 4 74
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 4 4 30 13 3 8 4 66
North Downtown Bellflower
Street Parking
Thursday, May 19, 2022
Survey Time Period
Total
Occupied
Parking
SpacesCurrent Parking Supply
Zone

Page 59 of 186 ends

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 39 1 20 0 2 0 29 1 29 0 126
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 39 2 83 5 2 1 24 0 17 0 181
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 39 2 83 6 3 0 20 0 18 0 182
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 37 2 83 3 3 1 16 0 22 8 186
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 33 2 83 2 3 1 18 1 18 0 170
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 38 3 83 5 3 0 14 0 12 0 167
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 39 4 86 3 3 1 18 0 3 0 169
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 39 5 83 6 3 1 17 0 1 0 168
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 39 5 83 4 3 1 19 0 0 0 167
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 39 5 83 6 3 1 29 0 0 0 179
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 1 26 0 0 0 177
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 35 3 81 2 3 1 26 0 0 0 163
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 0 0 19 0 39 2 34 0 52 2
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 0 0 19 0 42 2 41 0 62 0
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 1 0 18 0 44 0 41 1 78 0
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 0 0 19 0 43 1 43 1 67 1
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 0 0 19 0 41 2 46 1 65 0
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 1 0 18 0 40 1 36 0 56 0
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 0 0 21 1 39 1 44 1 65 1
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 0 0 21 1 23 0 54 1 75 1
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 0 0 21 1 27 0 58 2 69 0
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 0 0 21 1 25 0 56 0 65 1
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 1 0 19 0 17 0 37 0 79 2
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 1 0 21 1 33 1 37 0 64 0
44 89 4 13 #VALUE!29 0
262
12 9
9 11
11 12
13 13
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Lots
Friday, May 20, 2022
Zone A B C D E F G Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces 13 Regular 28 RegularSurvey Time Period
Zone H I J L M Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces K
278 Regular
13 13
8 5
‐
‐
‐
Survey Time Period
186
203
221
214
206
107
13 109
95 27
20 32
39 38
165
193
203
273
278
37 38
259101

Page 60 of 186 ends

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

Page 61 of 186 ends

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

Page 62 of 186 ends

Oak Street
West of Bellflower
Oak Street
East of Bellflower Belmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower Street East of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Bellflower
8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking Spaces Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 3 3 26 5 3 9 4 53
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 4 3 32 5 4 5 4 57
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 7 6 35 4 6 12 4 74
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 7 5 31 7 4 7 4 65
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 7 4 31 15 3 2 4 66
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 5 6 34 18 2 3 4 72
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 5 7 34 18 1 2 4 71
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 6 8 36 11 2 5 4 72
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 7 8 36 11 1 9 4 76
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 4 8 36 13 1 9 4 75
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 4 8 36 15 2 5 2 72
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 4 7 36 13 1 5 2 68
North Downtown Bellflower
Street Parking
Friday, May 20, 2022
Zone
Total
Occupied
Parking
SpacesCurrent Parking Supply
Survey Time Period

Page 63 of 186 ends

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 31 3 68 1 2 1 29 2 5 0 156
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 41 2 83 3 2 1 30 2 5 0 183
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 43 2 82 5 3 1 25 2 6 0 185
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 40 1 81 4 2 0 31 4 7 0 186
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 26 2 84 4 1 0 53 4 6 0 200
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 37 1 81 2 1 0 64 3 10 1 224
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 39 3 83 2 3 1 71 6 8 1 240
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 39 6 83 5 3 1 52 3 5 0 221
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 39 6 83 5 3 1 19 1 0 0 181
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 1 10 0 0 0 175
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 39 5 83 6 3 1 12 0 0 0 177
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 39 5 73 3 3 1 5 0 0 0 156
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 0 0 9 0 39 1 33 1 32 2 35 0
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 0 0 9 0 38 1 34 1 36 0 30 0
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 0 0 9 0 40 2 46 0 47 0 30 0
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 0 0 9 0 37 1 54 0 53 0 28 0
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 0 0 9 0 34 2 48 0 41 1 24 0
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 0 0 8 0 35 0 45 0 43 0 12 0
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 1 0 9 1 30 0 41 0 42 0 23 0
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 0 0 6 0 29 0 40 1 47 1 31 0
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 0 0 18 0 26 1 40 0 65 1 38 2
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 3 0 18 1 28 1 43 0 76 1 48 2
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 3 0 18 1 21 1 37 0 72 0 52 1
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 3 0 20 1 19 0 31 0 62 0 46 1
15 14
12 10
11 11
14 4
4 4
4 8
10 10
12 12
13 13
13 13
13 13
12 12
North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Lots
Saturday, May 21, 2022
Zone A B C D E F G Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces 13 Regular 28 RegularSurvey Time Period
Zone H I J L M Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces K
206
Survey Time Period
152
149
174
182
159
143
147
155
191
221
278 Regular
183

Page 64 of 186 ends

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

Page 65 of 186 ends

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

Page 66 of 186 ends

Oak Street
West of Bellflower
Oak Street
East of Bellflower Belmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower Street East of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Bellflower
8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking Spaces Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular 11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 4 6 26 5 3 9 4 57
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 5 5 32 5 4 5 5 61
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 4 6 35 4 6 12 4 71
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 4 6 31 7 4 7 5 64
3:00 PM ‐4:00 PM 4 5 31 15 3 2 5 65
4:00 PM ‐5:00 PM 5 5 34 18 2 3 5 72
5:00 PM ‐6:00 PM 0 4 34 18 1 2 5 64
6:00 PM ‐7:00 PM 4 4 34 17 2 4 5 70
7:00 PM ‐8:00 PM 5 8 38 16 1 4 5 77
8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 8 7 37 19 2 0 5 78
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 7 6 38 18 3 1 3 76
10:00 PM ‐11:00 PM 3 4 29 12 2 1 4 55
North Downtown Bellflower
Saturday, May 21, 2022
Street Parking
Zone
Total
Occupied
Parking
SpacesCurrent Parking Supply
Survey Time Period

