13-A
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
FROM: Wangsu Lee, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to provide direction to the City Manager regarding the future of New Hope Temporary Shelter.
DATE: August 25, 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018, a community survey reported that 81% of respondents considered homelessness as “very serious” or “somewhat serious” of a problem. In response, the City Council undertook a series of actions to respond to these concerns. One such effort was the decision in 2019 to enter into a settlement agreement with a homeless advocacy group, the Catholic Worker of Orange County (“CWOC”). The terms of that settlement agreement required the City to construct a new homeless shelter. It also, however, allowed the City to enforce its anti-nuisance regulations. Without taking this action, the City’s ability would have been hampered by then-existing law (Martin v. City of Boise).
The City expended considerable resources but constructed the New Hope Shelter in record time; it became operational in May 2020. Operated by Mercy House, New Hope provides emergency housing, meals, case management, and supportive services to people experiencing homelessness (“PEH”), with the goal of transitioning residents toward permanent housing. New Hope is a resource for both the City and its residents.
Questions remain, however, regarding the overall effectiveness of the services provided at New Hope – particularly in addressing long-term housing stability and service coordination. Despite the City’s ongoing commitment, maintaining the financial sustainability of New Hope is increasingly challenging. Although the City pursued cost-reduction strategies and external funding opportunities, these measures may not sufficiently offset long-term pressures on the City’s general fund. Since its inception, New Hope has served as a cornerstone of the City’s efforts to address homelessness.
Rising expenses, however, highlight the need for a comprehensive policy discussion regarding the future of New Hope and the City’s broader approach to supporting PEH.
Such discussions are also desirable in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in 2024 (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson) which fundamentally changed the City’s legal obligations under the 2019 settlement agreement: the City is no longer legally required to provide beds for unhoused persons to enforce its anti-nuisance regulations. While the City Council may choose to continue voluntarily operating a shelter, reducing costs, reallocating resources, and changing expectations as to the scope of the City’s services should all be examined.
-1-
Staff Report – New Hope Temporary Shelter
August 25, 2025
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Provide direction to the City Manager regarding the future of New Hope Temporary Shelter; or
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
DISCUSSION
A copy of several staff reports is attached which provide background regarding the New Hope Shelter (without attachments). Relevant for tonight’s discussion: in December 2019, the City entered into an agreement with Mercy House to manage operations and provide onsite services. The construction and preparation of New Hope was completed in the spring of 2020 with operations officially commencing on May 20, 2020. Since inception, New Hope has served as an emergency housing resource for up to fifty PEH on any given day, providing shelter, meals, case management, and connections to supportive services. Mercy House staff has supported residents in developing individualized housing plans, securing community resources and working toward permanent housing solutions.
Since the inception of New Hope, the City has observed a reduction in the number of interactions involving PEH within the City’s public spaces. Additionally, the City has seen a decline in the overall number of unsheltered individuals residing in the City. The data seem to indicate some level of progress in addressing homelessness and its impact on the community. Nonetheless, there remains an important opportunity for further discussion around the role and effectiveness of the Mercy House’s services within the City’s overall homeless efforts. The City may wish to examine whether the current services provided by Mercy House sufficiently address the needs of our residents and whether there are gaps in coordination, accessibility, or long -term impacts that may be considered. This discussion could help determine if adjustments in the scope of work, additional partnerships, or alternative strategies may be required moving forward.
Despite the City’s continued commitment, the financial sustainability of the shelter has become increasingly challenging. Operations are funded largely through the City’s general fund and are sporadically offset by external grants and broader funding opportunities. Since the inception of New Hope, the operational costs of the shelter have risen significantly. The City has explored strategies to reduce long-term costs – including the potential acquisition of the property on which New Hope is located; however, the financial feasibility of this is unknown at this time. The City has also actively pursued external funding sources from the county and state. While the external sources of funding have been essential in the continued operations of New Hope, they may not be sufficient in meeting the long-term financial strain of operation the shelter – with the impact to the City’s general fund increasing year over year. This ongoing financial concern brings a high degree of uncertainty regarding the future of New Hope. -2-
Staff Report – New Hope Temporary Shelter
August 25, 2025
DISCUSSION – Continued
Over the past five years, the City of Bellflower has dedicated substantial time, funding, and resources toward addressing homelessness, with the New Hope Shelter serving as a cornerstone of these efforts. However, the increasing operational costs, limited and inconsistent external funding, and recent changes in the legal framework governing enforcement of anti-nuisance ordinances have raised the degree of uncertainty regarding the future of New Hope.
