Agenda packet, first session — Bellflower City Council, February 9, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

T h e C i t y o f B e l l f l o w e r
Families. Businesses. Futures.
16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower, CA 90706
Tel 562.804.1424 Fax 562.925.8660 www.bellflower.ca.gov

Next CC Resolution No. 26-06 Next CC Agreement No. 1123 Next Ordinance No. 1453

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (562) 804-1424, extension 2220 or [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Agenda Items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours. For your convenience, the Agenda is also posted on the City’s Website at www.bellflower.ca.gov with links to each Agenda Item (unless they are too lengthy or unavailable at the time of posting). Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the members of the City Council/Successor Agency after the posting of this Agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower. (Privileged documents and Closed Session documents are exempted.)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2026

BELLFLOWER CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION / 7:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION

5:30 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION
1 CALL TO ORDER
2 ROLL CALL: Mayor Sonny R. Santa Ines
Mayor Pro Tem Victor A. Sanchez
Council Member Ray Dunton
Council Member Dan Koops
Council Member Wendi Morse

Page 1 of 4 ends

AGENDA

Bellflower City Council Agenda
February 9, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

3 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1))

Jason P. Clarke, Case No. 25NWCV02026

B CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2):

One Matter. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: Letters Dated December 19, 2025 and December 18, 2025 (see attached).

C CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8)
Property: 9855 Flower Street
Agency Negotiator: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Michelle Thrakulchavee
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

D CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION — GOVERNMENT CODE § 54956.9(d)(1):

City of Bellflower v. 20434 South Santa Fe Ave., LLC (filed April 2, 2024) LASC Case No. 24NWCV01017

4 RECONVENE FOR OPEN SESSION

7:00 P.M. – OPEN SESSION

5 CALL TO ORDER

6 ROLL CALL: Mayor Sonny R. Santa Ines
Mayor Pro Tem Victor A. Sanchez
Council Member Ray Dunton
Council Member Dan Koops
Council Member Wendi Morse

7 INVOCATION: Council Member Dunton

8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Len Gorecki, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works

Bellflower City Council Agenda
February 9, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

9 REQUEST TO APPEAR REMOTELY

10 CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS

A City Council Announcements

B Proclamation: National Black History Month

C Presentation: Wakeland Supportive Housing

D Presentation: Citywide Express Communications Assessment

11 PUBLIC COMMENTS

This is the time set aside for the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the Agenda. Anyone wishing to address the City Council should come to the podium, be recognized by the Mayor, and state your name for the record. If you wish to address the City Council on an Agenda Item, you may do so by approaching the podium as we review that particular item. You will be given three (3) minutes to address the City Council.

12 PUBLIC HEARINGS

A Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to authorize the recording of a Notice of Special Assessment for Nuisance Abatement Against the Owner of 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard; and adopt Resolution No. 26-04 – A Resolution to record a Notice of Special Assessment for Nuisance of 9111-9119 Artesia Boulevard (APN 7162-016-044 and 7162-016- 045). [CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 2026]
Recommendation to City Council: 1) Re-open the continued public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 26-04; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

13 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

None

14 CONSIDERATION ITEMS

A Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. 26-05 – A Resolution implementing Title 14 of the Bellflower Municipal Code by establishing policies and procedures for obtaining, modifying, and maintaining Cannabis Business Permits (“CBP”); and superseding Resolution No. 23-18.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-05; 2) Authorize the City Manager to accept and process applications for cannabis-related CUPs and CBPs; or 3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

Bellflower City Council Agenda
February 9, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

15 CONSENT CALENDAR

All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.

A Consideration and possible action to receive and file City Council Warrant Register No. 26-081, dated February 9, 2026.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Receive and file Warrant Register No. 26-081; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

B Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes of the January 26, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Approve the January 26, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

C Consideration and possible action to award a contract to Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., to conduct a Comprehensive City-wide Classification and Compensation Study and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 1122 in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Recommendation to City Council: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement File No. 1122 with Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

16 COUNCIL REPORTS

17 ADJOURNMENT

Adjourn to the next Regular Meeting of the Bellflower City Council at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, February 23, 2026.

3-B

GXC`l of BELLFLO ,
The City of Bellflower
gain/ties. _Businesses. 9ulu,•es.
16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower, CA 90706
ti
Tel 562.804.1424 Fax 562.925.8660 www.bellflower.org °R13wnva Too5N or cannabis tax delinquency occurred in that context as part of the Council's evaluation of whether to renew the cannabis business permit. You were provided adequate (and repeated) notice regarding the meeting date. Additionally, you were free to send a representative for your company.

Your correspondence indicates that your client may seek judicial remedies and damages from the City. Any claim for damages must be submitted to the City in accordance with the Government Claims Act (Government Code § 900, et seq.). Such claims must be filed with the City Clerk's office. Should your company pursue legal action against the City for damages, this office will recover defense costs, including attorney's fees, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1038.

Persons operating commercial cannabis facilities within the City without a valid cannabis business permit engage in unlawful activity. The penalties for operating an unlicensed cannabis facility are set forth in the Bellflower Municipal Code.

Cannabis business permits are highly regulated and discretionary permits. The City Council's authority to issue (or renew) some, all, or no such permits is well established; it has extremely broad discretion to make its decisions. As you were informed, the cannabis business permit for 8832 Ramona Street will terminate and be of no further force and effect after December 31, 2025. Any cannabis -related commercial operations at that address after that date, without a valid City cannabis business permit, constitutes unpermitted activity and will result in civil and criminal enforcement by the City and/or other agencies to the full extent allowed by law.

Nothing in this letter alters or waives any of the City's rights, remedies, or enforcement authority, all of which are expressly reserved.

Very
Ka H. Ber
City Atto
rs,
Sonny R. Santa Ines Victor A. Sanchez
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem
Ray Dunton
Council Member
Dan Koops
Council Member
Wendi Morse
Council Member
2 FORMAL NOTICE OF APPEAL
Applicant: Dynasty Alliance Grow Inc.

Address: 8832 Ramona Street, Bellflower CA 90706
Phone: 562-455-7981
Email: [email protected]
Re: Appeal of denial of Cannabis License Renewal; Denial of Request for Continuance; Alleged CUP Violation and Cannabis Tax Delinquency
Agenda Item: Cannabis License Renewal -Request for Continuance — Agenda Item To: City Clerk / City Council (as applicable)
City of Bellflower, California
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That Dynasty Alliance Group Inc. ("Applicant") hereby appeals the City's decision denying its cannabis license renewal and denying its request for a continuance, where the stated basis for denial includes alleged violation of the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") exceeding one year in duration, alleged cannabis tax delinquency.

Grounds for Appeal

1. Denial of Due Process and Meaningful Opportunity to Be Heard: The Applicant was prevented from appearing and responding to the City's allegations due to documented medical emergency that city members had been notify of. Denial of a reasonable continuance deprived the Applicant of the opportunity to present evidence, explain mitigating circumtances, and demonstrate ongoing or substantial compliance.

2. Abuse of Discretion in Denying Continuance: The City failed to reasonably exercise discretion by refusing a short continuance despite extraordinary circumstances, where no prejudice to the City was identified and the alleged violation are fact -intensive and require evidentiary review.

3. Failure to Consider Corrective Actions and Good -Faith compliance Efforts: The Applicant has undertaken corrective measures related to CUP conditions and has been addressing cannabis tax obligations in good faith. Processing in the Applicant's absence resulted in the City failing to consider relevant evidence, payment history, cure efforts, and proportional remedies short of denial.

4. Arbitrary and Disproportionate Enforcement: Denial of renewal based in alleged long- standing CUP violations and tax delinquency, without allowing the Applicant to present defenses, timelines, or cure plans, constitutes arbitrary and capricious action particularly where lesser remedies (conditional renewal, compliance schedule, or continued hearing) were available.

5. Lack of Nexus Between Non -Appearance and Ultimate Denial: To the extent denial was influenced by non-appearance, such reliance is improper where the absence was involuntary and promptly communicated.

Relief Requested
• Acceptance of this appeal as timely filed.
• A full administrative appeal hearing before the City Council or designate hearing officer; • Opportunity to present evidence regarding CUP compliance status, corrective actions, and cannabis tax payment or cure arrangements;
• Reversal of the denial and reinstatement of the license, or alternatively, remand for a continued hearing with conditions reasonable related to compliance.

File this: 1499e4:4‘ Oh 12/ 13125 -
By:

Authorized Representative, Dynasty Alliance Group Inc.

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 1
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

ARIA GUILANI (Bar No. 337834)
[email protected]
ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90017-3623
TELEPHONE: (213) 688-0080 FACSIMILE: (213) 622-7594

Attorneys for
EITAN SHARAF and

ARTESIA ENTERPRISES, LLC

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

In the matter of:

9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard,
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
7162-16-044, 7162-16-045, and
7162-16-046

RESPONSE TO CITY OF
BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR

ABATEMENT COSTS

Place: City Council of the City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, California 90706

12-A - SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY OWNER

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 2
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
Artesia Enterprises, LLC (“Artesia”) purchased 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard, Bellflower, California (collectively, the “Lots”) on or around March 2013. The Lots are arranged as follows:

Over the course of several years, the City of Bellflower (“City”) and Artesia, via its manager, Mr. Eitan Sharaf, worked to abate the alleged nuisances existing on the Lots. When purchased, and throughout the relevant time period for this matter, the Lots contained numerous tenants, some of whom pre-dated Artesia’s purchase of the Lots. As is relevant to the current issue before this Council, beginning on or around July 2022, the City’s attorneys (now Burke, Williams, and Sorensen, LLP (“BWS”)) began informing the tenants residing upon the Lots of Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) violations on their respective lots. Between that period of time and the present, BWS, on behalf of the City, issued further notices to Artesia regarding numerous purported BMC violations on the Lots.

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 3
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

Artesia complied with the demanded actions to abate the alleged violations on the Lots.

Indeed, between December 2023 and April 2024, Artesia effectuated the removal of all tenants from the Lots. Between March 2024 and September 2024, Artesia: (1) removed all signs, fences, wind screens, and tenant-abandoned vehicles, boats, and hazardous waste; (2) moved three mobile offices and a camper on the Lots; (3) removed the doors on a canopy on the Lots, removed all wood shades, demolished the unpermitted bathroom, and removed the canopy existing over a mobile office; (4) painted all buildings and light poles; (5) obtained the asbestos report to demolish one of the structures existing on the Lots, as mandated by the City; (6) obtained the required engineering report for all buildings; (7) obtained engineering plans for the fences and gates that were the subject of the notices of violations and submitted said plans to the City; (8) completed the required asphalt slurry seal upon the Lots; (9) installed all required fencing, landscaping, and gates on the Lots; (10) per Council’s September 9, 2024 order, completed demolition of all buildings by October 1, 2024 and removed the final mobile office; and, (11) installed a new roof upon 9121 Artesia Boulevard, Bellflower, California at BWS’s request.

BWS, following the completion of all requested abatement, stated that all required abatement was completed by the due date – at the end of 2024. BWS did not contact Mr. Sharaf or Artesia further after December 2024 regarding abatement.

Almost a year later, Mr. Sharaf received a letter from BWS dated November 17, 2025 demanding payment of the abatement costs for the Lots between January 27, 2022 and September 30, 2025 for the sum of $82,740.82. This letter contained an “accounting” that failed to provide any description, unit, or names as to the work done by BWS, or any description as to the Code Enforcement actions taken by the City’s officers. By way of example, all of the City officials’ “entries” appear in the following format:1

1 A copy of the Demand for Costs is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 for Council’s ease of reference.

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 4
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

All of BWS’ fees appear in the following fashion:

Seeking to contest the reasonableness of these charges, Mr. Sharaf and Artesia, through his agent and counsel of record, requested records to itemize and describe these claimed costs. The City attorneys, Solange Fortenbach and Tim Campen, refused to provide them. In so doing, both claimed that no such itemization or descriptors were needed—but that’s wrong.

Now, with an impending Council meeting scheduled for February 9, 2026, and faced with a complete inability to contest the reasonableness of the costs requested, Artesia and Mr. Sharaf seek (1) a continuance of the February 9, 2026 hearing to the March or April session and (2) an order by the Council requiring the City attorney’s office to substantiate the costs incurred by their office(s) and the City in connection with the abatement of the Lots. (See Charter of the City of Bellflower, Art. III(A)-(C) [enunciating City Council’s authority]; id., Art. VIII(C) [City

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 5
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

Council’s grant of authority in line with the Government Code]; see also BMC, § 17.112.060 [City council’s authority to hear appeals]; Montgomery v. Superior Court (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 657, 668 [City Council may direct City attorney to undertake certain actions].)2 The entry of such orders would allow Mr. Sharaf and Artesia a meaningful opportunity to respond to the abatement costs sought. As it currently stands, they are not being given the opportunity to meaningfully respond to the demand, in violation of their procedural due process rights.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Artesia and Mr. Sharaf’s due process rights will be violated if such costs are granted without a reasonable itemization and description of abatement fees and costs.

The BMC mandates that the City must keep an accounting of its abatement costs. (BMC, § 8.36.180(A).) In keeping this accounting, the City may seek fees and costs associated with abatement. (Id., § 8.36.190.) To do so, it must serve a statement of abatement costs on the responsible persons within 20 calendar days of the City's completion of nuisance abatement actions. (Id. § 8.36.180(B).) A responsible party thereafter may contest the abatement costs sought by providing the following:
a. Name, address, telephone number, and signature of each responsible party who is contesting the statement of
abatement costs;
b. Address and description of real property upon which the City abated a public nuisance;
c. Date of the statement of abatement costs being appealed; and 2 This does not account for the fact that BWS did not serve a statement of abatement costs on the responsible persons within 20 calendar days of the City's completion of nuisance abatement actions. (BMC, § 8.36.180(B).) Based on BWS’ communications with Mr. Sharaf, abatement was to be completed and was completed at the end of 2024. It appears the election to recover fees is thus untimely – as the statement of costs was served 331 calendar days after abatement was completed. (See Schneider v. County of San Diego (9th Cir.1994) 28 F.3d 89, 93 [when a property aligns to the municipal code where it once was not in alignment, nuisance abatement is “complete.”].)

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 6
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

d. Description of the specific abatement cost being contested, and a statement of the grounds for contest in sufficient detail to enable the City Council to understand the nature of the controversy.
(Id., § 8.36.180(D)(1).)
Such requirements purport to provide the process afforded to a responsible person to contest the reasonableness of any fees or costs provided. Preliminarily, as alleged “responsible persons,” Artesia and Mr. Sharaf hold due process rights under the California and Federal Constitutions. (See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) 435 U.S. 765, 778-779 [corporations have Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process protections]; accord Palm Medical Group, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 206, 217 [procedural due process protections under the California constitution].)

1. The refusal to provide substantive and itemized descriptions for the abatement costs sought violates the procedural due process clause of the California Constitution.

Procedural due process under the California Constitution is “much more inclusive” and protects a broader range of interests than under the federal Constitution. (San Jose Police Officers Assn. v. City of San Jose (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1478.) Under the California Constitution, the application
must be determined in the context of the individual's due process liberty interest in freedom from arbitrary adjudicative procedures.

Thus, when a person is deprived of a statutorily conferred benefit, due process analysis must start not with a judicial attempt to decide whether the statute has created an ‘entitlement’ that can be defined as ‘liberty’ or ‘property,’ but with an assessment of what procedural protections are constitutionally required in light of the governmental and private interests at stake.
(See People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 264 (Ramirez).) In so doing, the court instructed reviewing bodies to “ ‘evaluate the extent to which procedural protections can be tailored to promote more accurate and reliable administrative decisions in light of the governmental and private interests at stake....’ ” (See id. at p. 267, bolded and italicized emphases added and quotations omitted.)