Page 67 of 186 ends

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 9:00 AM ‐10:00 AM 14 0 16 0 2 1 3 0 0 1 53
10:00 AM ‐11:00 AM 17 1 25 0 3 1 3 0 0 1 69
11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 16 0 54 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 94
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 29 0 86 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 142
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 41 0 83 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 148
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 39 1 86 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 151
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 9:00 AM ‐10:00 AM 1 0 0 0 31 2 18 0 14 1 18 0
10:00 AM ‐11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 42 2 30 0 15 0 18 0
11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 43 1 54 1 23 0 18 0
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 1 0 0 0 25 1 47 1 36 0 17 0
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 1 0 0 0 20 1 57 0 46 1 16 0
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 1 0 0 0 23 1 54 1 65 1 17 0
9 5
3 5
4 6
7 12
13 12
13 13
North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Lots
Sunday, May 22, 2022
Zone A B C D E F G Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces 13 Regular 28 RegularSurvey Time Period
Zone H I J L M Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces K
Survey Time Period 278 Regular
85 107
140
128
142
163

Page 68 of 186 ends

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

Page 69 of 186 ends

Oak Street
West of Bellflower
Oak Street
East of Bellflower Belmont Street Civic Center Drive Flower Street East of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Civic Center
Flower Street
West of Bellflower
8 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 38 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 20 Parking Spaces 33 Parking Spaces 5 Parking Spaces Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular 9:00 AM ‐10:00 AM 3 3 29 3 2 0 4 44
10:00 AM ‐11:00 AM 1 2 30 3 2 0 3 41
11:00 AM ‐12:00 PM 0 3 33 4 3 1 4 48
12:00 PM ‐1:00 PM 2 4 32 5 3 0 4 50
1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 0 4 34 6 3 1 4 52
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 2 5 34 7 2 3 3 56
Total
Occupied
Parking
SpacesCurrent Parking Supply
Survey Time Period
North Downtown Bellflower
Street Parking
Sunday, May 22, 2022
Zone

Page 70 of 186 ends

39 Regular 1 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 43 1 83 6 3 1 7 1 0 0 158
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 26 1 85 3 3 1 15 0 0 0 145
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 0 0 8 1 36 1 50 1 63 0
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 0 0 17 1 26 1 43 0 53 0
Parking Lots
13 Regular 28 Regular
E
78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces
Survey Time Period
Total Occupied
Parking Spaces
K
16 Parking Spaces
G
28 Parking Spaces
Current Parking Supply 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces Zone I J L M
‐
F
‐
182
167
North Downtown Bellflower
Thursday, June 9, 2022
Zone A B C D Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces Survey Time Period
H
102 Parking Spaces
278 Regular
26 22
13 11

Page 71 of 186 ends

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

Page 72 of 186 ends

Page 73 of 186 ends

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 40 5 83 4 3 1 15 0 0 0 163
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 41 2 83 5 3 1 13 0 0 0 161
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 2 0 21 1 31 1 75 0 83 1
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 1 0 18 1 26 0 62 1 76 0
276
23651
61 ‐
‐
13 12
278 RegularSurvey Time Period
Zone H I J
Current Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces
L
78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces
13 Regular 28 Regular
28 Parking Spaces
M Total Occupied
Parking Spaces84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces
K
North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Lots
Friday, June 10, 2022
Zone A B C D E F G Total Occupied
Parking SpacesCurrent Parking Supply
Survey Time Period
45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces

Page 74 of 186 ends

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

Page 75 of 186 ends

Page 76 of 186 ends

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 1 6 0 0 0 157
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 40 5 83 5 3 1 8 0 0 0 158
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 8:00 PM ‐9:00 PM 0 0 12 0 19 1 53 0 66 2 53 2
9:00 PM ‐10:00 PM 1 0 18 1 25 1 34 0 68 2 63 2 215
Survey Time Period
208
LM
0Current Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 84 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces K
278 Regular
Survey Time Period
Zone H I J
28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces
13 Regular 28 Regular
Current Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces ‐
‐
13 13
North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Lots
Saturday, June 11, 2022
Zone A B C D E F G Total Occupied
Parking Spaces

Page 77 of 186 ends

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

Page 78 of 186 ends

Page 79 of 186 ends

39 Regular 6 Handicap 83 Regular 6 Handicap 3 Regular 1 Handicap 71 Regular 7 Handicap Regular Handicap 1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 41 4 83 6 3 1 4 0 0 0 155
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 39 6 83 6 3 1 8 0 0 0 159
15 Regular 1 Handicap 21 Regular 1 Handicap 42 Regular 2 Handicap 98 Regular 4 Handicap 81 Regular 3 Handicap 1:00 PM ‐2:00 PM 3 0 0 0 28 1 43 0 65 2 53 2
2:00 PM ‐3:00 PM 1 0 0 1 34 1 45 0 79 2 55 2
197
220
LM
084 Parking Spaces 278 Parking Spaces
278 Regular
K
Survey Time Period
Survey Time Period
Zone H I J
Current Parking Supply 16 Parking Spaces 22 Parking Spaces 44 Parking Spaces 102 Parking Spaces 28 Parking Spaces 78 Parking Spaces 293 Parking Spaces
13 Regular 28 Regular
Current Parking Supply 45 Parking Spaces 89 Parking Spaces 4 Parking Spaces 13 Parking Spaces 13 13
North Downtown Bellflower
Parking Lots
Sunday, June 12, 2022
Zone A B C D E F G Total Occupied
Parking Spaces

Page 80 of 186 ends

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

Page 81 of 186 ends

Page 82 of 186 ends

APPENDIX D

IS/MND FOR THE DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT MIXED‐USE PROJECT

Page 83 of 186 ends

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(MND NO. 20-01)

FOR THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

MIXED USE PROJECT
Applicant:

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

Lead Agency:

City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, California 90706
May 2020

Page 84 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 85 of 186 ends

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

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

Page 86 of 186 ends

iii

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

Page 87 of 186 ends

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

Page 88 of 186 ends

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

Page 89 of 186 ends

1 A. INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 90 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 91 of 186 ends

3 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED

DOWNTOWN BELLFLOWER TOD MIXED USE PROJECT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 92 of 186 ends