ATTACHMENT
New Hope Staff Reports (No Attachments) ..................................................................... 4
-3-
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
FROM: Natalie C. Karpeles, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to read by title only, waive further reading, and introduce Ordinance No. 1379 - An Ordinance amending Sections 9.04.010, 9.16.010, 12.44.060 and 17.08.010, and deleting Chapter 12.32 of the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) to clarify the prohibition against unlawful camping activities.
DATE: October 14, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018 and 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in Martin v. City of Boise. In sum, the Court found that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents public entities from enforcing regulations prohibiting homeless persons from sitting, sleeping or lying on sidewalks or other public places whenever the number of homeless individuals in the jurisdiction exceeds the number of available shelter beds. As a result, most public entities in the Ninth Circuit suspended enforcing such regulations. On September 23, 2019, the City of Bellflower entered into a settlement agreement which was approved by the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Adhering to that settlement agreement allows the City to resume enforcing its anti-nuisance regulations. A review of the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) shows that it is desirable to reconcile the City’s existing regulations with that settlement agreement in order to comply with the Martin v. City of Boise case.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Read by title only, waive further reading, and introduce Ordinance No. 1379; or
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
-10--4-
Staff Report - Anti-Nuisance Regulations
October 14, 2019
DISCUSSION
On September 4, 2018, the Ninth District Court of Appeals issued its decision in Martin et al., v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2018) 902 F.3d 1031 stating that ordinances/statues which criminalize the status of being “homeless,” or criminalize the “unavoidable consequences” of that status – such as sitting, lying or sleeping on sidewalks and other public grounds – constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. That case was subsequently superseded by the opinion in Martin v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584 which, substantively, came to the same conclusions.
For context, the City of Boise was sued by Robert Martin and other homeless plaintiffs – some of which were cited for violating a “camping ordinance” that prohibited dwelling on the streets, sidewalks, public parks or spaces (similar to many city and county ordinances in other jurisdictions); while others were cited for violating a “disorderly conduct ordinance” that prohibited “occupying or lodging” without permission (similar to Penal Code § 647(e)). Evidence showed that Boise had 867 homeless individuals and 446 shelter beds at the time of the citations (in other words, the plaintiffs had nowhere else to sleep/stay at the time the citations were issued). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit ruled that, where there is a greater number of homeless individuals than the number of available shelter beds, enforcement of “camping” or “disorderly conduct” ordinances violates the Eighth Amendment. The court did acknowledge (but without suggesting examples) that, there may be circumstances where regulations prohibiting sitting, lying or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible. So, too, might regulations barring the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of certain structures. While the Martin v. Boise case is currently being appealed to the United States Supreme Court, the consequence of the original opinion (from 2018) and the subsequent opinion (in 2019) was that public entities throughout the Ninth Circuit – which includes California – suspended enforcement of their so-called “anti-nuisance” regulations.
In August and September of 2018, the City conducted its regular survey of residents to help the City Council prioritize its decision-making. That survey showed that concerns regarding homelessness was the top priority. Indeed, 75% of respondents agreed with the question of “would you support … the City … using local funds from the City’s budget to help address homelessness in the City?” As a result, the City Council took action in 2019 to respond to this concern.
On September 23, 2019, the City entered into a settlement agreement in the case of Orange County Catholic Worker, et al. v. Orange County, et al. (filed January 29, 2018) United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:18 cv-00155-DOC- JDE (the “OCCW Settlement”). The Judge David O. Carter entered a court order approving that settlement agreement on the same date. Because of the OCCW Settlement, the City is able resume enforcing its anti-nuisance regulations while balancing the need to care for its homeless population with the public interest in keeping public property available for its intended purpose, e.g., recreational activities (in parks) and pedestrian/vehicle access (on sidewalks and roads).