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 7
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

This approach presumes that, when an individual is subjected to deprivatory governmental action, they always have a due process liberty interest both in fair and unprejudicial decision- making and in being treated with respect and dignity. (Id. at p. 268.) In essence, a party is entitled to (1) notice, and (2) a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the validity, fairness, and amount of the costs. (Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 7(a); Thain v. City of Palo Alto (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d 173, 191; see also Chicago, M. St. P. & Pac. R. Co. v. Risty (1928) 276 U.S. 567, 574 [landowner must be apprised of what is proposed and afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard].) The determination of the dictates of due process generally requires consideration of four factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the individual action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of this interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards; (3) the dignitary interest of informing individuals of the nature, grounds and consequences of the action and of enabling them to present their side of the story before a responsible governmental official; and (4) the government interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail. (Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371, 390–391, citations and quotations omitted.) The primary purpose of procedural due process is to provide affected parties with the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. (Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1072.) That isn’t happening here, as elucidated below, infra II(A)(3).

2. The refusal to itemize and describe its abatement costs violates the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.” (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 332 (Matthews); see U.S. Const. Amend. 14.) To satisfy the requirements of Federal procedural due process, the government must provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 8
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

objections. (Jones v. Flowers (2006) 547 U.S. 220, 225-226, citation omitted.) While a procedure for challenging a city’s decision is adequate prior to deprivation, such a hearing must also include a meaningful opportunity to present objections. (Matthews, supra, 424 U.S. at pp. 334-335; Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc. (1987) 481 U.S. 252, 261 [Due process requires notice and an “opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”], internal quotation marks original and cleaned up.)
Similar to the California Supreme Court’s guidance, an administrative body must first, evaluate the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, evaluate the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, evaluate the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
(Ibid., cleaned up.) This evaluation is flexible and must take into account the procedural protections that a particular situation demands. (Wilkinson v. Austin (2005) 545 U.S. 209, 224– 225.)

3. The refusal to itemize and describe the abatement costs means that Artesia and Mr. Sharaf cannot meaningfully challenge the abatement costs sought, in contravention of the United States and California Constitutions.

The protections of procedural due process apply to administrative proceedings. (See Thain v. City of Palo Alto, supra, 207 Cal.App.2d at p. 189.) Indeed, a responsible person under the BMC is entitled to challenge the reasonableness of any costs claimed, provided there is (1) a description of the specific abatement cost being contested and (2) a statement of the grounds for the contest in sufficient detail to enable the City Council to understand the nature of the controversy. (See Houser Holdings CA, LLC v. Tokio Marine Specialty Insurance Company (N.D. Cal. 2024) 738 F.Supp.3d 1226, 1234.) In evaluating the overlapping Ramirez and Matthews factors, the City attorney’s (BWS) current position of refusing to itemize and describe the costs sought violates Artesia and Mr. Sharaf’s procedural due process rights.

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 9
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

The payment or loss of money is a protected property interest that triggers procedural due process protections. (See Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 571-572.) Absent the ability to meaningfully evaluate and respond to each claimed cost, it is likely that Artesia and Mr. Sharaf will possibly overpay for costs that are not reasonable to the abatement action. To wit, with the current iterations of the “accounting,”
it is impossible to ascertain what costs are being claimed and for what purpose. (See cf. Connally v. General Const. Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 [laws that do not allow a person of common intelligence to know what is prohibited or allowed are void as a matter of law].) There would be little to no burden upon the City or BWS in providing the complete information requested and necessary here. By way of example, if this were a civil enforcement

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

3543509.2 06363-001-000 10
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

action, the City’s and BWS’ request for attorney’s fees must include itemized descriptions of the work done. (See Maria P v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) To provide a date and amount billed, as is the case here, would not suffice. As such, there is no added burden to BWS or the City in providing this required information. (Matthews, supra, 424 U.S. at pp. 334-335.) Council is acting as a quasi-judicial body in determining whether to award abatement costs. (See, e.g., Clary v. City of Crescent City (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 273, 284; see also BMC, § 8.36.180(H).) This Council should not grant its imprimatur to a lesser standard than that which is uniformly required for any party claiming fees – i.e., a rubber stamp in violation of the California and United States Constitutions. (See, e.g., R. H. Macy & Co. v. Robinson (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 182, 191-192; see also Beames v. City of Visalia (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 741, 767- 787 [due process violation existed where a city failed to provide a property owner a meaningful opportunity to challenge nuisance abatement action and abatement cost recovery].) Requiring BWS to substantiate their claimed fees with itemized descriptions, as would be required in any judicial setting, is necessary. To allow otherwise would infringe upon Artesia and Mr. Sharaf’s procedural due process rights. (Matthews, supra, 424 U.S. at pp. 334-335.) As such, Artesia and Mr. Sharaf seek (1) a continuance of the February 9, 2026 hearing to the March or April session, and (2) an order by the Council requiring the City attorney’s office to substantiate the costs incurred by their office(s) and the City in connection with the abatement of the Lots.

III. CONCLUSION
Procedural due process requires a meaningful opportunity to respond to a governmental entity’s attempt to deprive a property owner of a protected interest. Regarding abatement costs, procedural due process requires that a contesting party from whom costs are sought know the basis for a cost. That is absent here. BWS, the City’s attorney, has steadfastly refused to do that which it would be required to do in a judicial setting – i.e., itemize and describe the fees associated with abatement.

Council, in determining whether to assess such costs against all responsible persons, is acting in its quasi-judicial setting. To allow the recovery of costs with this dearth of information is a violation of Artesia’s and Mr. Sharaf’s procedural due process rights, as they cannot provide

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
3543509.2 06363-001-000
11 RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS the detail required by the BMC to contest the costs. As such, Artesia and Mr. Sharaf seek (1) a continuance of the February 9, 2026 hearing to the March or April session, and (2) an order by the Council requiring the City attorney’s office to substantiate the costs incurred by their office(s) and the City in connection with the abatement of the Lots.

DATED: February 3, 2026 ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP By:

Aria Guilani
Attorneys for
EITAN SHARAF and ARTESIA ENTERPRISES,
LLC

EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
012

013 EXHIBIT 1

014

015

016

017

018

019

020

021

022

023

024

025

026

027

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
3543509.2 06363-001-000
28 RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, California 90017-3623.

On February 3, 2026, I served true copies of the document described as RESPONSE TO CITY OF BELLFLOWER’S REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT COSTS on the interested parties in this action as follows:

City of Bellflower
E-Mail: [email protected]
City Clerk
Timothy E. Campen, Esq.

Burke, Williams & Sorenson LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 814-5800
Facsimile: (619) 814-6799
E-Mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for City of Bellflower
Solange Z. Fortenbach, Esq.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 650
Irvine, CA 92612-1032
Telephone: (949) 265-3416
E-Mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for City of Bellflower
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 3, 2026, at Los Angeles, California.

LISA GREENE

Page 1 of 8 ends

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager

FROM: Solange Fortenbach, Deputy City Attorney

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to authorize the recording of a Notice of Special Assessment for Nuisance Abatement Against the Owner of 9103 -9121 Artesia Boulevard; and adopt Resolution No. 26-04 – A Resolution to record a Notice of Special Assessment for Nuisance of 9111-9119 Artesia Boulevard (APN 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045).

DATE: February 9, 2026

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:

1) Re-open the continued public hearing; take testimonial and documentary evidence; and after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 26-04; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For many years, the parcel located at 9111-9119 Artesia Boulevard, APN 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045 (“Property”) has been engaged in illegal and unpermitted business operations, has maintained dilapidated and abandoned structures, and been in a state of blight, among other violations of the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”), amounting to public nuisances. The City invested in enforcement efforts at the Property from 2021 to 2025. After false promises by the Property Owner and attempts to gain voluntary compliance for years, on October 10, 2024, the City Attorney’s Office obtained an abatement warrant to address all public nuisances existing on the Property, the costs for which the City is entitled to recoup. These efforts culminated in the Property Owner abating the nuisances themselves at the eleventh hour.

The City Attorney accordingly recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the recording of a public nuisance abatement lien on the Property in order to recoup by special tax assessment the City’s costs of abating violations of the BMC

FISCAL IMPACT

Adopting this Resolution is expected to result in recouping a substantial portion, if not all, of the City’s abatement costs to date related to the Property. The City will recover its abatement costs by placing a lien on the Property and by adding the costs as a direct assessment on the property tax rolls.

12-A
-1-

Staff Report – Nuisance Abatement – 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard February 9, 2026

Page 2 of 8 ends

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

The Property is a commercial property located at 9111-9119 Artesia Boulevard in the City of Bellflower (“City”), Accessor Parcel Number 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045 (the “Property”). The Property owner is Artesia Enterprises LLC (“Property Owner”). The City has also been in contact with Aria Guilani, who is the Property Owner’s newly-appointed counsel.

The Property has a long history of blight and unpermitted uses, mostly centering around auto repair and sales, amongst other violations . Over the years, the City’s enforcement would result in the appearance of good faith efforts towards compliance, only for the Property to revert to its old ways. The City’s recoupment of abatement-related expenses includes Code Enforcement and City Attorney costs which have accumulated since January 2022.

On May 19, 2022, after inspection of the Property, Code Enforcement sent the Property Owner a Notice of Violation (“NOV”). The NOV listed a violation of BMC 17.52.030 (Conditional Uses (M1 Zone)). The Property Owner was notified that the Property was not allowed to operate as a truck yard in the M1 Zone without a CUP and was demanded to cease all truck yard activity and remove all vehicles until proper approvals and permits were obtained. A true and accurate copy of this NOV is attached as Exhibit A.

On July 21, 2022, the City’s Director of Planning and Building Services sent the Property Owner a “Notice of Nonconformity Abatement” whereby the City listed multiple violations of the BMC, mostly having to do with the Property’s nonconforming uses related to auto sales, repair, and storage. A true and accurate copy of this N otice is attached as Exhibit B.

On July 27, 2022, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a “Final Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” (“July 2022 Final Notice”) which highlighted the Property’s history of being used by numerous tenants simultaneously t o engage in activities not permitted under any circumstances. This July 2 022 Final Notice listed the following violations:

• BMC § 8.36.030(A)(2) – partial construction of structures; • BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(3) – abandoned buildings or structures; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(6) -dilapidated exterior of structures; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(14) – accumulation of junk and debris; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(16) – accumulation of combustible material; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(18) – storage dismantled, inoperable vehicles; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(21) – unpermitted signs;
• BMC § 8.36.030(A)(24) – graffiti;
-2-

Staff Report – Nuisance Abatement – 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard February 9, 2026

Page 3 of 8 ends

• BMC § 8.36.030(A)(25) – storage of hazardous materials; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(29) – unpermitted tarps on property; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards;
• BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto repair center;
• BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto sales;
• BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto storage; and
• BMC § 17.52.060(A) & (B) – 10-foot setback.

The July 2022 Final Notice listed a series of corrective actions and deadlines. The July 22 Final Notice also recounted the findings from a January 10, 2022 inspection warrant (“January 2022 Inspection Warrant”) which was executed by the City. The findings of this warrant confirmed structures on the Property were in disrepair, a blight, and unsafe.

Furthermore, resident complaints reporting that the old chicken coup on the Property was being used as an unlicensed nightclub with loud music and significant numbers of people coming and going after dark. Code Enforcement’s findings during their execution of the January 2022 Inspection Warrant substantiated those resident claims. A true and accurate copy of this Notice is attached as Exhibit C.

On July 29, 2022, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a “Notice of Public Nuisance Hearing of Appeal on Nonconformity” whereby the Property Owner was put on notice for two separate hearings regarding the Property , both concerning the July 2022 Notices. The hearing was set to take place on October 3, 2022. However, due to the Property Owner’s initial attempts to gain compliance, the City postponed the hearing only to later have the Property backslide. A true and accurate copy of this Notice is attach ed as Exhibit D.

On January 12, 2023, the City Council considered a resolution denying the Property Owner’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement Appeal for automobile sales and automobile repair center on the Property.

The City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s decision. A true and accurate copy of the staff report for this action is attached as Exhibit E.

Once it became clear the nuisances on the Property were not going to be abated by the Property Owner, the City sent a “Final Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” on November 21, 2023 (“November 2023 Final Notice”). The Notice listed 19 different violations of the BMC, including:

• BMC § 8.36.030(A)(2) – partial construction of structures; • BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(3) – abandoned buildings or structures; -3-

Staff Report – Nuisance Abatement – 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard February 9, 2026

Page 4 of 8 ends

• BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(6) – dilapidated exterior of structures; • BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(10) – boarded up windows;
• BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(14) – accumulation of junk and debris; • BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(16) – accumulation of combustible material; • BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(18) – storage dismantled, inoperable vehicles; • BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(21) – unpermitted signs;
• BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(24) – permitting graffiti;
• BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(25) – storage of hazardous materials, motor oil and other auto-related substances;
• BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(29) –unpermitted tarps on property; • BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards;
• BMC § 13.20.080 - allowing pollutants to runoff into storm drains; • BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto repair center;
• BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto sales;
• BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto storage;
• BMC § 17.52.060(A) & (B) – 10-foot setback required;
• BMC § 8.36.030(F) – operating without a Bureau of Auto Repair license; and
• BMC § 5.04.050 – operating without a City business license.

A true and accurate copy of this November 2023 Final Notice is attached as Exhibit F.

On February 14, 2024, Hearing Officer Richard Terzian issued an “Order re Abatement” after a hearing was held on February 8, 2024 (“Order”). The Hearing Officer determined several violations of the BMC, including:
• BMC § 8.36.030 – prohibiting operation of business;
• BMC § 8.36.030(A)(3)(6)(10) – abandoned or dilapidated buildings or structures;
• BMC § 17.52.060(A)(3) – requiring fences to be back 10 feet from the property line;
-4-

Staff Report – Nuisance Abatement – 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard February 9, 2026

Page 5 of 8 ends

• BMC § 8.36.030(A)(29) – prohibiting tarpaulins on chain link fence; • BMC § 8.36.030(A)(21) – unpermitted signs;
• BMC § 13.20.080 – pollutant runoff;
• BMC § 17.52.060(A) & (B) – prohibited auto repair, auto sales, and auto storage; and
• BMC § 8.36.050(A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards.

The Order required abatement by the Property Owner within 90 days of the Order and, if not completed within said time, the City would have authority to conduct such abatement.

A true and accurate copy of the February 14, 2024 Order is attached as Exhibit G.

To provide additional clarity concerning the Property Owner’s obligations of compliance, on May 31, 2024, the Hearing Officer issued an Amended Order re Abatement (“Amended Order”). This ordered abatement including; removal of all unpermitted uses on the Property; removal of all blighted and unpermitted structures; elimination of any polluting substances from possible runoff into storm drains; elimination of stained and blighted lot surfaces; bringing all fencing and signage into compliance with the BMC; an d generally bringing the entire Property into conformity with area standards. All such changes were ordered to be made within 90 days of the Amended Order. A true and accurate copy of the May 31, 2024 Order is attached as Exhibit H.