4 Source: adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Figure 1 Regional Location

Page 93 of 186 ends

71'. as
— Burbariik‘ $3 . t
G let‘niaglé‘x
# j .‘ ‘ Santa .nlverCIty 1 , ‘ ‘ 7 ,, r 7 ‘ '1 7 Monica --’ ' ' 1 1 7 r ‘J ‘ “U" 77 7:7 " 7 ~ 3 ‘ A , my 1 ‘ ‘ - ' ' ' SAN ‘ 7/7 7‘ 77‘ , 1 , . ,- , 1 {BERNA’RDINO ‘ .1 COUNTY ‘ 'r'
1‘—
‘i ‘ 1 _ 7 ....' k H ‘1.- 11“ ‘1 I” Huntington . , W? Irving {-3 ,1 } ' . v ' Beach ‘ « ~ ,‘
‘ ’ 1 1, , Costa‘Mesa ‘
I I 1 _A_ 1. " ( > . . 1'
‘ ‘ )4" “"“WI ‘ 9 1.
‘ '445’3, Newport -‘ , , _ 1 I
1 ‘ / Beach , L . L; A
n \F (A 1 ‘3,
.1 ,1 J, ‘ .1 , A 1 _ 1
1- l \‘»- ,
. ' ‘ y ‘1' 1/ l “ p
* Preject Location ° 1 « - 1 :* g 1 1
, ‘ (”1. ,‘ ’3
0 3 6 ,1 ,- V “ ‘. , "- EMiles @ . 1 }
‘ ESRI Ocean Base ‘ . “ , . .r k‘) - I 1 1.9010144.01G|S 001 1 \ ‘ ‘ ‘ -' . " V L ‘5 fig «1 L -4 - 1 . 11L it 1‘.

5 Source: adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Figure 2 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

Page 94 of 186 ends

= Project Site
60 1 20
E Feet
2018 Google Earth Imagery
I‘ 1901014401 GRX 005
‘l ., e Building previously
Parkmg Garag? - demolished for adjacent
(Under COHStI’UCtIOh) parking structure
construction staging area.

Mayne St
Center '
L s Angelle‘s
ounty Fire
',

.
mmercial Use-l ‘
{u
l.
.3
m
E 3 2 L‘ E
"$
.
-
_
'

‘5
1 —

1'
I
i:
.
‘
(i
f

A.
.
l
_
l
.
i
|
-
.

I
I
‘
;
:

I
5 ‘
:

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

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

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

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

Page 95 of 186 ends

7 Source: adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Figure 3 Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations

Page 96 of 186 ends

A p.
= Project Site
Zoning
Multiple Residential
IEI Commerical
IEI Light Industrial
T—C - Area 1
Ill Open Space
’//// Bellflower Village Overlay North
, General Plan Land Use
— High Density Residential
— Commerical
— Industrial
Open Space
0 1 00 200 @
E Feet
2018 Google Earth Imagery
‘ 1901014401 GIS 003
'J Y J
A
fi
r
—
’
5 ‘
r-
B
l
v
d

.1
.

Bellfl owe
aL

\.
‘
.
.

93 3
'
)

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

The proposed land uses are summarized in Table 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 97 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

Entitlements:

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

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

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

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

Page 98 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Master Signage Plan.

Page 99 of 186 ends

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

Page 100 of 186 ends

i
MAYNIE—STREET _
{ER SIDENTIAL BUILDINTT
I=)>
EL
M
.T HEATER
Q E > LLI _| D C an
CC LLI E O _l u. _| -4 _|.u van

PARCEL A
Theater: 9,350 SF/4 Screens/278 Seats
Retail Commercial: 4,750 SF
Trash: 350 SF

PARCEL B
Residential Units: 91
Retail Commercial: 650 SF
Parking: 139 spaces

PROJECT SITE

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL

MULTIPLEX THEATER

RETAIL COMMERCIAL
1901014401 GRX 001

Page 101 of 186 ends

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

Page 102 of 186 ends

r xii _, - - _ -«-.; 7 . —-, oa.x - ‘7 "- . Vi ‘s- ‘ ...» '10. .1 I, _. ,h"! V“ v 5 T ¢- 9 Wm —4 7‘ _ 9%, J: , ,1; 1 llmlm , ‘ I ‘ '~ 7 ;:fi 7 n V. . ”1203'?" ‘3' i I ..;. ~z r; “,1 , , mu ._ in- “‘ $3“ ‘ a ’5 { 3:“ Ln: «2 W 9’ ”f {(6 ‘3‘}: \ "T‘W .:i;“ x r . 1 r T 7|! lm
l
l
i
l
l
]

—- < i__
1901014401 GRX 003

Page 103 of 186 ends

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

Page 104 of 186 ends

ED
.

00 /

..
.
.
.

:.
_
:

..
.
.
_
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.

.
..
.
.
.
2 .
.
.

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

z
_
..
.
.
.
.
.
.

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

.
..
.
.

..
.
.

..
.
.
_
.
.

——
:
:

:—
—
_
:
_
.

3‘
1 2
.

.
m
1\

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n
.
.

..
.
.
_
.
.

..
.
.
.
.

.
..
.
.

..
.
:

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
u

_
..
.
.
.
.

..
.
1 .
_
,
..
.
.
.
.
.
.

4. 3
.

.IM
I
A
I
I
R

W111
1901014401 GRX 004

Page 105 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 106 of 186 ends

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

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

ONSITE AND SURROUNDING
LAND USES AND SETTING:

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

OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY
APPROVALS: None

Page 107 of 186 ends

19 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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

Page 108 of 186 ends

DD
&
D
D
D
D

D
DE
D
D
D
D
D

D
DD
D
D
D
D
D

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

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

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

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

May 7, 2020

Jason P. Clarke, Senior Planner
City of Bellflower
Date

Page 109 of 186 ends

21 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 110 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 111 of 186 ends

|:
|
|
:
|

fiXI

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

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

Page 112 of 186 ends

24 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 113 of 186 ends

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

Page 114 of 186 ends

26 3. AIR QUALITY

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

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

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

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

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

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

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

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

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

Page 115 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 116 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 117 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 118 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 119 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 120 of 186 ends

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

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

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

Page 121 of 186 ends

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

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

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

Page 122 of 186 ends

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

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

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

Page 123 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 124 of 186 ends

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

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

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

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

Toxic Air Contaminants

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

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

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

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

Page 125 of 186 ends

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

Although project construction activities would be temporary and short-term, diesel particulate emissions from equipment exhaust would likely result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD 10 in one million cancer risk threshold at the nearest sensitive receptors (residential uses to the west of the site). The Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is responsible for developing guidelines for performing health risk assessments (HRAs). In March 2015, OEHHA has adopted new guidelines which results in numeric life-time health risk values to be approximately two to three times higher than those calculated under the previous guidelines.