-11--5-
Staff Report - Anti-Nuisance Regulations
October 14, 2019
DISCUSSION - Continued
As a result of the actions on September 23rd, the City Attorney’s office reviewed the BMC to ensure that its anti-nuisance regulations are reconciled with the Martin v. Boise decision and the OCCW Settlement. The draft ordinance contains recommended revisions to the BMC to ensure that the City abides by applicable law and its obligations under the OCCW Settlement.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Ordinance No. 1379
2. Martin v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584
3. OCCW Settlement Agreement
-12--6-
4-A
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to receive an update regarding the current operations and cost of the New Hope Shelter including, without limitation, costs associated with acquiring the Shelter in accordance with Resolution No. 24-15.
DATE: January 28, 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court in Grants Pass v. Johnson in June 2024 affects the City’s operation of the New Hope Shelter and the eminent domain litigation filed in April 2024. City Council direction is required regarding any “next steps” regarding these matters.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Receive and file the report;
2) Provide direction to the City Manager and City Attorney regarding the future of the New Hope Shelter; and
3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2019, the City entered into a Court-ordered settlement agreement and final order (“Order”) in the case captioned Orange County Catholic Worker, et al. v.
Orange County, et al (Case No. 8:18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE). The Order, issued by the Honorable David O. Carter, includes a requirement that the City provide care for the City’s homeless population in exchange for the City’s ability to enforce its anti-nuisance regulations.
In compliance with the Order, the City negotiated a lease (the “Lease”) with the owner of 8833 Cedar Street (the “Property”) to construct and operate a homeless shelter. The original Lease term commenced November 1, 2019 and ended October 30, 2023 with a monthly rate of $10,899.60. On or about November 4, 2019, the Lease was amended to $11,390.02 per month with scheduled increases.
After executing the lease in October 2019, the City constructed the New Hope Shelter (the “Shelter”) for approximately $1.9M. The Shelter is operated by Mercy House Living Centers (“Mercy”) pursuant to an agreement dated December 19, 2019 (the “Operating staf Jeport_
-7-
Staff Report – New Hope Shelter
January 28, 2025
Agreement”). The Operating Agreement was amended on September 25, 2023 at a cost not to exceed $2,070,280.
The Property is zoned Light Industrial (M-1). In January of 2020, however, the City Council established the Court Enforced Neutral Tenancy Zone (“CENTZ”). The CENTZ constitutes a “floating zone” because it is activated for a specific property only after the City Council adopts a resolution, i.e., the decision to activate the CENTZ is solely with the City Council’s discretion. It may only be approved “to provide for an area that is appropriate for and capable of providing temporary shelter to homeless persons” pursuant to the Order. On January 27, 2020, the City adopted Resolution No. 202-02, which activated the CENTZ zoning at the Property. As a result, the Property may house the Shelter in accordance with the Order.
Mercy began operating the Shelter on May 20, 2020 and provides short-term housing needs for 50 persons experiencing homelessness in the City. The Shelter also serves as a support services coordinator by providing a variety of services including, without limitation, intake/bed reservations; foods/meals; laundry; storage; animal/pet assistance; security; transportation; recreational activities; assessment and housing navigation case management; housing placement services; life skills classes/tenant education; employment/job placement referrals; health care resources; crisis evaluation/mental health resources; drug & alcohol treatment referrals; and benefits enrollment.
After opening the Shelter, the City enforced its anti-camping and anti-nuisance laws and its regulations against aggressive panhandling in compliance with the Order. Persons violating the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) are offered a bed at the New Hope Shelter.
On June 5, 2023, the City sought to extend the Lease term for an additional four years.
After extensive negotiations, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the new market rental value for the Lease. At that time, were the Lease to terminate, the City would be required to consider relocating or constructing and operating a new shelter for the homeless pursuant to the terms of the Order. This, despite the City already expending substantial sums to improve the Property including, without limitation, constructing the Shelter within five months and entering into agreements with Mercy for the New Hope Shelter’s operations. Faced with these options, the City Council believed it necessary acquire the Property to continue the Shelter’s operations.
Consequently, after the Property was appraised, the City offered $1,950,000 for the Property. Additionally, the City informed the Property owner that (until the Property was acquired) the City would pay $0.83/foot/month in rent (which the City’s appraisal identified as market rent). Counsel for the Property’s owner demanded that the City pay $1.02/foot/month. The monthly rental cost – based upon the City’s rent calculation – is approximately $15,000 for the Shelter.