On March 8, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a “Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” (“March 2024 Notice”). This March 2024 Notice listed BMC §§ 17.52-030(H) & (Q) – unpermitted storage of vehicles; BMC § 17.52.030(A)(9) – unpermitted vehicle sales; and BMC § 17.72.070(A) – lack of wall or fence obscuring vehicle storage. A true and accurate copy of this March 2024 Notice is attached as Exhibit I. On March 11, 2024, Timothy Campen sent a follow up correspondence to provide additional clarity regarding the City’s expectations and the Property Owner’s obligations as it relates to bringing the Property into compliance with the BMC (“March 11, 2024 Correspondence”). A true and accurate copy of this March 11, 2024 Correspondence is attached as Exhibit J.

On March 18, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a ”Notice of Appeal Hearing on Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” (“March 2024 Notice of Appeal”). The Property Owner had requested to appeal the City’s March 2024 Notice of Appeal and was advised that the appeal hearing would take place on March 28, 2024.

A true and accurate copy of this March 2024 Notice of Appeal is attached as Exhibit K.

On March 29, 2024, Timothy Campen responded to a series of questions posed by the Property Owner in relation to the March 2024 Notice of Appeal, explaining the listed nuisances. A true and accurate copy of this March 29, 2024 Letter is attached as Exhibit L.

-5-

Staff Report – Nuisance Abatement – 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard February 9, 2026

Page 6 of 8 ends

On April 30, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent another correspondence in response to the Property Owner’s various inquiries to different Divisions of the City of Bellflower (“April 2024 Correspondence”). A true and accurate copy of this April 2024 Correspondence is attached as Exhibit M.

By August 2, 2024, Timothy Campen sent a “Final Notice of Compliance” demanding all listed corrective actions be completed no later than October 2, 2024, in accordance with the Amended Order (“August 2024 Final Notice”). This Final Notice reminded the Property Owner that he would be responsive “for the City’s costs of abatement, including attorney fees.” And that “Failure to pay the City’s abatement costs in full will result in the City placing a lien and special tax assessment on [the] Property to recoup these costs.” A true and accurate copy of this August 2022 Final Notice Correspondence is attached as Exhibit N.

On September 9, 2024, the City Council considered and passed Resolution 24 -54, declaring that an emergency exists as to abating the Property which constitutes an imminent threat to public health and safety that requires immediate action. A true and accurate copy of Resolution 24-54 is attached as Exhibit O.

The Property Owner was advised the City was pursuing an abatement warrant to tow and impound any and all unpermitted vehicles remaining on the Property by October 31, 2024.

On or about October 10, 2024, the City obtained a public nuisance abatement warrant issued by the Honorable Deborah Sanchez. A true and accurate copy of this abatement warrant is attached as Exhibit P. After being fully advised of the City’s intention to abate, at the eleventh hour, just prior to the City executing the warrant, the Prope rty Owner voluntarily complied. The Property Owner abated the nuisances existing on the Property by the due date and, as such, avoided incurring further costs.

By November 17, 2025, the Property Owner was sent a Demand for Payment to recoup all abatement-related costs incurred in anticipation of the City’s abatement (“November 2025 Demand Letter’). A true and accurate copy of this November 2025 Demand Letter is attached as Exhibit Q. The City Attorney’s Office sent the Owner and related parties a demand for $82,740.82 representing the City’s abatement-related costs (attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution). This included an itemization of all abatement-related costs and that a Resolution would be presented to the City Council. if any representative of the Property wished to be heard on it.

On November 26th and December 11th, 2026, the City Attorney’s Office received a “Contest of Statement of Abatement Costs” from the Property Owner. Copies of each of these Contests are attached as Exhibit R and Exhibit S, respectively. On January 6, 2026, Deputy City Attorney Solange Fortenbach responded to these Contests via e-mail and advised that the public hearing on the Demand would be scheduled for the January 26 , 2026 City Council meeting and that any evidence the Property Owner wished to submit needed to be done by January 21, 2026.

On January 5, 2026, Solange Fortenbach spoke with Eric Chalif, a real estate broker who was working on behalf of the Property Owner, over phone and email. Mr. Chalif requested further information regarding the abatement-related expenses. The City Attorney’s Office treated a follow-up email by Mr. Chalif reiterating his request for further information as a PRA request for which responsive materials, documenting the City’s efforts to bring the Property into compliance since January 2022, were produced on or a round January 20, 2026.
-6-

Staff Report – Nuisance Abatement – 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard February 9, 2026

Page 7 of 8 ends

On January 20, 2026, Deputy City Attorney Solange Fortenbach spoke with the Property Owner’s newly-acquired counsel, Aria Guilani, who requested a continuance of the public hearing. In good faith, the City Attorney’s Office continued the public hearing to the February 9, 2026 City Council meeting.

Pursuant to Government Code sections 38773 and 38773.5, and in conjunction with BMC Chap. 8.36, the City’s “costs of abatement” necessarily include all reasonable administrative, inspection, investigative, and legal costs incurred up to the point at which the owner’s abatement moots further direct action, because those costs were expended in actually achieving the abatement the City sought through its warrant and enforcement efforts. While the City did not have to engage in abating the Property, it is indisputable that the City obtaining the warrant and being on the cusp of executing said warrant was the direct catalyst for the Property Owner’s compliance. Therefore, the November 2025 Demand Letter comprises of costs accumulated to gain the Property Owner’s compliance, totaling $82,740.82. The City has not received any payment towards abatement costs as of this date.

RECOMMENDATION

It is our recommendation that the City Council move forward with adopting this Resolution authorizing the recording of this lien against the Property to be collected by special property tax assessment.

ATTACHMENTS

Exhibit A .......................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit B ........................................................................................................................ 11 Exhibit C ........................................................................................................................ 19 Exhibit D ........................................................................................................................ 25 Exhibit E ........................................................................................................................ 33 Exhibit F ........................................................................................................................ 77 Exhibit G ........................................................................................................................ 85 Exhibit H ........................................................................................................................ 90 Exhibit I ......................................................................................................................... 96 Exhibit J ....................................................................................................................... 102 Exhibit K ...................................................................................................................... 117 Exhibit L ...................................................................................................................... 121 Exhibit M ..................................................................................................................... 126 Exhibit N ...................................................................................................................... 133 Exhibit O ...................................................................................................................... 142 Exhibit P ...................................................................................................................... 147 Exhibit Q – Demand Letter .......................................................................................... 150 Exhibit R ...................................................................................................................... 166 Exhibit S ...................................................................................................................... 172 Resolution No. 26-04................................................................................................... 175

-7-

EXHIBIT A
-8-

Code Enforcement Division
05/19/2022
Artesia Enterprises LLC
110 N Glenroy Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Warning – Notice of Violation
Re: Property Located at 9111 Artesia Blvd, Bellflower, CA 90706 Dear Artesia Enterprises LLC:

On 05/17/2022, the property located at the above mentioned address was inspected by a Code Enforcement Inspector who has determined that the property is in violation of the following Bellflower Municipal Code Section(s):

BMC 17.52.030 - Conditional Uses (M1 Zone)
The following corrections need to be made in order to fix the above-referenced violation(s):

1. You are not allowed to operate a truck yard in the M1 Zone without a CUP. Please cease all truck yard activity and remove all vehicles until proper approvals and permits are obtained.

Corrections are expected to be completed within 10 days. Failure to comply may result in further legal action or administrative citation(s). Fines for failure to comply may include $100.00 for the first offense, $200.00 for the second offense, and $500.00 for third and all additional offenses.

Please note each violation is an offense and each day the violation exists is a new offense. For more information or an explanation, please contact the City of Bellflower Planning Department at (562) 804-1424.

Sincerely,
David Fawcett
[email protected]
extension - 2282
Code Enforcement Officer
-9-

Code Enforcement Division
05/19/2022
Occupant
9111 Artesia Blvd
Bellflower, CA 90706
Warning – Notice of Violation
Re: Property Located at 9111 Artesia Blvd, Bellflower, CA 90706 Dear Occupant:

On 05/17/2022, the property located at the above-mentioned address was inspected by a Code Enforcement Inspector who has determined that the property is in violation of the following Bellflower Municipal Code Section(s):

BMC 17.52.030 - Conditional Uses (M1 Zone)
The following corrections need to be made in order to fix the above-referenced violation(s):

1. You are not allowed to operate a truck yard in the M1 Zone without a CUP. Please cease all truck yard activity and remove all vehicles until proper approvals and permits are obtained.

Sincerely,
David Fawcett
[email protected]
extension - 2282
Code Enforcement Officer
-10-

EXHIBIT B
-11-

The City of Bellflower
gamrlres. 73usinesses. gufures.
16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower, CA 90706
Tel 562.804.1424 Fax 562.925.8660 www.bellflower.org
July 21, 2022
Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
110 N. Glenroy Ave.

Los Angeles CA 90049
Email: [email protected]
OF BELLFI,p
C
k'IIVCi TOG8
4-
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT:
9214 8969 0099 9790 1421 9420 75
Re: NOTICE OF NONCOMFORMITY ABATEMENT (BMC § 17.92.220) 9103-9115 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower, California 90706 (APN 7162-016-044) Dear Mr. Sharaf:

This is written Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for certain uses on your property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower, California 90706 (APN 7162-016-044) ("Property"). This Notice is being provided pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC") § 17.92.220.1 Legal non -conforming uses "are land uses, structures, and parcels within the City that were lawfully established, constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted differently under the current terms of this Code or its amendments." (BMC § 17.92.010.)
Concerning your Property, there are a number of uses occurring that are currently in violation of the BMC, including, without limitation:

Single auto repair business (must be in enclosed structure) Auto repair center (CUP required)
Auto sales — new or used (CUP required)
Auto storage — (CUP required)
Auto parts storage (must be stored indoors)
Trucking yard and storage (CUP required)
Your Property is located in an "M-l" zone in which automobile sales requires a Conditional Use Permit. Such sales can be classified under a "legal non -conforming" status, provided there is no lapse in sales for a period of more than one hundred eighty consecutive days.

BMC § 17.92.110.).
1 Pertinent sections of the BMC at attached to this Notice. Access to the entire BMC is available online at https://library.qcode.us/codes/bellflower .

Ray Dunton Sonny R. Santa Ines Raymond Y. Hamada Dan Koops Victor A. Sanchez Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member-12-

Pursuant to BMC § 17.92.110:

A nonconforming use that is voluntarily discontinued or ceases operations for a continuous period of one hundred eighty 180) days or more cannot be re-established on the site. Any further use of an existing structure or site must conform to any applicable performance or operational standards provided in this Code. Such use must also comply with all applicable development standards to the maximum extent feasible.

According to the City's tax records, there have been no automobile sales from this location by any licensed automobile dealer since the second quarter of 2016. It therefore appears that your Property abandoned its legal non -conforming status for auto sales as of June 30, 2017.

It is the City's contention that actual sales of automobiles must be conducted on the Property to maintain a legal non -conforming status for auto sales. Merely having businesses occupy the Property who may describe themselves as "auto sales" or have related business licenses does not establish a continuing use. In fact, investigations conducted by the City's Code Enforcement Division, City Attorney's Office and the California Department of Motor Vehicles have indicated a number of individuals have claimed to engage in auto sales on your Property as a ruse for other activities. As such, any auto sales business activity on the Property requires a CUP.

Our records further indicate that a single auto repair business may be permitted under a legal non- conforming status. Based on several site observations, the auto repair shop called "Cadillac Head Gasket Fix" has been continuously operating on the Property. However, this business appears to be operating under the business name "Get Around Auto Sales." The continued use of a single auto repair business without a CUP is allowed, on the condition it is done within a completely enclosed structure.

Two or more auto repair businesses on a single lot is defined as an "automobile repair center." Because the City is not aware of any continuing use of your Property as an auto repair center since the City's zoning requirements were enacted, there is no legal -nonconforming use abandonment to consider. These uses are simply not permitted without a CUP.

Your Property is also being used in various ways for which there is no basis to claim any legal non -conforming use, including, without limitation, a truck yard, auto storage, outside storage of auto parts, junk, trash and debris, apparent operation of night club, and other unpermitted activities and violations of the BMC. In addition, it appears that auto storage and trucking yard uses are operating on the Property without the proper approvals (e.g. a CUP). These issues will be addressed in separate correspondence from the City Attorney's Office.

Accordingly, all non -permitted uses on the Property must cease immediately.

BE ADVISED that within thirty (30) days after the City issues a notice, the owner of a property subject to a determination by the City of an abandonment of non -conforming use may request a -13-

public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the matter. The Planning Commission must receive written and oral testimony at such hearing with regard to abatement of the nonconformity.

At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission must find and determine whether the nonconformity should be abated or whether a time extension should be granted. The Commission must base its decision as to the length of the permitted abatement period on evidence including, without limitation, the depreciation schedule attached to the owner's latest federal income tax return. The Planning Commission must also find and determine whether the nonconformity can economically be used in its present condition or if the nonconformity can be successfully modified for a purpose permitted by the zone in which it is located.

BE FURTHER ADVISED that you are free to informally contest this Notice by providing evidence for the City to consider establishing continuing use of the Property for auto sales and/or an auto repair center without any lapse of 180 days or more.

BE FURTHER ADVISED that you should consult BMC Chapter 17.92 for more information regarding abandonment of non -conforming use and reconsideration processes.

BE FURTHER ADVISED that property uses that are not permitted by the BMC are public nuisances and subject to abatement by the City.

BE FURTHER ADVISED that this notice of Notice of Nonconformity Abatement does not contain an exhaustive list of violations on your Property. A formal Notice of Violation will be provided to you that includes the issues described in this Notice and any other violations observed on your Property. The appeal process for those violations may be different than the public hearing notification above.

Feel free to contact me by email at ecorpuzna bellflower.or or at (562) 804-1424, extension 2276.

If you have retained legal counsel to represent you on this matter, please have your attorney contact Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen at 818-333-5210 or tcampen o,hensleylawgroup.com.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth orpuz
Director of Planning and Building Services
Cc: Cornelius Chambers, Get Around Auto Sales & Rentals Pertinent Selections from the Bellflower Municipal Code -14-

17.92.010 Purpose, Intent and Effective Date.

This Chapter establishes regulations for legal nonconforming land uses, structures, and parcels.

These are land uses, structures, and parcels within the City that were lawfully established, constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted differently under the current terms of this Code or its amendments. This Chapter is intended to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property or business owners. This Chapter takes effect on the effective date of Ordinance 1316. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/ 16)

17.92.020 Establishing Nonconforming Status.

A. Applicability. Nonconforming uses, structures and lots within the City may continue to be used, and may be maintained, altered, expanded, reconstructed, or replaced only as allowed by this chapter.

B. This chapter does not apply to any public property or facilities owned in whole or part by the City. Nothing in this chapter is intended to, nor can it, require the City to remove a publicly owned nonconforming structure or use.

C. Effective Date. Whenever a use, building, structure, or lot becomes nonconforming as a result of amending this Code, the time period for eliminating the nonconforming use, building, structure, or lot established by this Code is computed from the effective date of the amendment.

D. Unless structures violate front yard setback requirements in a manner that is incompatible with surrounding properties, structures that do not comply with minimum setback requirements on the effective date of the ordinance amending this chapter are nevertheless deemed conforming structures for purposes of setback requirements. Proposed expansions and alterations occurring after the effective date of the ordinance amending this chapter must comply with this Code unless otherwise exempted.

E. Multi -unit dwellings existing on the effective date of this ordinance, which are not in compliance with the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards, will not be considered nonconforming due solely to noncompliance with the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards. Such dwellings are considered legal, conforming buildings or structures for the purpose of sale and financing under this title and other City regulations. However, all future expansions and alterations of such dwellings must comply with all applicable standards of this title. (Ord. 1316 8, 9/26/ 16)

17.92.060 Nonconforming Use —Allowed Only by Conditional Use Permit.

A nonconforming use previously allowed by a conditional use permit, but no longer allowed by this Code within the applicable zoning district can continue in operation in compliance with all requirements of the original conditional use permit. Should the conditional use permit expire, be -15-

abandoned, or be revoked, all uses on the real property regulated by the conditional use permit must comply with this Code. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.070 Continuation and Maintenance.