According to the SCAQMD, under the new OEHHA guidelines, a typical 1-acre office project with a 6-month construction duration would likely result in a significant health risk impact with regard to construction emissions (SCAQMD 2014). As the project is approximately 1.56-acre in size, with a 2- year construction duration, construction emissions would also likely result in significant impacts with regard to cancer risk. Since the new OEHHA guidelines have been adopted, the SCAQMD significance threshold with regard to health risk has remain unchanged.

In the absence of refined guidance from the SCAQMD, the responsible air quality regulatory agency for the Basin, it is conservatively assumed that, based on SCAQMD’s estimated health risk impacts for typical construction activities, the project would not result in a potentially significant incremental increase in health risk. Therefore, the project would not result in a potentially significant impact with regard to construction. Impacts to nearby receptors would be less than significant.

Operations
Project operations would generate only minor amounts of diesel fuel emissions from delivery trucks and incidental maintenance activities. These activities would be intermittent and would not include extended periods of idling at the project site. Trucks would comply with applicable provisions of the CARB Truck and Bus regulation to reduce PM and NOX emissions from existing diesel trucks.

Therefore, project operations are not considered a substantial source of diesel particulates. In addition, project operations would only result in minimal emissions of air toxics from maintenance or other ongoing activities, such as from the use of architectural coatings and other products. As a result, toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the project. Based on the uses expected on the project site, potential long-term operational impacts associated with the release of TACs would be minimal and would not be expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) With respect to odors, the project would be considered significant if it created objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Construction
Potential activities that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents and the combustion of diesel fuel in on- and off-road equipment. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the amount of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. In addition, the project would comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure regarding idling limitations for diesel trucks. Through mandatory compliance with rules and regulations, no construction activities or materials are expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, construction of the project would result in less than significant impact with respect to odors. Impacts to nearby receptors would be less than significant.

Page 126 of 186 ends

38 Operations
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project does not include any uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with substantial odors. As a result, the project is not expected to discharge contaminants into the air in quantities that would cause a nuisance, injury, or annoyance to the public or property pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, the project would not create adverse odors affecting a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 127 of 186 ends

39 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. Biological Resources.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion
a) The City is located within southern Los Angeles County and is highly urbanized. Accordingly, the potential for candidate, sensitive, or special status species or habitats is low within City limits and thus at the project site. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database identifies six candidate, sensitive, or special status species or habitats within the Whitter quadrangle, which includes the City of Bellflower. These include the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), bank swallow (riparia riparia), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), crotch bumble bee (Bombus Crotchii), and the California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)5. Redevelopment of the site would not expand the existing footprint of the currently developed area or introduce any land uses that would adversely affect biological resources. However, the site is already developed with a vacant commercial building and a parking lot with limited landscaping and no native vegetation is present on site. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. No impact would occur. b) As discussed above, the project site and the surrounding area are highly developed and urbanized.

No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present on the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact would occur.

Page 128 of 186 ends

40 c) As discussed above, the project site and the surrounding area are highly developed and urbanized.

Therefore, no wetlands are present on the project site or in the surrounding area. Thus, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any state or federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur.
d) As discussed above, the project site is entirely disturbed with one vacant commercial building and a graded dirt parking lot. The project site is surrounded by development to the east, west, and south.

One disturbed vacant parcel is present to the north of the project site. A parking structure is currently being constructed on this parcel. As such, due to the highly developed nature of the site and its surroundings, this area is not designated as a native resident or migratory wildlife corridor. The proposed project would not Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impact would occur. e) The City does not have any local policies or ordinances that protect specific biological resources, including tree preservation. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur. f) The City is not regulated by any Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (CDFW 2019). Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Page 129 of 186 ends

41 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

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

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

Discussion
a) A historical resource is defined in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; possessing high artistic values; or yielding information important in prehistory or history. Resources listed in or determined eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered historical resources under CEQA.

According to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project with an effect that may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. The project site is currently developed with one existing commercial building. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix D), this building was built sometime between 1952 and 1963. According to City public permit applications, this building has been altered a few times. Upgrades included placing concrete along additional footings in 2001 and renovation of the building which took place in 2002 (City of Bellflower 2002).

According to the City’s General Plan, Conservation Element, the City does not include sites listed on the State or Federal Registers of Historic Place, however buildings with historical significance are located within the City. The closest one to the project site, as identified in the City’s General Plan is the Pacific Electric Railway Depot building, which is located approximately 95 feet to the northeast of the project site, across Mayne Street (City of Bellflower 1995). However, the proposed project would not result in any disturbance of this structure. Therefore, because the site does not contain any historic resources, and because the existing structure on site has previously been altered and not considered a historic resource, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is currently developed with a vacant commercial building and a parking lot with limited landscaping. The potential for archaeological materials to be present at the project site is considered low because the entire project site has been previously disturbed. However, although unlikely, there is the potential for previously unknown subsurface artifacts to be encountered during ground- disturbance activities. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially significant, and implementation of mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would be required. The impact would be less than significant with the above mitigation measure implemented.

Page 130 of 186 ends

D %
II
I

42 MM-CUL-1: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the project contractor halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to determine whether or not the find is significant. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the City and appropriate Native American monitor(s) and group(s) (if the find is a prehistoric or Native American resource), shall develop a treatment plan. Construction activities shall be redirected to other work areas until the treatment plan has been implemented or the qualified archaeologist determines that work can resume in the vicinity of the find.
c) As discussed above, the project site is developed and thus has been previously disturbed. Therefore, the potential for human remains is deemed to be low considering the developed nature of the site.

The project would also be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097.98, which ensure proper handling of any inadvertent human remain finds. Thus, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Page 131 of 186 ends

43 6. ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Discussion
a) Neither the law nor the State CEQA Guidelines establish thresholds that define when energy consumption is considered wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. Compliance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards would result in energy-efficient buildings.

However, compliance with building codes does not adequately address all potential energy impacts during construction and operation. For example, energy would be required to transport people and goods to and from the project site. Energy use is discussed by anticipated use type below. Project energy use calculations are contained in Appendix B.

Construction-Related Energy
Energy would be required to operate and maintain construction equipment and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical buildings and infrastructure associated with the project would be nonrecoverable. Most energy consumption would result from operation of off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips associated with commutes by construction workers and haul trucks trips.