On March 25, 2024, the City adopted Resolution No. 24-15 (“Resolution”), which includes all the required findings to adopt a resolution of necessity. No one appeared at the City Council meeting on behalf of Owner (see, attached Staff Report from March 25, 2024 [without exhibits]). Thereafter, on April 2, 2024, the City filed a complaint in eminent -8-
Staff Report – New Hope Shelter
January 28, 2025
domain action to acquire Property. The City deposited the probable amount of compensation ($1.95M) with the State Treasurer on March 26, 2024. Since then, the City worked to reach an agreement with the Property owner to acquire title. Mediation occurred right before the 2024 Holidays.
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) rendered an opinion in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson et al (“Grants Pass”).1 In sum, the Court determined that cities may enforce anti-camping regulations without violating the Eighth Amendment. In making its decision, SCOTUS overturned Martin v. Boise, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case upon which the Order for the Shelter is based. As a result, the City is not legally required to adhere to the Order.
Based upon the Grants Pass decision, the City Council may wish to discuss the public interest in (1) operating the Shelter (costing approximately $2.5M annually) and (2) prosecuting the eminent domain lawsuit to acquire the Property. The City Council could, for example, decide to end the eminent domain action; terminate the Mercy agreement to operate the Shelter; rescind the CENTZ; and close the Shelter (“Alternative 1”).
Alternatively, the City Council could seek to extend the Lease (at a mutually agreeable rate) and continue operating the Shelter (“Alternative 2”). Or, the City Council could take some other action (“Alternative 3”).
Each Alternative has consequences. Alternative 1, for example, would cause the City to wind down operations at the Shelter and, conceivably, find alternative housing for persons currently utilizing the Shelter. For Alternative 2, there is a cost associated with continued Shelter operations. The extent of such cost is uncertain at the time this Staff Report was written.
It is prudent for the City Council to be fully informed regarding all its Alternatives – and their costs. The City Manager and I will require some time to compile the information to fully inform the City Council regarding the consequences of implementing various Alternatives identified above and those described by the City Council during its deliberations for this matter.
FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown a this time.
ATTACHMENT
March 25, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments) ......................................................... 4
1 603 U.S. 520 (2024).
-9-
_'0~o_w,NGT0_oe.TVW~_·· _s_t a_f __ Jepo r 1 11 -A
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Travis Sais, Deputy City Manager
Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 24-15- A Resolution finding and determining that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition of certain real property located at 8833 Cedar Street for public purposes.
March 25, 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City seeks to acquire the real property located at 8833 Cedar Street to ensure the continued operation of the New Hope shelter. In 2019, the City entered into a lease with the property owner, subsequently constructed a shelter for the homeless and entered into agreements for the shelter's operations, pursuant to the terms of the City's settlement agreement in The Catholic Worker of Orange County v. City of Bellflower.
The lease agreement has a definitive termination date and, upon termination, the City would be required to relocate or establish a new homeless shelter elsewhere pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned settlement. It is now recommended that an action in eminent domain be commenced to acquire the Property. Before the filing of the action, the City must hold a duly-noticed hearing on the proposed Resolution, and provide the Property Owner an opportunity to be heard, provided that the owner has timely filed a request to be heard in writing with the City before the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Open the public hearing, take testimonial and documentary evidence, and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 24-15 by a minimum two-thirds vote; or
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Property was appraised and the fair market value was determined to be approximately $1,950,000 which will be paid from the City's General Fund. This amount will be offset by the savings to the City from termination of its lease with the property owner of 8833 Cedar Street.
-1-4 of 9 -10-
Staff Report - 8833 Cedar Street, Resolution of Necessity March 25, 2024
NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: PUBLIC NOTICE
Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice of the public hearing was also mailed first class to the property owner on March 5, 2024. See Attachment 3.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301 (existing facilities), exempts activities that involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. This activity would acquire private property for the purpose of operating, maintaining, and leasing of an existing shelter to ensure its continued operations. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") are not applicable because the action at issue herein is not a "project" subject to CEQA under Pub. Res. Code § 21065, as the proposed Project will continue existing use of the Property as the New Hope Shelter and thus has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even assuming, arguendo, that acquisition of the property amounts to a "project" subject to CEQA, this activity involves a negligible expansion of the existing use and no further review is required.
TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE)
The recommended action relates to the acquisition of real property for public use through the powers granted to the City by Article 1, § 19 of the California Constitution.
The City Council's determination concerning the resolution of necessity is a legislative act which must be supported by substantial evidence and be adopted by a two-thirds vote. For the City Council to adopt the resolution of necessity, it must make the findings prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.230:
1. A general statement of the public use for which the property is to be taken and a reference to the statute that authorizes the public entity to acquire the property by eminent domain;
2. A description of the general location and extent of the property to be taken, with sufficient detail for reasonable identification;
3. A declaration that the governing body of the public entity has found and determined that:
(a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) The property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project; and
-2-5 of 9 -11-
Staff Report - 8833 Cedar Street, Resolution of Necessity March 25, 2024
TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE) -Continued
(d) The offer of compensation required by law has been made to the owner or owners of record, or the offer has not been made because the owner cannot be located with reasonable diligence.
The attached proposed resolution includes all the required findings. See Attachment 1.
The City Council must base its decisions upon substantial evidence within the record. "Substantial evidence" means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from information gathered during a public hearing that fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts does not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. If the City Council asks irrelevant questions and bases its decision-making on such questions, a court may overturn the City Council's decision and potentially hold the City liable for violating protected due process rights.
DISCUSSION
Background
Homelessness in Los Angeles County is a pervasive crisis resulting from, among other things, increases in the cost of housing and stagnant incomes, and the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority conducted the 2022 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count and found that approximately 69, 144 people were experiencing homelessness countywide and that approximately 70% of this population is unsheltered.1
The 2020 Point in Time Count conducted by the Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority estimated that there were approximately 241 homeless individuals in the City and 229 of those were unsheltered. In an effort to address City residents' concerns, the City settled a homelessness-related federal lawsuit filed against the City by a homeless advocate group and, in the settlement (The Catholic Worker of Orange County v. City of Bellflower, Case No. 8: 18-cv-00155-DOC-JDE), Federal District Court Judge David 0.
Carter ordered the City to build a temporary services shelter for 50 people (the "Settlement").
The property located at located at 8833 Cedar Street, Bellflower CA 90706, identified by Assessor Parcel Number ("APN") 7162-019-061 (the "Property"), is privately owned by 20434 South Santa Fe Avenue, LLC, a California limited liability company (entity no. 200305010083) (the "Owner"). The Property is approximately 24,213.5 square feet, located on the north side of Cedar Street within the M-1 Light Industrial zone, with a Court-Enforced Neutral Tenancy Zone overlay, and has a General Plan ("GP") Land Use designation of "I" (Industrial).
1 https://homeless.lacounty.gov/our-challenge/
-3-6 of 9 -12-
Staff Report - 8833 Cedar Street, Resolution of Necessity March 25, 2024
DISCUSSION -Continued
Background - Continued
In or about October 2019, the City entered into a lease agreement with Owner for the lease of the Property from November 1, 2019 to October 30, 2023, at a monthly rate of $10,899.60 ("AFN 849"). On or about November 4, 2019, AFN 849 was amended by, among other things, increasing the monthly rate to $11,390.02 per month.
Subsequently, the rent increased each year thereafter by approximately 3% under the amendment. To-date, the City has spent approximately $693,253.30 in rent payments under AFN 849.
In partnership with Los Angeles County, the City constructed the New Hope temporary shelter at the Property, which was and remains privately owned, and began operating on May 20, 2020 (the "New Hope Shelter"). Thereafter, on or about December 19, 2019, the City entered into an agreement with Mercy House Living Centers ("Mercy House") to operate the New Hope Shelter. On or about January 20, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1383 and 1384 establishing a Court-Enforced Neutral Tenancy Zone ("CENTZ") and adopted Resolution No. 20-02 activating the CENTZ at 8833 Cedar Street. On or about September 25, 2023, the City extended its agreement with Mercy House related to the New Hope Shelter for one additional year at a cost not to exceed $2,070,280.09.