A nonconforming nonresidential use, structure, or lot may continue to be used until such time it is required to be abated provided no alterations, expansions, or modifications of area or use are made, except as otherwise permitted by this chapter. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.080 Nonconforming Status Tied to Property.

Restrictions and conditions affecting nonconforming uses, structures, and lots apply to that use, building, and structure, and are not affected by ownership changes. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.090 Abatement.

A. Nonresidential nonconforming uses must be abated and the usage thereof terminated within sixty (60) years from the effective date of the ordinance that amended the code provision resulting in the creation of the nonconformity.

B. Buildings and structures with noncompliant front yard setbacks that are not found to be compatible and consistent with adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood must be abated within sixty (60) years from the effective date of the ordinance or amendment. (Ord. 1316 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.110 Abandoning a Nonconforming Use.

17.92.190 Nonconforming Lot.

A. Allowed Use of a Nonconforming Lot. A lot that does not comply with the applicable requirements of this Code for minimum lot area, dimensions, or access, is considered to be a legal building site for the purposes of development or the establishment of a new land use only if:

1. The parcel was a previously a legal lot of record; and

2. The parcel has a valid certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance issued in accordance with this Code and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410, et seq.).

B. Development and Use Standards. Any proposed development or use of a nonconforming lot must comply with all applicable requirements of this Code. -16-

C. Further Division Prohibited. A nonconforming lot cannot be further subdivided, and its boundaries may be changed through lot line adjustment only if the extent of the nonconformity remains unchanged or is reduced. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.200 Development Review by the Director.

Unless otherwise noted, reconstruction, remodels, alterations or expansion of a nonconforming use, structure, or building, regulated by this chapter may be authorized with a minor use permit issued pursuant to Chapter 17.96 of this Code. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17. 92.210 Appeals.

All appeals must be processed as provided by this title. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.220 Nonconformity Abatement —Notice.

A. Upon determination by the Director that a use or structure on a given parcel of land is nonconforming and the permitted abatement period lapsed, the Director must promptly send a notice to the owner of the parcel, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, identifying the requirement for abatement. Such notice must be sent by a method certifying delivery of the notice.

B. The notice required by this section must state the following:
l . The property in question contains a nonconforming structure or use;

2. The date the use or structure became nonconforming; and

3. The date of required abatement established in this Code. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.230 Public Hearing.

A. Within thirty (30) days after the City issues a notice, the owner of the subject property may request a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the matter.

B. The Planning Commission must receive written and oral testimony at such hearing with regard to abatement of the nonconformity.

C. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission must find and determine whether the nonconformity should be abated or whether a time extension should be granted. The Commission must base its decision as to the length of the permitted abatement period on evidence including, without limitation, the depreciation schedule attached to the owner's latest federal income tax return.

D. The Planning Commission must also find and determine whether the nonconformity can economically be used in its present condition or if the nonconformity can be successfully modified for a purpose permitted by the zone in which it is located. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16) -17-

17. 92.240 Findings and Decisions.

A. The decision of the Planning Commission and the findings in support of the decision must be in the form of a written order and be served to the property owner personally or by a method certifying delivery within ten (10) calendar days after the decision is rendered.

B. Findings must be made as to whether or not the balancing of the public interest and the request by the owner for continuance complies with the intent of this Code.

C. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.112. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.250 Extension of Time.

A. In establishing the time periods for the termination of nonconforming uses, the City recognizes that there may be some uses which entail a substantial investment in time and money and which require a greater period of time for abatement of the investment than that set forth in the timetable. Any party may file a petition to the Planning Commission for an extension of time for the termination of a nonconforming use. The Planning Commission may direct the Director to conduct a study of the specific use and prepare a report recommending the appropriate time for termination of the use.

B. The Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, at its discretion, may grant an extension of time for the abatement of a nonconformity where it finds that an unreasonable hardship would otherwise be imposed on the property owner. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.260 City Removal.

If removal of a nonconforming use is not performed within the termination period determined by the Planning Commission in accordance with this chapter, the City can remove the nonconforming use. Any cost of removal can be charged to the property owner or recorded as a lien on the subject property, in accordance with this Code. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)

17.92.270 Public Nuisances.

Nothing in this chapter is intended to affect the ability of the City to terminate any use or remove any structure that is found to be a public nuisance, whether or not any applicable amortization period has expired. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16)
-18-

EXHIBIT C
-19-

Page 1 of 5 ends

FINAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE

AND INTENT TO ABATE WITH

CITY PERSONNEL
pursuant to BMC § 8.36.060)
July 27, 2022

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL AND POSTING ON PROPERTY Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
110 N Glenroy Ave.

Los Angeles CA 90049
Email: [email protected]
Re: 9103-9115 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower, California 90706 APN 7162-016-044
Dear Mr. Sharaf:

This Final Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel comes to you after observations by City of Bellflower officials of a number of recurring and newly discovered violations at your property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Blvd. (“Property”). This Notice is also intended as a follow-up to the Notice of Nonconformity provided to you by Planning Director Elizabeth Corpuz, informing you of the abandonment and loss of certain legal non-conforming uses on the Property, as well as all prior Notices of Public Nuisance provided to you.

The Property has an extensive history of being used by numerous tenants simultaneously to engage in activities that are not permitted under any circumstances. Specifically, auto dismantling, outdoor repair, autobody work, auto part storage, hazardous waste storage and related conduct that is not permitted and amounts to a blight to the community. These conditions remain on the property despite you being warned time and again that you are not permitted to engage in any auto repair activities without the proper enclosures. This is separate and independent from the fact zoning restrictions only allow one auto repair business to exist on the Property as a legal, non-conforming use.

An inspection warrant executed on January 10, 2022, confirmed structures on the property are in disrepair and a blight, and might not be safe for use under any circumstances. More recently, residents in the area have reported that the old chicken coup structure is being used as an unlicensed night club with loud music and significant numbers of people coming and going after -20-

Page 2 of 5 ends

dark. Code Enforcement personnel observed couches, chairs, a fully stocked bar, music amplification equipment and an exotic dancer pole installed in the old chicken coup building – all of which are consistent with the activities reported by neighbors. Your property is not approved for such use.

Your property is located in an M-1 zone, which establishes certain uses that are permitted by right and other uses that require a conditional use permit (“CUP”). (See BMC Chapter 17.52.) All other uses are not permitted. As detailed in Ms. Corpuz’ Notice of Nonconformity, the Property does have an existing legal non-conforming use for one auto repair business, so long as it otherwise operates in conformity with the BMC. Any legal-nonconforming status previously held for auto-sales has since been abandoned and lost.

More recently, the Property has become used for storage of semi-trucks, commercial trucks, trailers, and other vehicles, which is known to also spill onto Virginia Street next to your lot.

This is not a permitted use. An unpermitted chain link fence with tarp cover has also been erected right up to the property line, ostensibly as added protection for the unlawful truck storage. These amount to zoning violations under BMC Chapter 17.52.

The trailer office is old and a blight, and remains an attractive nuisance for occupation by homeless individuals. There also a history of individuals living in trailers and recreational vehicles on site. Use of the property for habitation, a night club, auto storage, auto repair (beyond one business), auto sales, and all similar uses are a violation of the M-1 zoning restrictions for your Property.

Simply put, your Property has been maintained as a public nuisance many times over for years, and the City is adamant about bringing your Property into compliance with the BMC and community standards. Accordingly, the following notice is being provided:

PUBLIC NUISANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the following public nuisance conditions, activities, or uses exist on the premises described above property (“Property”):

1. Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 8.36.030 (A)(2) – partial construction of structures.

2. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(3) – abandoned buildings or structures.

3. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(6) – dilapidated exterior of structures

4. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(14) –accumulation of junk and debris and which is not in conformity with community standards.

5. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(16) – accumulation of combustible material.

6. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(18) – storage dismantled, inoperable vehicles.

7. Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 8.36.030 (A)(21) – unpermitted signs.

8. Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 8.36.030 (A)(24) – permitting graffiti.

9. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(25) – storage of hazardous materials; to wit: motor oil and other auto-related substances.

10. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(29) –unpermitted tarps on property. -21-

Page 3 of 5 ends

11. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards.

12. Use not permitted per BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto repair center.

13. Use not permitted per BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto sales.

14. Use not permitted per BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto storage.

15. BMC § 17.52.060(A) & (B) – 10-foot setback required.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

1. Immediately cease and desist from engaging in the following activities and uses, and any related advertising, signage or promotion, on the Property:

Auto, truck, semi-truck, trailer or related storage;
Auto repair or dismantling of more than one licensed business; Auto repair not conducted within a three-sided permanent structure; Auto sales;
Night club activities or social gatherings; and
Any other use not permitted by right or with any required CUP per BMC Chapter 17.52.

2. By August 11, 2022:

Restore all permanent structures to their original, permitted state according to plans filed with the City;
Remove or properly store in enclosed structures all auto parts and materials, including, without limitation, hazardous materials;
Remove all chain link fencing within the 10-foot setback of your property line along Artesia Blvd. and Virginia Street;
Remove all tarps or coverings from all chain link fences inside the Property’s 10- foot setback;
Clear all trash, junk and debris from the Property;
Remove all trailers, recreational vehicles, or any other such vehicles or facilities with wheels that was designed for or allows human habitation; and Remove mobile office;

3. By August 19, 2022:

Ensure entire property is cleared of all unpermitted items not otherwise listed above;
Repair and cover all exposed electrical wiring on light posts and anywhere else present;
Remove any weeds or vegetation growing on Property;
Remove or cover any graffiti;
Remove all abandoned, dilapidated and/or unpermitted signage; Ensure Property is brought within community aesthetic standards.

Please Take Notice that City employees, representatives or contract agents (hereinafter “City Personnel”) may abate these public nuisance conditions, activities, or uses in the manner contained in this Notice if you do not perform the required corrective or preventative actions by the required completion date in a proper manner with all required approvals, permits and inspections of the City and -22-

Page 4 of 5 ends

other appropriate public agencies. In such instances, the City may seek recovery of all abatement costs, fees and expenses (incidental or otherwise) as allowed by Chapter 8.36 of the Bellflower Municipal Code, or by applicable State laws, in any manner allowed by law.

Please Take Further Notice that you may appeal this Notice of Public Nuisance and Intention to Abate with City Personnel by filing an appeal with the City Clerk’s office (located at Bellflower City Hall, 16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower, California) within ten (10) calendar days of service of this notice. Failure of the City Clerk to receive a timely appeal constitutes a waiver of your right to any further administrative appeal and renders the Notice of Public Nuisance and Intention to Abate with City Personnel final and binding. A written request for an appeal must contain the following information:

1. Name, address, and telephone number of each responsible party who is appealing the Notice of Abatement (hereinafter, “appellant”).

2. Address and description of real property upon which the City intends to enter and abate a public nuisance.

3. Date of Notice of Abatement being appealed.

4. Specific action or decision being appealed.

5. Grounds for appeal in sufficient detail to enable the Hearing Officer to understand the nature of the controversy.

6. The signature of at least one appellant.

Following appeal, in the case of a final decision by the City, judicial review of this decision is subject to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1094.5 et seq Please Take Further Notice that, if the violations are not abated within the time specified or a timely appeal is not made, such nuisance may be abated by City Personnel in the manner stated in this notice.

On such occasions, all costs of the abatement, including, but not limited to, those stated in Chapter

8.36 of the Bellflower Municipal Code, will be assessed against the responsible person(s) and/or the subject property, as a lien or as a special assessment.

Please Take Further Notice that any appeal of this Notice is separate and independent from any appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity provided to you by Planning Director Corpuz. Any corrective action directives in this Notice that are stayed as a result of any appeal of either this Notice or the Notice of Nonconformity will be tolled only until such time as final determinations on the appeal(s) are issued and no active appeal remains.

Please Take Further Notice that, in the event of abatement by City Personnel, all personal property constituting a public nuisance may be removed from the subject premises or from public property and destroyed or disposed of, without regard to its actual or salvage value.

Please Take Further Notice that this Notice constitutes the City Manager’s written election that the City will seek recouping all abatement-related costs to date with this Property, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees pursuant to BMC § 8.36.240. -23-

Page 5 of 5 ends

For questions concerning compliance with these directives and advisals, please contact Mr. Fawcett with any questions at [email protected] or at (562) 804-1424, ext. 2282. Any attorney contact on your behalf should be directed to my attention at [email protected] or 808-333-5120. As always, the City strives for voluntary compliance whenever possible. We hope you take advantage of this opportunity.

Sincerely,
Timothy E. Campen
Assistant City Attorney
City of Bellflower
-24-

EXHIBIT D
-25-

818.333.5120 phone - 818.333.5121 fax

BURBANK OFFICE
2600 W. OLIVE AVENUE
SUITE 500
BURBANK, CA 91505

SAN DIEGO OFFICE
3850 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
WRITER'S DIRECT CONTACT:

BURBANK OFFICE
[email protected]
818-333-5120
July 29, 2022
VIA FIRST CLASS U.S.P.S. AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
110 N Glenroy Ave.

Los Angeles CA 90049
Email: [email protected]
Re: NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE HEARING

NOTICE OF APPEAL ON NONCONFORMITY
9103-9115 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower, California 90706
APN 7162-016-044
Dear Mr. Sharaf:

This is official notice of two separate hearings regarding the above referenced property Property”) pursuant to your separate requests for appeals to both the City’s Notice of Public Nuisance and the City’s Notice of Nonconformity:

Administrative Hearing Appeal on Notice of Public Nuisance dated July 27, 2022 October 3, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. – Bellflower City Hall, EOC Conference Room Appeal to Planning Commission of Notice of Nonconformity dated July 21, 2022 October 3, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. – Bellflower City Hall, City Council Chambers Every effort was made to accommodate your schedule, however, the appeal before the Planning Commission must occur at its regularly scheduled meeting.

Please Take Further Notice that the City will be represented by counsel at both hearings. You are free to be represented by your own retained attorney at both hearings, and have been advised many times to seek counsel on these matters. Be advised that no special accommodations should be expected if you choose to represent yourself. -26-

July 29, 2022
Notice of Public Nuisance

Page 2 ends

Page 2 of 7 ends

Please Take Further Notice that the City will be presenting testimony, documentary evidence, photos, records, and other evidence particular to each hearing. You are free to do the same. While there are no formal rules for exchange in advance of evidence the parties intend to introduce at the hearings, I am proposing we agree to do so 10 days prior to October 3, 2022.

Please let me know if you are amenable to such.

Please Take Further Notice that issues under consideration at both hearings is limited to your appeal of the City’s contentions in the respective notices. Neither the Planning Commission nor the administrative hearing officer has the authority to take action on anything beyond the issues in contention. Additionally, the City reserves the right to present all relevant evidence in support of its positions, including, without limitation, evidence that becomes available after the dates of the notices being appealed. This would include recent Los Angeles County Sheriff Department actions and investigations concerning suspected criminal activity at the Property.

If you have any questions about compliance, please contact me at 808-333-5120 or [email protected]. If you have retained counsel in either of these matters, please have that person contact me on your behalf.