Table 7 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the construction of the project by year. Most of the construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and waste using on-road haul trucks. An estimated 9,399 gallons of gasoline and 35,639 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (Appendix B).

Table 7
Construction Energy Consumption
Year Gasoline (Gallons) Diesel (Gallons)
2021 142 12,170
2022 9,257 23,469
Total 9,399 35,639
Notes: Gasoline gallons include on-road gallons from worker trips. Diesel gallons include off-road equipment and on-road gallons from worker and vendor trips. Demolition of building was already competed; thus energy consumption modeling is conservative.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2019
The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Associated energy consumption would be typical of that associated with commercial projects in an urban setting. Automotive fuels would be consumed to transport people to and from the project site. Energy would be required for construction elements and transport construction materials.

The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical infrastructure associated with the

Page 132 of 186 ends

44 project would be nonrecoverable. There is no atypical construction related energy demand associated with the proposed project. Non-renewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region.

Operational-Related Energy
The project would increase electricity and natural gas consumption in the region relative to existing conditions. However, the new buildings would, at a minimum, be built to 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 30 percent more efficient than 2016 Standards (CEC 2018). Table 8 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the operation of the project for the first full year of operations (2023).

Table 8
Levels of Energy Consumption Summary Associated with the Operation of the Project for the First Full Year of Operations (2023) Energy Type Energy Consumption Units
Electricity 718 MWh/year
Natural Gas 1,219 MMBTU/year
Gasoline 138,832 gal/year
Diesel 12,857 gal/year
Notes: MWh/year = megawatt-hours per year; MMBTU/year = million British thermal units per year, gal/year = gallons per year.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Fuel consumption associated with project-related vehicle trips would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Based on the estimated annual vehicle miles traveled (3,792,682 miles) from the CalEEMod model outputs and estimated miles per gallon (MPG) from the CARB mobile source emissions inventory EMFAC2017 Web Database, gasoline consumption is estimated at 138,832 gallons per year and diesel consumption is estimated at 12,857 gallons per year (See Appendix A). State and federal regulations regarding fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in California are designed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy for transportation. Additionally, the project is integrated with adjacent residential land uses. This integration would likely reduce VMT from neighboring residences who might otherwise travel further to shop. Although this potential reduction in VMT was not quantified, this effect would align with intent of the regional South Coast Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy to reduce regional VMT.

The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In addition to compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, design features of the project include the installation of electric vehicle chargers, increased transit accessibility near the project site, and an enhanced pedestrian bike network. With these design features, the project’s energy consumption through construction, building operation, and transportation would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Relevant plans that pertain to the efficient use of energy include the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), which focuses on energy efficiency; demand response; renewable energy; the supply and reliability of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels; and achieving GHG reduction targets (CEC 2019). Although the project would require more energy use than the existing site, the project would be designed with energy efficiency design features under the 2019 California Energy Code.

These standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building installation and

Page 133 of 186 ends

45 roofing, and lighting. In addition, transportation energy demand from the implementation of the project would be reduced by federal and State regulations including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program. In addition, the project will encourage alternative fuel use with the installation of electric vehicle chargers in the proposed parking lot and transit use by being located nearby transit options. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 134 of 186 ends

46 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Discussion
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project was prepared by Geocon West, Inc. in March 2019 (Appendix C1). The results of this report serve as the basis for this analysis.

Further analysis has been prepared by Geocon West, Inco for the liquefaction potential of the project site. The results of this liquefaction analysis have been summarized in an email from Petrina Zen, PE of Geocon West, Inc. from February 19, 2019, which has been included as Appendix C2 of this MND. a.i) Fault rupture is the displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years), but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive (Appendix C1). The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are present within the project site. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture due to faulting is considered low. Nonetheless, the project site is located in the seismically active Southern California region and various faults are present in the vicinity of the site. The closest active fault to the site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the project site (Appendix C1).

Thus, the proposed project could be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many nearby active faults.

Page 135 of 186 ends

_H
_
_
H
_
_
H
_
D
_
H
_

DD
E
M
Z
N

EE
D
D
D

DD
D
D
D

47 Nonetheless the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) includes seismic design criteria, which would be required for the proposed project in order to reduce the potential for structural damage. With implementation of required CBC requirements, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture. Impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii) As discussed above, although no active fault traverses the project site, the site is located within the seismically active Southern California region and various faults are present in the vicinity of the site.

The closest known active or potentially active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the project site. Other nearby faults include the Whittier Fault, located approximately 9.1 miles northeast of the site; the Palos Verdes Fault, located 11.9 miles southwest of the site; the Raymond Fault, located approximately 16.4 miles north of the site; and the Hollywood Fault, located approximately 18 miles north-northwest of the project site. Lastly, the San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 42 miles northeast of the project site (Appendix C1). Thus, due to regional proximity to major known active fault zones, the project site is subject to strong ground motion from seismic activity similar to that of the rest of Southern California.

However, as discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC, which incorporates seismic design criteria, including foundation design and grading requirements. The applicable seismic design criteria for this project are incorporated in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1) and would be implemented for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to geotechnical hazards would be potentially significant, and implementation of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 would be required. The impact would be less than significant with the above mitigation measure implemented.

MM-GEO-1: The proposed project shall comply with the recommendations and requirements contained in the geotechnical investigation in Appendix C1 and C2. a.iii) Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose and saturated soil loses strength during strong ground shaking events. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, and groundwater level (Appendix C1).

The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1) includes a liquefaction analysis of the project site. As identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the South Gate Quadrangle and the City’s Safety Element identify the project site as having a potential for liquefaction. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation further evaluated the liquefaction potential at the project site using soil testing and confirmed that, due to the alluvial soils and historically high groundwater depth at the site, there is potential for liquefaction to occur on site in the event of an earthquake. Due to potential for liquefaction to occur on site, further analysis has been prepared by Geocon West, Inco for the liquefaction potential of the project site. The results of this liquefaction analysis have been summarized in an email from Petrina Zen, PE of Geocon West, Inc from February 19, 2019, which has been included as Appendix C2 of this MND. This liquefaction summary provided design features such as requiring that new development is placed on a mat foundation, place new development on-grade rather than with a subterranean level for development within Parcel B. For the renovation within Parcel A, the liquefaction summary recommends that although a conventional foundation is appropriate, the applicant shall coordinate with the structural engineer on tolerable settlements and the foundation would be required to be designated for seismic settlements and as well static settlements (Appendix C2). Therefore, impacts to geotechnical hazards would be potentially significant, and implementation of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 would be required. The impact would be less than significant with the above mitigation measure implemented.