The New Hope Shelter provides 50 beds for homeless persons who have ties to the City (e.g., previous address or attendance at the local high school) and provides temporary and short-term housing needs for persons experiencing homelessness in the City. The New Hope Shelter serves as a support services coordinator by providing a variety of services, including, without limitation, intake/bed reservations, foods/meals, laundry, storage, animal/pet assistance, security, transportation, recreational activities, assessment and housing navigation case management, housing placement services, life skills classes/tenant education, employment/job placement referrals, health care resources, crisis evaluation/mental health resources, drug & alcohol treatment referrals, and benefits enrollment.
Transitional housing and emergency shelters play a critical, often life-saving, role in providing a safe place for individuals experiencing homelessness. These facilities can assist in addressing homelessness through a wide range of essential support services, including, without limitation: mental health and substance use treatment, employment assistance, child care, life skills training, and mainstream benefits. Transitional housing and emergency shelters can help stabilize the lives of individuals experiencing homelessness.
With the opening of the New Hope Shelter, the City has been able to enforce its anti-camping and anti-nuisance laws and its ordinance against aggressive panhandling.
Persons violating the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC") are referred to a bed at the New Hope Shelter.
-4-
Staff Report -8833 Cedar Street, Resolution of Necessity March 25, 2024
DISCUSSION -Continued
Public Necessity
AFN 849 has a definitive termination date, and the Owner has no obligation to continue leasing the Property to the City. Upon termination of AFN 849, the City will be required to relocate, or construct and operate a new shelter for the homeless pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, despite the fact that the City has already expended substantial resources to improve the Property, including, without limitation, constructing the New Hope Shelter within the existing building within five months and entering into agreements with Mercy House for the shelter's operations. Accordingly, it is necessary to acquire the Property, in its entirety, to ensure the New Hope Shelter's continued operations (hereinafter, the "Project").
Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury; Need to Acquire Property As noted above, the New Hope Shelter currently operates on the Property, and the City has an ongoing agreement with Mercy House for its operation. Relocating the New Hope Shelter would require the City to incur significant costs to relocate, construct and find a new operator for a new shelter for the homeless in order to meet the requirement of the Settlement terms. Guaranteeing the operation and use of the New Hope Shelter on the current Property will avoid requiring the City to acquire separate private property and will allow the City to enjoy the benefits of its agreement with Mercy House through the end of September 2024, thus resulting in the greatest public good with the least private injury.
General Plan Consistency
As provided, the Project is consistent with and implements the Bellflower General Plan, including, without limitation, the Land Use Element ("LUE") and Housing Element ("HE") as follows:
• GP LUE Goal 2.1-Create opportunities wherein a population diverse in terms of income, age, occupation, race, lifestyle, values, interest, and religion may interact, exchange ideas and realize common goals.
• GP HE Policy 2.1-designate sufficient land in the GP LU and zoning for the development of a range of housing types to meet the identified needs of all economic segments of the community, while providing a high quality of life for all residents.
• GP HE Policy 2.2-facilitate and encourage the development of affordable housing for seniors, large families, persons with disability, and other identified special housing needs.
• GP HE Policy 4.1-Continue to support and coordinate with public and private efforts aimed at preventing and reducing poverty level incomes. • GP HE Policy 5.6-Explore opportunities for new residential development within those areas of the City occupied by vacant or underutilized commercial or industrial uses.
-5-
Staff Report - 8833 Cedar Street, Resolution of Necessity March 25, 2024
DISCUSSION -Continued
Precondemnation Offer
Pursuant to Government Code 7267.2, on or about November 30, 2023, the City presented a fair market value offer to the Owner for the acquisition of the Property in the amount of $1,950,000 which was based upon an appraisal by Cushman & Wakefield, an independent professional appraiser, with a date of value of November 1, 2023. See Attachment 2. Although the Owner has received the City's offer, to-date, the Owner has not accepted or rejected it. Questions relating to the Property's value are not yet relevant; the proposed action is only to commence the filing of an eminent domain action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 24-15 (including Exhibits A, B, & C) ................................................ 7
2. Offer Letter Dated November 30, 2023 and accompanying Appraisal Summary .. 18
3. Notice of Hearing Dated March 5, 2024 ................................................................ 44 -6-9 of 9 -15-