Sincerely,
Timothy E. Campen
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning
Joel Hockman, Director of Public Safety
Brian McNerney, Public Safety Supervisor
David Fawcett, Supervisory Code Enforcement Inspector
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-27-

July 29, 2022
Notice of Public Nuisance

Page 3 ends

Page 3 of 7 ends

Pertinent Sections of the Bellflower Municipal Code
Notice of Public Nuisance

1.12.080 Administrative Hearing—Procedures.

A. An administrative appeal hearing shall be scheduled and conducted within sixty (60) calendar days after the date a timely and complete request is received by the Community Development Department. A citee who files a request for an administrative hearing to contest a citation (hereinafter “appellant”) shall be notified in writing by First-Class Mail of the date, time and location of the hearing at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing. The failure of an appellant to receive a properly addressed notice shall not invalidate the citation or any hearing or City action or proceeding conducted pursuant to this chapter.

B. At the place and time set forth in the notification of administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer shall hear and consider the testimony of the issuing officer, the appellant(s) and their witnesses, if any, as well as any documentary evidence presented by those persons concerning the violation(s) alleged in the citation.

C. Administrative hearings are informal and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. The City bears the burden of proof to establish a violation and responsibility therefor by a preponderance of evidence. The issuance of an administrative citation shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation and the enforcement officer who issued the citation is not required to attend or participate at the hearing. The appellant(s) and Officer, if present, shall have an opportunity to present evidence and witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses. An appellant may bring an interpreter to the hearing at the appellant’s sole expense. The Hearing Officer may question any person who presents evidence or who testifies at any hearing.

D. An appellant may appear at the hearing in person or by written declaration executed under penalty of perjury. Said declaration, and any documents in support thereof, shall be tendered to and received by the Community Development Department at least three (3) City-business days prior to the hearing. If the appellant fails to attend the scheduled hearing or to otherwise submit a written declaration in a timely manner, then the Hearing Officer shall cancel the hearing and send a notice thereof to the appellant(s) by First-Class Mail to the address(es) stated on the appeal form. A cancellation of a hearing due to nonappearance of the appellant shall constitute the appellant’s waiver of the right to appeal. In such instances, the citation (and corresponding fine and other applicable fees) shall be deemed final.

E. Hearings may be continued once at the request of an appellant or the Officer who issued the citation. The Hearing Officer may also continue the hearing for cause. (Ord. 1222 § 2, 11/28/11) -28-

July 29, 2022
Notice of Public Nuisance

Page 4 ends

Page 4 of 7 ends

8.36.130 Review by Hearing Officer.

A. Any responsible person who contests a notice of abatement shall, subject to filing a timely appeal, obtain review thereof before a Hearing Officer. The administrative appeal shall be scheduled no later than 60 calendar days, and no sooner than 10 calendar days, after receipt of a timely filed request for appeal. The appellants listed on the written request for an appeal shall be notified in writing at least 10 calendar days prior to the date of the hearing by first class mail of the date, time, and location of the hearing.

B. Any request by an appellant to continue a hearing must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing no later than two business days before the date scheduled for the hearing. The Hearing Officer may continue a hearing for good cause, however, in no event may the hearing be continued for more than 30 calendar days without stipulation by all parties.

C. At the place and time set forth in the notification of appeal hearing, the Hearing Officer shall hear the testimony of the appealing person(s), the issuing officer, and/or their witnesses, as well as any documentary evidence presented by these persons concerning the alleged public nuisance(s).

D. Appeal hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. The City bears the burden of proof to establish a nuisance exists by a preponderance of evidence. The issuance of a notice of abatement shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation and the Code Enforcement Officer who issued the notice of abatement is not required to participate in the appeal hearing. The appellant, and the Enforcement Officer issuing the notice, as well as all other interested persons, shall have the opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. The appellant, or other interested persons, may represent himself/herself/themselves or be represented by anyone of his/her/their choice. The appellant, or other interested persons, may bring an interpreter to the hearing at his/her/their sole expense.

E. If the appellant fails, or other interested persons fail, to appear, or to otherwise submit any admissible evidence demonstrating the nonexistence of the alleged nuisance condition(s), the Hearing Officer shall cancel the hearing and send a notice thereof to the responsible person(s) by first class mail to the address(es) stated on the appeal form. A cancellation of a hearing due to nonappearance of the appellant shall constitute the appellant’s waiver of the right to appeal. In such instances, the notice of abatement is final and binding. (Prior code § 11-4.13; Ord. 1151 § 2, 11/26/07)

8.36.140 Decision of Hearing Officer—Order of Abatement.

A. Within a reasonable time, not to exceed 15 calendar days following conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall determine if any nuisance condition exists at the subject property. If the Hearing Officer determines that each nuisance condition described in the notice -29-

July 29, 2022
Notice of Public Nuisance

Page 5 ends

Page 5 of 7 ends

of abatement is nonexistent, the notice of abatement shall be deemed canceled. If the Hearing Officer determines that one or more of the nuisance conditions described in the notice of abatement exists, he or she shall issue a written order of abatement which shall contain the following:

1. A finding and description of each nuisance condition existing at the subject property;

2. The name of each person responsible for a nuisance condition, or conditions, at the subject property, as well as the name of any appellant who lacks responsibility therefor;

3. The required corrective action and completion date for each unabated nuisance condition;

4. Any other finding, determination or requirement that is relevant or related to the subject matter of the appeal.

B. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final and conclusive. The order of abatement shall also contain the following statement: “The Hearing Officer’s decision is final, and judicial review of this decision is subject to the provisions and time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 et seq.”
C. A copy of the order of abatement shall be served by first class mail on each responsible person to whom the notice of abatement was issued. If the owner is not an appellant, a copy of the order of abatement shall also be served on the owner by first class mail to the address shown on the last equalized assessment roll. Failure of a responsible person to receive a properly addressed order of abatement shall not invalidate any action or proceeding by the City pursuant to this chapter.

D. At no cost to the City, the responsible person will comply with all of the provisions of an abatement order. If the responsible person fails, for any reason, to comply with an abatement order within the time required in the order, the City Manager, or designee, will cause the nuisance described in the abatement order to be abated by City forces or by private contractor.

The City Attorney is authorized to take such action as needed to gain entry upon the property where the public nuisance exists for purposes of abating a public nuisance. (Prior code § 11-4.14; Ord. 1151 § 2, 11/26/07; Ord. 1375 § 3, 5/13/19)

8.36.150 Abatement of Nuisance by Responsible Persons Prior to City Abatement Actions.

A. Any responsible person shall have the right to fully abate a nuisance in accordance with an order of abatement prior to the date of entry by City forces or agents upon the subject real property, provided that all corrective actions are completed in the manner and time set forth in the order of abatement. In such instances, all administrative proceedings shall be cancelled. -30-

July 29, 2022
Notice of Public Nuisance

Page 6 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

B. Once the City enters a subject real property to abate a public nuisance, it shall have the right to complete this action.

C. It is unlawful and a misdemeanor to obstruct, impede, or interfere with City personnel in the performance of any act that is carried out to abate a public nuisance.

D. All personal property that is removed by City personnel from premises in the abatement of a nuisance shall be lawfully disposed of or destroyed without regard to its actual or salvage value. (Prior code § 11-4.15; Ord. 1151 § 2, 11/26/07)
Notice of Nonconformity

17.92.230 Public Hearing.

A. Within thirty (30) days after the City issues a notice, the owner of the subject property may request a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the matter.

B. The Planning Commission must receive written and oral testimony at such hearing with regard to abatement of the nonconformity.

17.92.240 Findings and Decisions.

B. Findings must be made as to whether or not the balancing of the public interest and the request by the owner for continuance complies with the intent of this Code.

C. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.112. (Ord. 1316 § 8, 9/26/16) -31-

July 29, 2022
Notice of Public Nuisance

Page 7 ends

Page 7 of 7 ends

17.92.250 Extension of Time.

17.92.260 City Removal.

17.92.270 Public Nuisances.

EXHIBIT E
-33-

Page 1 of 5 ends

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to consider adopting Resolution No. 23-02 – A Resolution denying Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal for automobile sales and automobile repair center on property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Boulevard.

DATE: January 12, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 21, 2022, a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement was issued for automobile sales on property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Boulevard (“Property”). In addition, the Notice identified that an automobile repair center use was not permitted on the Property without a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”). A Notice of Nonconformity Abatement was issued because it was determined that automobile sales had ceased operations for a period of 180 days or more pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 17.92.110. On August 23, 2022, Mr. Eitan Sharaf on behalf of Artesia Enterprises, LLC (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement and requested a public hearing be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to BMC § 17.92.230. On November 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal and adopted Resolution No. PC 22 -16 denying the appeal. On November 16, 2022, the Appellant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Appellant’s appeal of the City’s Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center on the Property. On November 28, 2022, the City Council confirmed receipt of the appeal and set the public hearing for January 12, 2023, to consider the appeal.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Open the public hearing, take testimonial and documentary evidence and, after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 23-02 denying the appeal; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.
11-A
1-34-

Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Herald American (Bellflower Edition) newspaper on December 30, 2022. Public hearing notices were sent on December 21, 2022 to 43 property owners within a 300’ radius of the project area and on December 21, 2022 public hearing notices were posted at City Hall, Brakensiek Library, Bellflower Substation, Thompson Park, Simms Park, and Caruthers Park. Two public hearing notices were also posted on the subject site on December 28, 2022. As of the writing of this staff report, staff received one inquiry regarding the public hearing.

CEQA STATUS
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 §§ 15061(b)(3), 15321(a), and 15378(b)(4-5) because they: do not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such action may have a significant effect on the environment; involve an enforcement action of a specific use on the Property; and do not constitute a “project” requiring environmental review.

BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2022, the Director of Planning and Building Services issued a written Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales on the Property and identified that an automobile repair center use was not permitted without a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”).

On August 23, 2022, Appellant filed an appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement and requested a public hearing be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to BMC § 17.92.230. On November 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal and, after considering evidence presented by both City staff and Appellant, adopted Resolution No. PC 22-16 denying the appeal.

On November 16, 2022, Appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement. The Appellant’s appeal documentation is attached to the staff report (Attachment B).

On November 28, 2022, the City Council confirmed receipt of a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Appellant’s appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement and set the public hearing for January 12, 2023 , to consider the Appellant’s November 16, 2022 appeal.
2-35-

Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

DISCUSSION
The Property is located in an “M-1 – Light Industrial” zone. Both automobile sales and automobile repair centers require a CUP to operate within an M-1 zone (BMC 17.44.030).

Pursuant to BMC § 17.08.010, an automobile sales area or lot means an open area or building used for the display, sales or retail of new or used automobiles and trailers and boats. Pursuant to BMC § 17.08.010, an automobile repair center means more than one automobile repair business on a single parcel. Any uses permitted in the C-G (General Commercial) zone also applies to M-1 (Light Industrial) zones. Conditional Use Permits for automobile sales became effective in December 1997 (Ordinance No. 915) and automobile repair centers became effective in December 2005 (Ordinance No. 1097 ).

A legal non-conforming status refers to “uses, structures, and parcels within the City that were lawfully established, constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted dif ferently under the current terms of this Code or its amendments.” Only businesses lawfully operating on the Property qualify for legal non-conforming status. Accordingly, businesses that do not have the requisite California State licensing or do not have a business license with the City are not considered lawfully operating.

A legal non-conforming use can be “abandoned.” Once the use is abandoned, it cannot be re-established pursuant to BMC § 17.92.110:

A nonconforming use that is voluntarily discontinued or ceases operations for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more cannot be re-established on the site. Any further use of an existing structure or site must conform to any applicable performance or operational standards provided in this Code. Such use must also comply with all applicable development standards to the maximum extent feasible.” Automobile sales appear to have been an existing use on the Property before the current zoning regulations governing the Property were adopted in 1997. Accordingly, automobile sales on the Property operated under its legal non -conforming status. “Get Around Auto Sales” is the only business at the Property that had both the required state automobile dealer license and a City business license at any time between 2005 and the present.

However, that use was abandoned beginning in or around 2016 for a period of approximately 4-6 years, at which time “Get Around Auto Sales” did not operate any form of automobile dealership or automobile sales on the Property. This lapse of engaging in automobile sales business amounts to an abandonment of the legal non -conforming status.

While there have been a number of other businesses over the years that have obtained City business licenses for automobile sales, only “Get Around Auto Sales” had a valid automobile sales license from the State of California for the subject property. Accordingly, those other businesses be cannot counted as continuing the automobile sales use since they were not legally licensed.
3-36-

Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

DISCUSSION – Continued
Get Around Auto Sales” also operated an automobile repair shop on the Property under the name “Cadillac Head Gasket Fix” with a valid California state automobile repair license. The only other business at the Property with a City business license for automobile repair was “New Auto Axle Exchange,” which operated from 2002 through March 2008, and closed its City business license in August 2009. The City could not locate any record of “New Auto Axle Exchange” ever having a valid California state license for automobile repair.

At best, the Property has maintained a legal non-conforming use for only one automobile repair shop. Even if “New Auto Axle Exchange” did have a State automobile repair license, its closure means any automobile repair center use was abandoned by 2010 at the very latest.

Many businesses have been observed at the Property over the years engaging in what appears to be automobile repair activities. However, none of these businesses obtained business licenses from the City, and none are known to have been licensed by the State of California.

Based on a thorough review of business license records and various State licenses, a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement, pursuant to BMC § 17.92.220, was issued to the property owner. That Notice informed the property owner that legal non -conforming uses at the Property for both automobile sales and an automobile repair center were abandoned pursuant to BMC § 17.92.110. This Notice of Nonconformity Abatement was appealed and a public hearing was requested by the Appellant.

A public hearing to consider the appeal was considered at the November 7, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. The Assistant City Attorney presented business license records and the State of California auto dealership license records. These records indicated that the only legal, automobile sales business on the Property was “Get Around Auto Sales.” During the public hearing, the business owner, Cornelius Chambers, of “Get Around Auto Sales” and “Cadillac Head Gasket Fix,” testified that he stopped selling automobiles for 4-6 years, a period of time exceeding 180 days. The Appellant testified that as the owner of the property, he was not aware that his tenants were not property licensed and therefore any lapse of lawful use should not count as a period of nonconformity. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the appeal and adopted Resolution No. PC 22 -16 (Attachment A).

The Appellant has since appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to deny his Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal.

The City Council must make certain findings outlined in the following subsections:
4-37-

Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

DISCUSSION – Continued
Bellflower Municipal Code (BMC) § 17.92.230 (Public Hearing):

C. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council must find and determine whether there has been an abandonment of legal nonconforming status, and if so, whether the nonconformity should be abated or whether a time extension should be granted. The City Council must base its decision as to the length of the permitted abatement period on evidence including, without limitation, the depreciation schedule attached to the owner’s latest federal income tax return.

D. The City Council must also find and determine whether the nonconformity can economically be used in its present condition or if the nonconformity can be successfully modified for a purpose permitted by the zone in which it is located.

BMC § 17.92.240 (Findings and Decisions):

B. Findings must be made as to whether or not the balancing of the public interest and the request by the owner for continuance complies with the intent of this Code.

It is recommended the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appellant’s Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. PC 23-02…………………………………………………………………..6
B. November 16, 2022 Appeal……………………………………………………………....11 C. November 7, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments) ………...14 D. Supplemental Material Provided at the Planning Commission Meeting……………..33 5-38-

Page 1 of 5 ends

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. 23-02
A RESOLUTION DENYING ARTESIA ENTERPRISES, LLC’S APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A NOTICE OF

NONCONFORMITY ABATEMENT APPEAL FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES

AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR CENTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
9103-9115 ARTESIA BOULEVARD.