MM-GEO-1: The proposed project shall comply with the recommendations and requirements contained in the geotechnical investigation in Appendix C1 and C2.

Page 136 of 186 ends

48 a.iv) According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the topography of the project site is relatively level and the topography in the immediate vicinity slopes gently to the southwest. Both the City’s General Plan Safety Element and the County of Los Angeles Safety Element indicate that the site is not located within an area of slope instability (Appendix C1). Therefore, because the potential for landslides on site is considered low, impacts would be less than significant. b) Soil erosion refers to the process by which soil or earth material is loosened or dissolved and removed from its original location. Erosion can occur by varying processes and may occur in a particular development area where bare soil is exposed to wind or moving water (both rainfall and surface runoff). The processes of erosion are generally a function of material type, terrain steepness, rainfall or irrigation levels, surface drainage conditions, and general land uses. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and micro-organisms.

The project is located in an urbanized area of the City and the project site has already been disturbed and developed. Therefore, extensive grading would not be required for the proposed project.

Nonetheless, earth-moving activities during the construction phase could temporarily increase the potential for displaced soils and thus could be subject to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The project would be required to be constructed in accordance with standard erosion control practices required by the CBC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, as applicable. Consistent with these requirements, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) could be prepared that incorporates Best management practices (BMPs) to control water erosion during construction periods. Further, wind erosion would be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by the SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion would also be reduced by implementation of standard erosion control measures imposed during site preparation and grading activities, as required under Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Thus, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss. Impacts would be less than significant. c) As discussed under Threshold a.iv, above, the potential for landslides to occur on the project site is considered low. project site is not located within an area prone to landslides.

According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1), the project site is underlain by Holocene age alluvium consisting of clay, silt, and sand. Artificial fill was also encountered at the project site during field explorations and characterized as dry to slightly moist and loose to medium dense. Further, groundwater was encountered on site during the field exploration. However, per the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, based on the depth of groundwater encountered and the depth of proposed construction, groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction.

Nonetheless, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation incorporates recommendations to ensure proposer drainage of the project site and ensure that potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse would be reduced. Impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.
d) According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C1), the soils encountered during the field investigation are considered to have a very low expansive potential and are classified as non-expansive in accordance with the CBC. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation also incorporates recommendations for building foundations to add additional support for structures. Thus, the proposed project would not be located on expansive soils, creating direct or indirect risks to life or property. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Septic tanks or other similar alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed under the project. No impact would occur.

Page 137 of 186 ends

49 f) As discussed under Threshold c, above, the project site is underlain by Holocene age alluvium. The potential for paleontological resources to be present at the project site is considered low because the entire project site has been previously disturbed. Pleistocene or older (older than 11,000 years) continental sedimentary deposits are considered as having a high paleontological potential while Holocene-age deposits (less than 10,000 years old) are generally considered to have a low paleontological potential because they are geologically immature and are unlikely to have fossilized the remains of organisms. Therefore, due to the low potential for paleontological resources to occur and the developed nature of the site, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Page 138 of 186 ends

50 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion
a) Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. The absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature.

The earth has a much lower temperature than the sun; therefore, the earth emits lower frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. Project-related greenhouse gas calculations are included in Appendix A.

The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because different GHGs have different warming potentials and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For example, SF6 is a GHG commonly used in the utility industry as an insulating gas in circuit breakers and other electronic equipment. SF6, while comprising a small fraction of the total GHGs emitted annually world-wide, is a much more potent GHG with 22,800 times the global warming potential as CO2. Therefore, an emission of one metric ton (MT) of SF6 could be reported as an emission of 22,800 MT of CO2e.

Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.3 The Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) latest 2018 CEQA Guidelines, encourage cities to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a city may determine that a particular project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted mitigation program, or plan for the reduction of GHG emissions that includes the following elements:
(A) Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area;
(B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;

3 A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms; it is equal to approximately 1.1 U.S. tons and approximately 2,204.6 pounds.

Page 139 of 186 ends

51 (C) Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
(D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
(E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

In response to these requirements, the City, in December 2012, adopted a climate action plan (CAP) which explained how the City would achieve its proportional share of state GHG emission reductions.

The City’s CAP met the programmatic requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and described specific measures and performance standards for reducing community emissions. The CAP Climate Ready Development Standards were established to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that were subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA. The Climate Ready Development Standards are part of the CAP and give points for energy efficiency and emissions-reducing features of new developments. Each standard has a point value assigned to it that reflects its general effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions. For a project to be fully compliant with the CAP, an applicant must select measures to achieve 16 points. For additional flexibility, the City established an in-lieu fee program that allowed applicants to pay a fee to be used to offset GHG emissions through energy efficiency retrofits of City’s existing building stock. Thus, if a project didn’t get 16 points, it could pay based on how many points it received.

Projects that are consistent with the CAP as determined through the use of these Climate Ready Development Standards could rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions.

Projects that are not consistent with the CAP would need to prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions.

Project Consistency with CAP
A preliminary analysis of the Climate Ready Development Standards shows that the project would be designed to comply with the CAP as discussed below in Table 9, Consistency with CAP Climate Ready Development Standards. The analysis in the table shows the potential number of points the project would achieve for through its design or by complying with standards.

Table 9
Consistency with CAP Climate Ready Development Standards Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Demonstrate the building will perform at least 15% better than the current Title 24. Three additional points can be achieved if the building will perform at least 30% better than the current Title 24.
3-6 Not applicable. 0
Provide preferred parking for low-emitting and fuel-
efficient vehicles for 5% of the total vehicle parking or provide electric vehicle recharging stations for 3% of the total vehicle capacity.
3 Applicable. The project
would be designed to
provide electric vehicle
charging stations at 3% of
the parking spaces.
3

Page 140 of 186 ends

52 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Hire a third-party commissioning agent to conduct a
commissioning audit of the building and verify the building mechanical systems were installed and operate correctly 3 Not applicable. 0
Design and orient 75% or more new buildings such that
one axis is at least 1.5 times longer than the other, and such that the longer axis is within 15 degrees of the
geographical east/west axis. The length to width ratio shall be applied only to the length of walls enclosing conditioned spaces, walls enclosing unconditioned spaces such as
garages, arcades or porches cannot contribute to standard achievement. South facing vertical surfaces of buildings counting towards standard achievement must not be more
than 25% shaded at time of initial occupancy (measured at noon on December 21st).
3 Not applicable. 0
Implement a commute trip reduction program if the project generates more than 50 jobs.
3 Not applicable. 0
Install solar energy generation to meet 35% of the
project’s energy demand. The solar panels should be
onsite, but can be located offsite and within the City
Limits, at the approval of the Planning Director. Two
additional points can be achieved for meeting 50% of the project’s energy demand through installed solar energy
generation.
3-5 Not applicable. 0
Use porous materials on all paved areas except fire lanes or specified fire access as required by the Fire
Department.
2 Not applicable. 0
All non-permeable paving materials shall be high albedo materials with a Solar Reflectance index of at least 29. 2 Not applicable. 0
If a new development is within a ½ mile of a transit stop and requires off-street parking, parking must be
unbundled from the rental or for-sale cost.
2 Applicable. Project is within
½ mile of projected train
station and bus lines on
Bellflower Boulevard.
2 Provide continuous rows of appropriately spaced trees (every 25 feet) along all streets (or an equivalent number of trees placed offsite at the discretion of the Planning Director.) Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade. Evergreen
trees are preferred. Palm trees shall be prohibited from consideration towards this standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
If a façade faces a street or sidewalk, 30% or greater of its continuous length shall not be blank (without windows and doors). Walls with public art installations such as murals may be exempted.
2 Applicable. 2
It is prohibited for more than 25% of the linear street frontage of new buildings to be garages and service bay openings.
2 Potentially applicable. 2
New multi-unit developments must install electricity, gas, and water meters for each unit.
2 Applicable (no gas)

Page 141 of 186 ends

53 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Design and install landscaping to minimize summer heat
gain through: (1) the placement of evergreen trees along the west façade of buildings, (2) the placement of trees so as to shade 50% of the site’s hardscape within 5 years of construction, and (3) a covenant recorded that provides for the ongoing maintenance so as to maintain the tree’s shade. Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade. Evergreen trees are
preferred. Palm trees shall be prohibited from
consideration towards achieving this standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
Provide at least one secure, enclosed bicycle storage
space, separated and independent from the required
automobile parking areas, per occupant for a percentage of the planned occupancy and no less than one space per unit. Points shall be achieved as follows: (a) For
provisions of spaces for 15% of planned occupancy, 1
point; (b) For provision of spaces for 30% of planned
occupancy, a total of 2 points; (c) For provision of spaces for 45% of planned occupancy, a total of 3 points: and (d) For provision of spaces for 50% or more of planned
occupancy, a total of 4 points.
1-4 Applicable. 15% of planned
occupancy total of 14
secure, enclosed bicycle
storage spaces.

1 Provide visitor bicycle racks on-site with at least one bicycle space per 10,000 square feet of new non-retail
space or 5,000 square feet of retail space but not fewer than four bicycle spaces per building or 1 space per
business (whichever is greater).
2 Applicable. The project
would include bicycle
spaces and racks.
2 Provide secure visitor bicycle racks on-site, with at least one bicycle space per 10 new dwelling units and not less than four spaces per project site.
2 Applicable. The project will
include 10 secure visitor
bicycle spaces.
2 Provide at least one on-site shower with changing facility for any development with 100 or more new workers and
at least one additional on-site shower with changing
facility for every 150 new workers thereafter.
2 Not applicable. 0
Provide at least one additional tree per unit above what is required by code. Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade.

Evergreen trees are preferred. Palm trees shall be
prohibited from consideration towards achieving this
standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
Provide at least one tree per 500 square feet of building area. Trees shall be of a type and nature that have broad canopies and provide ample shade. Evergreen trees are
preferred. Palm trees shall be prohibited from
consideration towards achieving this standard.
2 Not applicable. 0
Incorporate appropriate traffic calming features such as curb extensions, mini-circles, parking chicanes,
roundabouts, medians, raised street crossing or similar features. (Applies to projects greater than 5 acres)
1 Not applicable. 0

Page 142 of 186 ends

54 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Minimize the number of driveway cuts that intersect with sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways.
1 Potentially applicable. The
project would be designed
to minimize the number of
driveway cuts that intersect
with sidewalks and other
pedestrian walkways.

Removing one existing
driveway cut along Oak
Street and one along
Mayne Street.
1 Delineate crosswalks at every intersection within ½ mile of the project site. (Applies to projects greater than 5 acres)
1 Not applicable. 0
Construct sidewalks on both sides of streets (except
where the Bellflower Municipal Code exempts such) for
frontage controlled by the project applicant that is
contiguous to the project site.
1 Potentially applicable. The
city decides where
crosswalks go.
1 Create external pedestrian and bicycle connections every 800 feet along the project perimeter. (Applies to projects greater than 5 acres)
1 Not applicable. 0
Continue to divert 100% of all non-hazardous inert
construction and demolition debris for recycling and
salvage and divert 75% of all remaining construction and demolition debris.
1 Not applicable. 0
Locate the majority entry points to new buildings within a ¼ mile of a transit stop.
1 Applicable. Bus stops along
Bellflower Boulevard and
future train station.
1 Use salvaged, refurbished, or recycled materials such that the sum of these materials constitutes at least 5% based on cost, of the total value of materials on the
project. One additional point can be achieved if the use of these materials constitutes 10% of the total value of
materials.
1-2 Not applicable. 0
Provide designated space, facilities, and services for
users to recycle and compost waste.
1 Applicable. Project will
designate recycling bins.
1 Use only high efficiency lighting. 1 Applicable. The project will comply with Title 24.
1 Meet at least 5% of a project’s indoor water use through a combination of reclaimed water and gray water.

Providing plumbing for future reclaimed water availability will meet the requirement of this standard if reclaimed water is not yet available at the site.
1 Not applicable. 0
Design landscaping for very low water use. 1 Applicable. 1 Utilize artificial turf in place of grass. 1 Potentially applicable.