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds and declares that:

A. On July 21, 2022, the Director of Planning and Building Services (“Director”) issued a written Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales on the property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Boulevard (“Property”) pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 17.92.220. The written Notice also identified that an automobile repair center was not permitted on the property without a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”);
B. On August 23, 2022, Mr. Eitan Sharaf (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity (“Appeal”) for automobile sales and the determination that an automobile repair center was not an allowed use on the Property, and requested a public hearing be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to BMC § 17.92.230;
C. The application was reviewed by the Director for, in part, conformity with the BMC;
D. The proposed action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15061(b)(3), 15321(a), and 15378(b)(4-5) because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant impact on the environment, it involves an enforcement action of a specific use on the property, and it does not constitute a “project” that requires environmental review; E. The Director completed review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission on October 3, 2022; F. Notice of a Public Hearing was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law;
G. On October 3, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 7, 2022;
H. On November 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive and consider public testimony and other evidence regarding the Appeal including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by the Appellant; and
6-39-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02

Page 2 of 5 ends

I. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by City staff, Assistant City Attorney, public testimony, and the Appellant. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 22-16 denying the appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center. Resolution No. PC 22-16 and its findings, were made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its October 3, 2022 and November 7, 2022 hearings including, without limitation, the staff report.

J. On November 16, 2022, the Appellant submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appellant’s appeal of the City’s Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center on the Property.

K. On November 28, 2022, the City Council confirmed receipt of a timely appeal from Artesia Enterprises, LLC of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center and set a public hearing for January 12, 2023 to consider the appeal.

L. Notice of a Public Hearing was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law;
M. On January 12, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to receive and consider public testimony and other evidence regarding the Appeal including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission and City Council by the Appellant; and
N. The City Council considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony, and the Appellant. This Resolution, and its findings were made based upon the entire administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at its January 12, 2023 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department of Planning and Building Services.

SECTION 2. Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the following facts exist:

A. The subject property consists of multiple lots addressed as 9103 -9115 Artesia Boulevard within the M-1 (Light Industrial) zone. Multiple businesses have operated on the property including, without limitation, automobile sales, automobile repair and automobile storage.

B. BMC § 17.08.010 defines “automobile repair center” as “multiple automobile repair shops within one (1) complex.” City records do not show that there was a legal automobile repair center on the property and therefore, there is no legal nonconforming use abandonment to consider and the use is not permitted on the property without a CUP.
7-40-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02

Page 3 of 5 ends

C. BMC § 17.08.010 defines “automobile and trailer and boat sales area or lot” as an open area or building used for the display, sales or retail of new or used automobiles and trailers and boats.” BMC § 17.44.030(A)(9) requires a CUP for automobile sales.

D. BMC § 17.92.010 states that legal nonconforming uses “are land uses, structures, and parcels within the City that were lawfully established, constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted differently under the current terms of this Code or its amendments.” Business license records demonstrate that an automobile sales and automobile repair uses existed on the site before current zoning regulations took effect in December 1997 and December 2005.

Accordingly, such uses were “legal nonconforming” at that time.

E. BMC § 17.92.110 states that “a nonconforming use that is voluntarily discontinued or ceases operations for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more cannot be re-established on the site.” F. Only one confirmed automobile sales business has lawfully operated on the Property in the past 10 years. That business, however, discontinued all automobile sales activities in or around 2016. The last known time that more than one automobile repair shop lawfully operated on the Property (amounting to an automobile repair center) was approximately in 2009. Accordingly, both automobile sales and automobile repair center uses have been abandoned by virtue of a lack of operations for a continuous period of one hundred eighty 180) days or more.

G. Business that operated automobile sales or automobile repair businesses at the Property, but did not have required California state licenses or a City business license to lawfully conduct such business activities are not considered to have been operating on the Property for purposes of continuing a legal nonconforming use.

SECTION 3. Denial. Based on the findings and evidence presented, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal for automobile sales and automobile repair center is denied. The Planning Commission’s decision is sustained and the Planning Director’s decision is valid.

SECTION 4. Environmental Assessment. The proposed action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15061(b)(3), 15321(a), and 15378(b)(4-5) because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant impact on the environment, it involves an enforcement action of a specific use on the property, and it does not constitute a “project” that requires environmental review. 8-41-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02

Page 4 of 5 ends

SECTION 5. Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Appeal. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 6. Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the Appeal is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating an Appeal that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Appeal will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the Appeal is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the lim itations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 8. Preservation. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Resolution's effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

SECTION 9. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 11. The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to the Appellant and any other person requesting a copy.

SECTION 12. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix the Mayor’s signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Bellflower, and the City Clerk, or duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto. 9-42-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02

Page 5 of 5 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023.

Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor
ATTEST:

Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
10-43-

-44-

-45-

-46-

-47-

-48-

-49-

-50-

-51-

-52-

-53-

-54-

-55-

-56-

-57-

-58-

-59-

-60-

-61-

-62-

-63-

-64-

-65-

-66-

-67-

-68-

-69-

-70-

-71-

-72-

-73-

-74-

-75-

-76-

EXHIBIT F
-77-

FINAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE

AND INTENT TO ABATE WITH

CITY PERSONNEL
pursuant to BMC § 8.36.060)
November 21, 2023
VIA E-MAIL, U.S. MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT AND POSTING ON

PROPERTY
Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
110 N. Glenroy Ave.

Los Angeles CA 90049
[email protected]
ALL Tenants and Businesses
at 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd.
9103-9121 Artesia Blvd.

Bellflower CA 90706
Re: 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706
APNs 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Dear Mr. Sharaf and All Tenants and Businesses at 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd:

This office provides the services of the City Attorney to the City of Bellflower City”), and I am its Assistant City Attorney. This Final Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel is in regard to your above referenced commercial properties located at 9103-9021 Artesia Blvd. (“Property”) – APN’s 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045. This Notice affects all operations, businesses and uses on the Property, except for Magic’s Auto Upholstery located at 9119 Artesia Blvd.

The Property has an extensive history of being used by numerous tenants simultaneously engaging in a variety of activities and uses that are not permitted under -78-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
ALL Tenants and Businesses
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

November 21, 2023

Page 2 ends

any circumstances under the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”). Specifically, auto repair by more than one licensed auto repair shop, auto dismantling, outdoor repair, autobody work, auto part storage, auto and RV storage, hazardous waste storage and related conduct that is not permitted and amounts to a blight to the community. These conditions remain on the property despite you being warned time and again that you are not permitted to engage in any auto repair activities without the proper enclosures. This is separate and independent from the fact zoning restrictions only allow one auto repair business to exist on the Property as a legal, non-conforming use.

The Eastern portion of the Property behind the upholstery shop appears to be used for the storage of consumer and commercial vehicles. This also is not a permitted use. An unpermitted chain link fence with tarp cover has also been erected right up to the property line on the back half of the Property along Virginia St. Tarps on interior chain link fencing is also not permitted and amounts to a blight .

The trailer office in the middle of the Property is a blight and a continual attractive nuisance for occupation by trespassers. There is also a history of individuals living in trailers and recreational vehicles on site. None of these temporary structures are permitted on the Property, and must be removed.

Further, there is only one business on the Property that has an active City Business License – Mecanica Gueros. But neither this business, nor any other on the Property, has a license to engage in auto repair by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair as far as the City is aware. Be Advised that the City believes the Property has gone more than 180 consecutive days without the lawful operation of an auto repair business, resulting in abandonment of its legal nonconforming status to engage in auto repair activities.

Simply put, the Property has been maintained as a public nuisance many times over for years, and you have been notified of these and related violations many times over. The City is adamant about bringing the Property into compliance with the BMC and community standards.

Be advised that such conditions constitute a nuisance and therefore subjects these violations to abatement and legal actions by the City if necessary, and at your expense. This is applicable to both the property owner and to any individuals or business occupying the Property.
-79-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
ALL Tenants and Businesses
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

November 21, 2023

Page 3 ends

PUBLIC NUISANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the following public nuisance conditions, activities, or uses exist on the premises described above property (“Property”):

1. Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 8.36.030 (A)(2) – partial construction of structures.

2. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(3) – abandoned buildings or structures.

3. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(6) – dilapidated exterior of structures

4. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(10) – boarded up windows

5. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(14) – accumulation of junk and debris and which is not in conformity with community standards.

6. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(16) – accumulation of combustible material.

7. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(18) – storage dismantled, inoperable vehicles.

8. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(21) – unpermitted signs.

9. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(24) – permitting graffiti.

10. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(25) – storage of hazardous materials; to wit: motor oil and other auto-related substances.

11. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(29) –unpermitted tarps on property.

12. BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards.

13. BMC § 13.20.080 - allowing pollutants to runoff into storm drains

14. Use not permitted per BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto repair center.

15. Use not permitted per BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto sales.

16. Use not permitted per BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto storage.

17. BMC § 17.52.060(A) & (B) – 10-foot setback required.

18. BMC § 8.36.030 (F) – operating without a Bureau of Auto Repair license

19. BMC § 5.04.050 – operating without a City business license

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

1. Immediately cease and desist from engaging in the following activities and uses, and any related advertising, signage or promotion, on the Property:

Auto, van, truck, semi-truck, trailer or related storage; Auto repair by more than one licensed business;
Auto repair not conducted within a three-sided masonry structure; Auto sales of any kind;
-80-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
ALL Tenants and Businesses
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

November 21, 2023

Page 4 ends

Any other use not permitted by right or with any required CUP

2. By December 4, 2023:

Provide to the City Attorney’s Office definitive evidence establishing the lawful operation of lawful auto repair business on the Property, including, without limitation, the name of such business(es), the date range(s) of repair activity by each such business, Bureau of Auto Repair license number(s), and any other pertinent evident establishing auto repair operation at all times since January 20, 2023;
Restore all permanent structures to their original, permitted state according to plans filed with the City;
Remove or properly store in enclosed structures all auto parts and materials, including, without limitation, hazardous materials; Remove all chain link fencing within the 10-foot setback of your property line along Artesia Blvd. and Virginia Street;
Remove all tarps or coverings from all chain link fences Clear all trash, junk and debris from the Property;
Remove all trailers, recreational vehicles, or any other such vehicles or facilities with wheels that was designed for or allows human habitation; Remove all vehicles from the property not otherwise subject to Corrective Action #1 above;
Remove mobile office and any other non-permanent structure(s); Ensure entire property is cleared of all unpermitted items not otherwise listed above;
Repair and cover all exposed electrical wiring on light posts and anywhere else present;
Remove any weeds or vegetation growing on Property;
Remove or cover any graffiti;
Remove all abandoned, dilapidated and/or unpermitted signage; Ensure Property is brought within community aesthetic standards.

Please Take Notice that this Notice does not necessarily amount to an exhaustive list of violations on the Property. You are required to maintain your Property in compliance with the BMC at all times and ensure your tenants do the same. The City reserves the right to enforce any such violations upon their discovery. -81-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
ALL Tenants and Businesses
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

November 21, 2023

Page 5 ends

Please Take Further Notice that this Notice applies to the owner of the Property and to each and every individual and/or tenant using, occupying, or conducting any activities on the Property, and their respective responsibilities to remain in compliance with the BMC.

Please Take Further Notice that if the City does not receive definitive evidence of lawful auto repair business being conducted on the property by the deadline and in the manner described above, it will consider auto repair an abandoned legal nonconforming use on the Property, and initiate proceedings accordingly. Lawful auto repair business includes, without limitation, operating with a valid City Business License, a valid Bureau of Auto Repair License, and within an enclosed masonry structure.

Please Take Further Notice that City employees, representatives or contract agents (hereinafter “City Personnel”) may abate these public nuisance conditions, activities, or uses in the manner contained in this Notice if you do not perform the required corrective or preventative actions by the required completion date in a proper manner with all required approvals, permits and inspections of the City and other appropriate public agencies. In such instances, the City may seek recovery of all abatement costs, fees and expenses (incidental or otherwise) as allowed by Chapter

8.36 of the Bellflower Municipal Code, or by applicable State laws, in any manner allowed by law.

Please Take Further Notice that in the event of abatement by City Personnel, all personal property constituting a public nuisance may be removed from the subject premises or from public property and destroyed or disposed of, without regard to its actual or salvage value. This may include, without limitation, removing and destroying all parts, tools, equipment, supplies and any other personal property amounting to or contributing to a public nuisance, impounding any and all vehicles that cannot be demonstrated to be on the Property lawfully, demolition and removal of any and all temporary structures, removal of any fencing that is within the 10-foot setback or is otherwise dilapidated and a blight. The Property owner and tenants on the property will be considered jointly and severally liable to the City for its abatement related costs.

Please Take Further Notice that this Notice constitutes the City Manager’s written election that the City will seek recouping all abatement -related costs to date with this Property, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees pursuant to BMC § 8.36.240.

Please Take Further Notice that the execution of any abatement warrant will include the presence of law enforcement officers to keep the peace. -82-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
ALL Tenants and Businesses
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

November 21, 2023

Page 6 ends

Please Take Further Notice that you may appeal this Notice of Public Nuisance and Intention to Abate with City Personnel by filing an appeal with the City Clerk’s office located at Bellflower City Hall, 16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower, California) within ten (10) calendar days of service of this notice. Failure of the City Clerk to receive a timely appeal constitutes a waiver of your right to any further administrative appeal and renders the Notice of Public Nuisance and Intention to Abate with City Personnel final and binding. A written request for an appeal must contain the following information:

1. Name, address, and telephone number of each responsible party who is appealing the Notice of Abatement (hereinafter, “appellant”).

2. Address and description of real property upon which the City intends to enter and abate a public nuisance.

3. Date of Notice of Abatement being appealed.

4. Specific action or decision being appealed.

5. Grounds for appeal in sufficient detail to enable the Hearing Officer to understand the nature of the controversy.

6. The signature of at least one appellant.

Following appeal, in the case of a final decision by the City, judicial review of this decision is subject to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 et seq
Please Take Further Notice that any appeal of this Notice is separate and independent from any appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity provided to you by Planning Director Corpuz. Any corrective action directives in this Notice that are stayed as a result of any appeal of either this Notice or the Notice of Nonconformity will be tolled only until such time as final determinations on the appeal(s) are issued and no active appeal remains.

Please Take Further Notice that every day a public nuisance exists constitutes a new violation. An appeal of this this notice WILL NOT establish a stay of the City’s enforcement rights for continuing public nuisances even while an appeal is pending.

Such enforcement may include, without limitation, civil lawsuit, injunctive relief, daily administrative citations for each individual violation, and criminal prosecution. Further, the City reserves its right to engage in immediate abatement of an imminent threat to the health, safety and protection of persons and property. -83-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
ALL Tenants and Businesses
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

November 21, 2023

Page 7 ends

For questions concerning compliance with these directives and advisals, please contact Mr. Fawcett with any questions at [email protected] or at 562-804-1424, ext. 2282. Any attorney contact on your behalf should be directed to my attention at [email protected] or 619-814-5810. As always, the City strives for voluntary compliance whenever possible. We hope you take advantage of this opportunity.

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Timothy E. Campen
Assistant City Attorney
TEC:meh
cc: Jeff Stewart, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-84-

EXHIBIT G
-85-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
In the matter of:
9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard.