Project will have no grass
and will incorporate low
water consuming plants.
1 Use of efficient irrigation systems and weather-based irrigation controllers.
1 Applicable. 1

Page 143 of 186 ends

55 Standard Points
Available Consistency
Potentia
l Project
Points
Provide at least one of the following sidewalk amenities like benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, and/or public art in a new mixed-use and multi-family, for every 50 feet of sidewalk frontage.
1 Not applicable. 0
Locate all new off-street surface parking lots at the side or rear of buildings, leaving building frontages facing streets free of surface parking lots. Side lot parking shall be limited to double stacked drive aisles.
1 Not applicable. 0
Total Potential Points
Compliance Point Threshold
Project Compliant with CAP
24 16
Yes
Source: City of Bellflower and Ascent Environmental 2019 Project consistency with the CAP is shown in Table 9 above. The project would be designed to meet Climate Development Ready Standards to reach 24 points. According to City staff, the project would be designed to comply with the 16-point threshold. Since the project could meet the 16-point compliance standard, it is fully compliant with the CAP and would not result in a cumulative GHG impact. The project would, therefore, support the CAP’s target of reducing GHG emissions 17 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 19 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 resulting in a less than significant impact.
b) A significant impact would occur if the project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment by conflicting with applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions as discussed within CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City’s CAP and Green Building Code.

As shown in Table 9, the project would be consistent with the CAP and would not interfere with the City’s ability to meet GHG reduction measures. The discussion below, shows how the project would comply and not conflict with various plans, policies, and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan
In support of Health and Safety Code (HSC) Division 25.5, the state has promulgated specific laws aimed at GHG reductions applicable to the project. The primary focus of many of the statewide and regional mandates, plans, policies and regulations is to address worldwide climate change. Due to the complex physical, chemical and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, there is no basis for concluding whether the project’s annual GHG emissions would cause a measurable change in global GHG emissions necessary to influence global climate change. Newer construction materials and practices, energy efficiency requirements, and newer appliances tend to emit lower levels of air pollutant emissions, including GHGs, as compared to those built years ago; however, the net effect is difficult to quantify. The GHG emissions of the project alone would not likely cause a direct physical change in the environment. According to California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, “GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective.” It is global GHG emissions in their aggregate that contribute to climate change, not any single source of GHG emissions alone. Because the project would not cumulative impact global climate change, and the fact that the project incorporates physical and operational project characteristics that would reduce potential GHG emissions to a less than significant level by virtue of being consistent with the City’s CAP, the project is considered not to conflict with the GHG reduction goals of HSC Division 25.5.

Page 144 of 186 ends

56 Table 10, Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies, contains a list of GHG- reducing strategies potentially applicable to the project. The analysis describes the consistency of the Project with these strategies that support the state’s strategies in the Climate Change Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan relies on a broad array of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as the Cap-and-Trade program. As shown below, the project would be designed to incorporate characteristics to reduce energy and reduce vehicle travel consistent with statewide strategies and regulations. As a result, the project would not conflict with applicable Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

Table 10
Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis Energy
California
Renewables Portfolio
Standard
Increases the proportion of electricity from
renewable sources to 33% renewable
power by 2020.

Consistent. The project would use
electricity provided by Southern California
Edison (SCE), which is committed to
achieving 33% renewables by 2020.

California
Renewables Portfolio
Standard and SB 350
Increases the proportion of electricity from
renewable sources to 33% renewable
power by 2020. SB 350 requires 50% by
2030. It also requires the State Energy
Resources Conservation and
Development Commission to double the
energy efficiency savings in electricity and
natural gas final end uses of retail
customers through energy efficiency and
conservation.

Consistent. The project would use
electricity provided by SCE, which is
required to meet the 2050 performance
standard. The project would also meet or
exceed the applicable requirements of the
State of California Green Building
Standards Code. The project would
incorporate energy efficiency measures as
outlined in the CAP to get the necessary
amount of points.

CCR, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
Consistent. The project would be
designed to meet mandatory CALGreen
Building Standards.

Assembly Bill 1109 The Lighting Efficiency and Toxics
Reduction Act (AB1109) prohibits
manufacturing specified general purpose
lights that contain levels of hazardous
substances prohibited by the European
Union. AB 1109 also requires a reduction
in average statewide electrical energy
consumption by not less than 50% from
the 2007 levels for indoor residential
lighting and not less than 25% from the
2007 levels for indoor commercial and
outdoor lighting by 2018
Consistent. As discussed above, the
project would be designed to meet
mandatory CALGreen Building Standards.

SB 1368 Establishes an emissions performance
standard for power plants within the State
of California.

Consistent. The project would not impede
this regulation and would not conflict with
implementation of the emissions standards
for power plants.

Page 145 of 186 ends

57 Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis California Green
Building Standards
Code Requirements
All bathroom exhaust fans shall be
ENERGY STAR® compliant.

Consistent. The project would be
designed to meet mandatory CALGreen
Building Standards. The Project would
meet or exceed the energy standards in the
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. Parking spaces shall be designed for
carpool or alternative fueled vehicles. Up
to eight % of total parking spaces will be
designed for such vehicles.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. The Project would be designed to
comply with the CAP Climate Ready
Development Standards as well, which are
stricter. Long-term and short-term bike parking
shall be provided for up to five % of vehicle
trips.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. The Project would be designed to
comply with the CAP Climate Ready
Development Standards as well, which are
stricter. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) required.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. Indoor water usage must be reduced by
20% compared to current California
Building Code Standards for maximum
flow.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code All irrigation controllers must be installed
with weather sensing or soil moisture
sensors.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. Wastewater usage shall be reduced by 20
% compared to current California Building
Standards.

Consistent. The project would meet or
exceed this requirement as part of its
compliance with the City’s requirements
and the CALGreen Code. Requires a minimum of 50 % recycle or reuse of nonhazardous construction and
demolition debris.

Consistent. The project would meet or
exceed this requirement as part of its
compliance with the City’s requirements
and the CALGreen Code. The Project
would be designed to comply with the CAP
Climate Ready Development Standards as
well, which are stricter. Requires documentation of types of waste recycled, diverted or reused.

Consistent. The project would meet this
requirement as part of its compliance with
the City’s requirements and the CALGreen
Code. Requires use of low VOC coatings
consistent with AQMD Rule 1168.

Consistent. The project would be
consistent with this regulation and would
meet or exceed the low VOC coating
requirements.

Page 146 of 186 ends

Bellflower City CouncilOctober 14, 2024

Bellflower City Council
October 14, 2024