ORDER RE

ABATEMENT

INTRODUCTION
Hearing on the above-entitled nuisance matter with respect to the real property located at 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard (Property) in the City of Bellflower (City) was held commencing at 10:00 a.m. on February 8, 2024 in the City Hall pursuant to due notice thereof. Appearing for the City were Timothy E. Campen, Deputy City Attorney, and David Fawcett, Supervising Code Enforcement Officer. Appearing for the Property were Eitan Sharaf (Owner), his son and spouse.

11. BACKGROUND
Property is located in the M-zone and was acquired by Owner in 2014; title is held through an L LC. It has always been Owner's intent to develop the Property as affordable housing in the form of a 60-unit apartment building. Negotiations with the City for that purpose have not been fruitful to date .

There are apartment houses adjacent to the Property, the second floor of which look down on it. Artesia Boulevard is a main traffic artery in the City.

T he Property currently has two tenants, a towing company and a nearby auto sa les firm. T he auto sales firm uses the Property as storage for a number of vans which are for sale at its other premises.
- 1 --86-

The Property first attracted the City's attention in 2016 due to its appearance, which includes the aforesa id vans, s ign poles, engine parts, automotive repair, several dilapidated buildings and a trailer used as an office. Since the first notice sent by the City in 2016 ,Owner has been reasonably cooperative in cleaning up the s ite and its appearance has imp roved over the past years. However, Owner has balked at removing some of the buildings since he wants to use them as storage for hi s planned construction of the affordab le-rent apartment house. Accordingly, this Order will focus on the appearance of the Property as of February 2024 .

Ill.

DISCUSSION
Mr. Fawcett was sworn and identified Ex hibits A through H as accurate representations of the Property and they were admitted into evidence. Exhibit F showed the Property as of January 17, 2024 and is the current condition of the Property. The evidence showed a number of vans lined up, a trailer on blocks, several dilapidated buildings, poles which once held signs and a chain-link fence on the property line, most of which is covered by tarpaulins.

The Property was once used for various purposes legally allowed at the time but subsequently rendered nonconforming by zone change. Among these was auto repair.

Said nonconforming uses were abandoned by non-use for the requisite period and thus are no longer viable. Auto repair is currently being conducted without a license from the state.

The re are currently two tenants on the Property, a towing service and the nearby auto sales firm which uses the Property for storage of vehicles . The towing firm will be evicted by the Owner. However, the auto sales firm has a lease and the Owner states that it will not leave.
-2--87-

IV.

FINDINGS

1. Property is owned by Eitan Sharaf through title held by his LLC.

2. Property has a number of vans apparently stored for ultimate sale by a tenant of Owner.

3. T here are located on the Property a trailer a nd several dilapidated wooden buildings.

4. There are also located on the Pro perty a number of poles which once held signs.

5. The Property is surrounded by a chain-link fence covered by tarpaulins and located on the Property line.

6. Auto repair being conducted on the Property outside an enclosed building, an unpermitted use.

7. Said auto repair is being conducted without a State license.

8. T here is motor oil and other fluids on the ground of Property which may be discharged onto publi c property and into the storm drain system.

9. There is evidence of other unpermitted uses of Property.

10. Owner has been informed of the above-described nuisance conditions but has not taken corrective action to fully abate them.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The foregoing Findings establish the following violations:

1. Municipal Code Section 8.36 .030 prohibiting operation of business in violation of State law.

2. Municipal Code Section 8 .36.030 (A)(3)(6)(10) re abandoned or dilapidated buildings or structures.
-3 --88-

3. Municipal Code Section 17.52.060 (A)(3) requiring fences to be back 10 feet from the property line.

4. Municipal Code Section 8.36.030(A)(29) prohibiting tarpaulins on chain link fencing.

5. Municipal Code Sect ion 8.36.030(A)(21) which prohibits unpermitted s igns.

6. Municipal Code Secti on 13.20.080 prohibiting pollutants runoff into storm dra in s.

7. Municipal Code Sect ion 17.52.060(A) & (B) prohibiting uses not permitted as auto rep air, auto sa les and auto storage .

8. Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(A)(31) prohibiting maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards.

VI.

ORDER
The conditions described in Findings 2-9 above constitute a public nuisance on the Property subject to abatement. S uch abatement shall be made by the Owner within 90 days of this Order and, if not completed within said time, shall be conducted by the City using its own or contracted personnel and all costs thereof shall be assessed against Property as a lien.

This decision is final and conclusive. Judicial review of thi s decision is subject to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, et seq.

DATED: February J.i_, 2024 ~~~~ Richard R. Terzia
Hearing Officer
-4 --89-

EXHIBIT H
-90-

-91-

-92-

-93-

-94-

-95-

EXHIBIT I
-96-

4873-0563-9596 v1
Direct No.: 619.814.5810
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 501 West Broadway - Suite 1600
San Diego, California 92101 -8474
voice 619.814.5800 - fax 619.814.6799
www.bwslaw.com
March 8, 2024
VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
ORDERYOURCARS.COM, INC.
d.b.a. Best Buy Quality Cars
Attn: Edmond Ghoulian
17418 Lakewood Blvd.

Bellflower, CA 90706
Email: [email protected]
Re: Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706
APNs 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Dear Mr. Ghoulian:

The law firm serves as the City Attorney’s Office for the City of Bellflower (“City”), and I as its Assistant City Attorney. This Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel is being directed to you based on you and your company’s unpermitted use of property located at 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706, assessor parcel numbers 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045 (“Property”). Earlier this year we spoke at some length about the issues and corrective actions detailed in this Notice.

The Property is located within an M-1 Zone, which is restricted to certain, specified uses.1 Permitted uses are specifically enumerated in the BMC as being by right or requiring a conditional use permit (“CUP”). Any use not permitted in a designated zone is a violation of the BMC and a public nuisance subject to abatement.

Intermittently for several years, Best Buy Quality Cars has stored and sold vehicles on the Property. Vehicle sales or storage on the Property requires a CUP. (see BMC §§ 17.52.030(A)(9) and 17.52.030(H)&(Q).) Storage of vehicles further requires a 1 M-1 zone also incorporates all permitted uses in a C-G Zone. The entire BMC, including all zoning regulations listed in this Notice, can be accessed at https://ecode360.com/BE4904 .
-97-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 8, 2024

Page 2 ends

4873-0563-9596 v1
view-obscuring fence or wall at least six feet high. (BMC § 17.72.070(A).) Your use of the Property does not comply with any of these requirements.

I have further engaged in an exhaustive factual and legal analysis of whether these activities may be permitted as legal non-conforming uses, and have determined they do not. In fact, such findings have already been sustained as to this property by an official determination of the Bellflower City Council in January of 2023.

The City is aware vehicles registered to your company are still on the Property in violation of the BMC’s zoning laws and regulations. In our telephone call earlier this year, you fully admitted to storing your vehicles on the Property , and I advised you of your responsibility to immediately remove them . Because of your refusal to abate the nuisance you are causing, you are being advised as follows:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND

INTENT TO ABATE WITH CITY PERSONNEL
pursuant to BMC § 8.36.060)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following public nuisance conditions, activities, or uses exist on the premises described above property (“Property”):

1. Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § BMC §§ 17.52.030(H) & (Q) – unpermitted storage of vehicles.

2. BMC § 17.52.030(A)(9)– unpermitted vehicle sales.

3. BMC § 17.72.070(A) – lack of wall or fence obscuring vehicle storage.

NOTICE OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you must immediately cease and desist from having any vehicles on the Property for any unlawful purpose, including, without limitation, vehicle storage or sales. Failure to comply subjects your vehicles to being removed and impounded, at your cost, as further detailed below.

Please Take Further Notice that this Notice does not necessarily amount to an exhaustive list of violations you are committing on the Property. You are required to -98-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 8, 2024

Page 3 ends

4873-0563-9596 v1
remain in compliance with the BMC at all times, regardless of any representations made to you by, or contractual arrangement you may have with, the Property owner .

Please Take Further Notice that all available evidence and your own admissions establish you have vehicles on the Property , which is a violation of the BMC, and without any lawful basis for you to continue with this practice.

Please Take Further Notice that you must remove from the Property all vehicles under your ownership, custody, control, or responsibility NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M.

ON MARCH 18, 2024. If you fail to comply, the City will pursue a warrant from the court to remove said vehicles from the Property and impound them for a period of not less than 14 days before release, at which time you will be free pay all fees to release the vehicles from impound or subject said vehicles to forfeiture pursuant to the California Vehicle Code and applicable law. Execution of any abatement warrant will include the presence of law enforcement officers to keep the peace.

Please Take Further Notice that you have known for at least six weeks you must remove your vehicles from the Property when I personally advised you of this during our telephone call. You have had ample time to make alternate arrangements for your vehicles. No extensions for compliance will be given.

Please Take Further Notice that every day a public nuisance exists is a new violation, subject to separate enforcement. The City reserves the right to issue administrative citations to you personally for every day you maintain this public nuisance, and do so in addition to any abatement or other enforcement action.

Please Take Further Notice that City employees, representatives or contract agents (hereinafter “City Personnel”) may abate these public nuisance conditions, activities, or uses in the manner contained in this Notice if you do not perform the required corrective or preventative actions by the required completion date in a proper manner with all required approvals, permits and inspections of the City and other appropriate public agencies. The City may seek recovery of all of its abatement costs, fees and expenses (incidental or otherwise) as allowed by Chap. 8.36 of the Bellflower Municipal Code, and/or by applicable State laws, in any manner allowed by law.

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 8, 2024

Page 4 ends

4873-0563-9596 v1
renders the Notice of Public Nuisance and Intention to Abate with City Personnel final and binding. A written request for an appeal must contain the following information:

1. Name, address, and telephone number of each responsible party who is appealing the Notice of Abatement (hereinafter, “appellant”).

2. Address and description of real property upon which the City intends to enter and abate a public nuisance.

3. Date of Notice of Abatement being appealed.

4. Specific action or decision being appealed.

5. Grounds for appeal in sufficient detail to enable the Hearing Officer to understand the nature of the controversy.

6. The signature of at least one appellant.

Following appeal, in the case of a final decision by the City, judicial review of this decision is subject to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, et seq.

Such enforcement may include, without limitation, civil lawsuit, injunctive relief, daily administrative citations for each individual violation, and criminal prosecution. Further, the City reserves its right to engage in immediate abatement of an imminent threa t to the health, safety and protection of persons and property.

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Timothy E. Campen, Assistant City Attorney
TEC
Enclosure
cc: Eitan Sharaf, (via email: [email protected]) David Fawcett, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-100-

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 8, 2024

Page 5 ends

EXHIBIT A
4873- 0563- 9596 v1
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 8, 2024

Page 5 ends

4873-0563-9596 v1

EXHIBIT A
-101-

EXHIBIT J
-102-

4872-0012-6380 v1
Direct No.: 619.814.5810
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 501 West Broadway - Suite 1600
San Diego, California 92101 -8474
voice 619.814.5800 - fax 619.814.6799
www.bwslaw.com
March 11, 2024
VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
7624 Firestone Blvd.

Downey, CA 90241
[email protected]
Re: Code Enforcement Compliance and Planning Dept. Use Review 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706
APNs 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Dear Mr. Sharaf:

This correspondence is in regard to your above referenced commercial parcels located at 9103-9021 Artesia Blvd. (“Property”) in the City of Bellflower – APN’s 7162- 016-044 and 7162-016-045. The purpose of this communication is to provide clarity on the City of Bellflower’s (“City”) expectations and your obligations as it relates to bringing the Property into compliance with the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) and review of your proposed uses on the Property.

Background
As you are well aware, on February 8, 2024, a public nuisance administrative hearing was conducted regarding alleged violations of the BMC at your Property. You were present at this meeting and presented evidence and arguments on your behalf. On February 14, 2024, the administrative hearing officer issued findings declaring the Property to be a public nuisance in violation of a list of provisions of the BMC, and ordered full compliance with abating said violations within 90 days. (“Order”) That Order has been served to you by certified mail and is attached to this letter as Exhibit A.

Separately, you have been engaging with the City’s Planning Department regarding your intention to use your Property as a “Contractor’s Office (no outside storage)” and a “Contractor’s Equipment Yard”, as those terms are used in the BMC’s zoning regulations of Chapters 17.44 and 17.52. This includes zoning clearance review -103-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 11, 2024

Page 2 ends

4872-0012-6380 v1
by Planning staff. Among the challenges in this review process has been the difficulty of obtaining sufficiently detailed responses to staff’s questions from you to allow a competent assessment of whether your intended use of the Property is consistent with use of the Property as a contractor’s office or a contractor’s equipment yard, and otherwise compliant with the BMC.

Please be Advised that compliance with both nuisance abatement and zoning regulations are required. Where there is any conflict between the two, nuisance abatement takes priority.

Compliance with Nuisance Abatement
The Order made the following findings regarding violations on the Property:

1. Property is owned by Eitan Sharaf through title held by his LLC.

2. Property has unpermitted auto storage use. (BMC § 17.52.020.)

3. There are located on the Property a trailer and several dilapidated wooden buildings. (BMC §§ 8.36.030 (A)(3)(6)(10) and 8.36.050(A)(31).)

4. There are also located on the Property a number of poles which once held signs. (BMC § 8.36.030(A)(21).)

5. The Property is surrounded by a chain-link fence covered by tarpaulins and located on the Property line. (BMC §§

8.36.030(A)(29) and 17.52.060 (A).)

6. Auto repair being conducted on the Property outside an enclosed building, an unpermitted use. (BMC § 17.44.170.)

7. Said auto repair is being conducted without required State license(s). (BMC § 8.36.030(F).)

8. There is motor oil and other fluids on the ground of Property which may be discharged onto public property and into the storm drain system. (BMC § 13.20.080.)

9. Other unpermitted uses of Property. (BMC Chapters 17.44 and

17.52.)
-104-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 11, 2024

Page 3 ends

4872-0012-6380 v1

10. Maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards .

BMC § 8.36.050(A)(31).)
The Order further directed you to abate these violations within 90 days of the issuance of the Order, which is May 14, 2024. If full and complete compliance is not achieved by that date, the City is authorized to abate the Property at your cost.

Recent inspections of the Property have shown substantial efforts towards compliance, but violations remain. Specifically, and without limitation, there is still unpermitted auto storage, chain link fencing, dilapidated buildings and structures, sign poles, and the Property remains out of conformity with area standards.

Such abatement includes, without limitation, the following:

1. Remove all vehicles, trailers, RV’s and the like stored on the Property;

2. Remove all existing fencing on the Property (except chain link fencing and gate separating the two parcels);

3. Remove all non-permanent and dilapidated structures from the Property.

This refers to all structures, portable offices, storage containers, and the like, except the three permanent structures on Northern border of the Property that you identified as “1, 2 and 3” on the aerial photo you provided to Planning staff and attached hereto as Exhibit B);

4. Rehabilitate the three permanent structures to eliminate blight and bring their appearance up to community standards;

5. Clear all trash, junk, debris and similar items on the Property;

6. Remove unpermitted signs and sign poles;

7. Remove shortened fence poles on the South and Southwest perimeter of the Property along the property line;

8. Remove all wires, lines, ropes and similar items, other than permitted electrical lines;

9. Rehabilitate all light poles eliminate blighted condition and bring them up to community standards;

10. Resurface, slurry or similar remedial action on all surfaces of the Property; -105-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 11, 2024

Page 4 ends

4872-0012-6380 v1
As I explained to you immediately following the hearing on February 8, 2024, bringing the Property into compliance means essentially clearing it completely, except for the three permanent structures listed above, making it presentable as you did with your vacant lot located at 17321 Clark Ave. Bellflower, CA 90706. Bringing your Property in compliance will facilitate complying with zoning regulations for your proposed uses.

I am also aware that we have discussed various options for compliance, such as keeping the existing chain link fencing on the Property and using wood slats instead of tarps on them. Upon further review, and based on the Order, removal of all such fencing is now required.

Please be Further Advised that you have until May 14, 2024, to bring your property into compliance with the BMC as detailed in this letter and ordered by the administrative hearing officer. Failure to do so will result in the City seeking a warrant from the court to abate your Property, and at your expense.

Zoning Clearance Review
A zoning clearance review is conducted by the Planning Department to ensure stated uses are in fact compliant with zoning regulations and any other applicable provisions of the BMC. This is separate and independent from issuance of a business license pursuant to BMC Chapter 5.04, which, while required to conduct business, is merely a tax and does not confer any right to conduct any commercial activities in the City.

In this case, you have indicated wanting to use the Property as both a contractor’s office and a contractor's equipment yard. While both uses are in name permitted by right in an M-1 Zone, the zoning clearing review ensures compliance with the actual implementation of such uses.

You have indicated seeking to use structures identified as numbers 5, 6, and 7 (as labeled on the aerial photo of the Property and included as Exhibit B ) as office space.

Because all structures other than 1, 2 and 3 must be cleared from the property under Code Enforcement, you will need to designate or construct other structure(s) for office use, which will be subject to review for compliance. Use of permanent structures 1, 2, and/or 3 for storage purposes is also subject to approval depending based on what will be stored in them. Depending on what type of use you decide for structures 1, 2 and 3, tenant improvements are very likely to be required to make sure that the proposed use is consistent with the occupancy type and that proper accessibility is provided. -106-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 11, 2024

Page 5 ends

4872-0012-6380 v1
Historical records of the Property indicate the Eastern portion of the building/structure you labeled as #3 that runs parallel to Virginia Street was constructed as an open car port, but was subsequently enclosed without a required building permit.

You will need to either restore the structure to its permitted state as a car p ort or bring it into compliance with all current building codes in order to use it for any purpose.

Use as a contractor’s office has specific parking requirements, which must be clearly specified. Your designation on Exhibit B of an area on the property as “#8” for parking is not clear due to the darkness of the photograph, but it appears you are referring to the portion of parcel no. 7162-016-045 currently being used by two tenants for unpermitted vehicle storage. Please note that you cannot have a use on one parcel and provide required parking for that use on another parcel, even if they share a propert y line and are owned by the same person, without meeting certain zoning and land use requirements. If you intend to use parcel no. 7162-016-045 for parking in this manner, please be sure to consult with Planning staff to understand all your options and ensure compliance. In addition, use of the property as a contractor’s equipment yard must comply with BMC Chapter 17.88
Improvements to the Property will likely require approval from Planning and potentially building permits. Installation of any fencing, for example, must go through a Planning Department approval process. Please be sure to keep staff fully informed of any intended improvements to help avoid preventable issues before they occur.

Furthermore, Planning Department is still awaiting clarification on your proposed use and operation, as outlined on the letter sent to you on January 3, 2024, including , without limitation, the following information:

1. A revised site plan / aerial photo and photographs indicating which permanent structures will be used as the contractor’s office. Upon providing a revised site plan / aerial photo, clearly indicate on the legend whether the use is proposed to be conducted indoors or outdoors.

2. Clarify the number of employees who will be working at the property under the proposed uses. Is it one employee for the contractor’s office and another employee for the contractor’s equipment yard? Is it one employee per office or one employee for the entire site?

3. The number and type of equipment you intend to have on the property for use as a contractor’s equipment yard and where the equipment is currently being kept.
-107-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 11, 2024

Page 6 ends

4872-0012-6380 v1

4. Whether any business(es) that are currently operating at the property will remain on the property once you begin your intended uses, and if so, state in detail the names of each business and what the specific uses of each will be. In one of your responses, you noted “for right now we are using it under Designer builders INC. with my subs” – currently, there is no approval to use the site as either a contractor’s office or a contractor’s equipment yard.

In addition, the zoning clearance that is currently under review is for your own business and does not include use of the property by your subcontractors.

5. You previously noted that the intended use for the property is for construction purpose until we get permit to start buildings.” Please provide details on what “construction purpose” entails.

Advisals
Please be Further Advised that this letter incorporates by reference all prior notices and advisals provided to you regarding your Property, including, without limitation, the “FINAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND INTENT TO ABATE WITH CITY PERSONNEL” dated November 21, 2023, and upon which the public nuisance administrative hearing on February 8, 2024 was based.

Please be Further Advised that this letter does not necessarily represent an exhaustive list of all violations and required abatement associated with the Property, or all zoning and other regulations related to your intended uses. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with the BMC, as well as all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. Further note that every day a public nuisance exists constitutes a new violation. The City reserves its right to engage in immediate abatement of an imminent threat to the health, safety and protection of persons and property , without regard to any administrative order or other hearing requirement .

Please be Further Advised that in the event of abatement by City Personnel, all structures and personal property constituting a public nuisance may be demolished and/or removed from the subject premises or from public property and destroyed or disposed of, without regard to its actual or salvage value. This may include, without limitation, demolishing, removing and destroying any parts, tools, equipment, supplies, trailers, portable offices, storage containers, canopies, and any other personal property amounting to or contributing to a public nuisance, impounding any and all vehicles that cannot be demonstrated to be on the Property lawfully, demolition and removal of any and all temporary structures, removal of any fencing that is within the 10 -foot setback or -108-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 11, 2024

Page 7 ends

4872-0012-6380 v1
is otherwise dilapidated and a blight. The Property owner and tenants on the property will be considered jointly and severally liable to the City for its abatement related costs.

Please be Further Advised that this Notice constitutes the City Manager’s written election that the City will seek to recoup all abatement-related costs to date with this Property, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees , pursuant to BMC § 8.36.240.

Conclusion
I appreciate you may have questions concerning the contents of this letter. For questions regarding compliance with code enforcement directives, please contact David Fawcett at [email protected] or at 562 -804-1424, ext. 2282, or me at [email protected] or 619-814-5810. Regarding zoning and use regulations, please contact Rowena Genilo-Concepcion at [email protected] or 562-804-1424, ext. 2228. As always, the City strives for voluntary compliance to the extent practicable. We look forward to continuing to work with you towards ensuring compliance while you move forward with use of the Property.

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Timothy E. Campen
Assistant City Attorney
TEC
Enclosure
cc: David Fawcett, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
Elizabeth Oba, Director of Planning
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-109-

EXHIBITAEXHIBITA
-110-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
In the matter of | ORDER RE |

ABATEMENT
9103- 9121 Artesia Boulevard. | | |
I.

Il.

BACKGROUND
Property is located in the M-zone and was acquired by Owner in 2014; title is held through an LLC. It has always been Owner's intent to develop the Property as affordable housing in the form of a 60-unit apartment building. Negotiations with the City for that purpose have not been fruitful to date.

There are apartment houses adjacent to the Property, the second floor of which look down on it. Artesia Boulevard is a main traffic artery in the City.

The Property currently has two tenants, a towing company and a nearby auto sales firm. The auto sales firm uses the Property as storage for a number of vans which are for sale at its other premises.
-111-

The Property first attracted the City’s attention in 2016 due to its appearance, which includes the aforesaid vans, sign poles, engine parts, automotive repair, several dilapidated buildings and a trailer used as an office. Since the first notice sent by the City in 2016 ,Owner has been reasonably cooperative in cleaning up the site and its appearance has improved over the past years. However, Owner has balked at removing some of the buildings since he wants to use them as storage for his planned construction of the affordable-rent apartment house. Accordingly, this Order will focus on the appearance of the Property as of February 2024.
lil.

DISCUSSION
Mr. Fawcett was sworn and identified Exhibits A through H as accurate representations of the Property and they were admitted into evidence. Exhibit F showed the Property as of January 17, 2024 and is the current condition of the Property. The evidence showed a number of vans lined up, a trailer on blocks, several dilapidated buildings, poles which once held signs and a chain-link fence on the property line, most of which is covered by tarpaulins.

The Property was once used for various purposes legally allowed at the time but subsequently rendered nonconforming by zone change. Among these was auto repair.

Said nonconforming uses were abandoned by non-use for the requisite period and thus are no longer viable. Auto repair is currently being conducted without a license from the state.

There are currently two tenants on the Property, a towing service and the nearby auto sales firm which uses the Property for storage of vehicles. The towing firm will be evicted by the Owner. However, the auto sales firm has a lease and the Owner states that it will not leave.
-112-

9. 10.

IV.

FINDINGS
Property is owned by Eitan Sharaf through title held by his LLC.

Property has a number of vans apparently stored for ultimate sale by a tenant of Owner.

There are located on the Property a trailer and several dilapidated wooden buildings.

There are also located on the Property a number of poles which once held signs.

The Property is surrounded by a chain-link fence covered by tarpaulins and located on the Property line.

Auto repair being conducted on the Property outside an enclosed building, an unpermitted use.

Said auto repair is being conducted without a State license.

There is motor oil and other fluids on the ground of Property which may be discharged onto public property and into the storm drain system.

There is evidence of other unpermitted uses of Property.

Owner has been informed of the above-described nuisance conditions but has not taken corrective action to fully abate them.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The foregoing Findings establish the following violations:

1. Municipal Code Section 8.36.030 prohibiting operation of business in violation of State law.

2. Municipal Code Section 8.36.030 (A)(3)(6)(10) re abandoned or dilapidated buildings or structures.
-113-

3, Municipal Code Section 17. 52.060 (A)(3) requiring fences to be back 10 feet from the property line.

4. Municipal Code Section 8.36.030(A)(29) prohibiting tarpaulins on chain link fencing.

5. Municipal Code Section 8.36.030(A)(21) which prohibits unpermitted signs.

6. Municipal Code Section 13.20.080 prohibiting pollutants runoff into storm drains.

7. Municipal Code Section 17.52.060(A) & (B) prohibiting uses not permitted as auto repair, auto sales and auto storage.

8. Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(A)(31) prohibiting maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards.

Vi.

ORDER
The conditions described in Findings 2-9 above constitute a public nuisance on the Property subject to abatement. Such abatement shall be made by the Owner within 90 days of this Order and, if not completed within said time, shall be conducted by the City using its own or contracted personnel and all costs thereof shall be assessed against Property as a lien.

This decision is final and conclusive. Judicial review of this decision is subject to the provisions and time limits set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, ef seq.

FADATED: February 44 2024 ( j-<g les
Richard R. Terzian?
Hearing Officer
-114-

EXHIBITEXHIBIT B
-115-

Blo STIBEC AAAp
Pe Con b Teck Port.
3 7 >
EN EXSUITq gor src
eo EXIMire eK fice
ra £ ELSISOnO offer
fe 7 EAN office
or pA REIAC
HQ Wl wa ple TRE IEA
-116-

EXHIBIT K
-117-

Direct No.: 619. 814.5810
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 501 West Broadway - Suite 1600
San Diego, California 92101 -8474
voice 619.814.5800 - fax 619.814.6799
www.bwslaw.com
March 18, 2024
VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
ORDERYOURCARS.COM, INC.
d.b.a. Best Buy Quality Cars
Attn: Edmond Ghoulian
17418 Lakewood Blvd.

Bellflower, CA 90706
Email: [email protected]
Re: Notice of Appeal Hearing on Public Nuisance and
Intent to Abate with City Personnel
9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706
APNs 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Dear Mr. Ghoulian:

I am reiterating here formally what I conveyed informally to you by email this morning. Namely, the City of Bellflower (“City”) is in receipt of your request to appeal the City’s Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel dated March 8, 2024. That notice from March 8, 2024 is in regard to your unpermitted use of commercial property located at 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd. in the City of Bellflower.

Please Be Advised that your appeal hearing will take place before a neutral administrative hearing officer as follows:

Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

Sheriff Substation
16615 Bellflower Blvd.

This administrative hearing is informal as compared to a court hearing, with relaxed rules of evidence. The City will provide you with a copy of all documentary evidence it may present at the hearing no later than Monday, March 25, 2024. You may present documentary evidence, witness testimony, and your own testimony at the trial.

Please be sure to bring to the hearing at least three copies of anything you want the hearing officer to review. Both sides will have the opportunity to ask questions of anyone testifying.
-118-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 18, 2024

Page 2 ends

You are free to be represented by an attorney of your choosing and at your expense. If you are represented by counsel in this matter, please have that person contact me directly at your earliest convenience.

Chapter 8.36 of the Bellflower Municipal provides additional details regarding hearing procedures, and is available at: https://ecode360.com/43104390#43104390 .

For any questions about this process, please contact David Fawcett at [email protected] or at (562) 804-1424, ext. 2282, or me at [email protected] or 619-814-5810.

Sincerely,
Timothy E. Campen
TEC
cc: Eitan Sharaf, (via email: [email protected]) David Fawcett, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-119-

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 18, 2024

Page 3 ends

EXHIBIT A
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 18, 2024

Page 3 ends

EXHIBIT A
-120-

EXHIBIT L
-121-

Direct No.: 619. 814.5810
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 501 West Broadway - Suite 1600
San Diego, California 92101 -8474
voice 619.814.5800 - fax 619.814.6799
www.bwslaw.com
March 29, 2024
VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
7624 Firestone Blvd.

Downey, CA 90241
Email: [email protected]
Re: Code Enforcement Compliance; Reponses to Questions
9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706
APNs 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Dear Mr. Sharaf:

This letter is in reply to your several questions presented to me via email on March 25, 2024. Those questions were in regard to my compliance letter to you dated March 11, 2024, wherein I referenced your abatement obligations under the administrative hearing order concerning your property located at 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd. I copied each of your questions verbatim and answer them as shown below.

In response to your letter dated March 11th 2024, We need clear explanation for the following items.

2. Remove all fencing. Why ?? its grandfathered .You said if we do major repair to the fencing Then we need to do 10’ set back. We do not have any major repairs . These fences were up many years ago and are inside the property. We don’t need to open the property to homeless encampment. There is no code violation for you to ask for fence removal. And 10’ set back. [sic] Response: The hearing officer’s Order #3 specifically acknowledges a 10-foot setback for any fencing is required. Our willingness to find a way to make the fencing on the west property line along Virginia Ave. look acceptable rather than be removed was based on your representations this was a legal non-conforming feature (grandfathered in) of the Property – meaning the fence predated this zoning requirement enacted in -122-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 29, 2024

Page 2 ends

2008. Substantial alterations of a legal non-conforming feature causes it to lose its legal non-conforming status. This is why we said as long as you don’t do any major changes to the fence, it would retain its legal non-conforming status.

However, upon further examination of the history of the Property going back to 2008 reveals there have been substantial alterations to the fence since 2008. In 2008 when the 10-foot setback became effective, the Property had approximately 460 feet of chain link fence on the entire property line along Artesia Blvd. and Virginia Ave.

In 2015, about 265 feet of the chain link fence was removed along Artesia Blvd. and Virginia Ave, with the 5-foot fence poles cut down to about 20 inches high and cross poles spanning horizontally placed between them. This represented a substantial alteration to nearly 60% the total fencing on the property line, and is the basis for the fence losing its legal non-conforming status. The photos below further show several more fence iterations since then that also amount to substantial alterations. 5 clear all trash . why you have an item that does not apply.

You walked through the property on Jan.17th. there were no junk or trash [sic] Response: This is simply reiterating that the property needs to be maintained, per the order.
-123-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 29, 2024

Page 3 ends

6 . Why we have to remove the pole signs they were installed with permit.

And its grandfathered. [sic]
Response: We can discuss which signs on the property are the prohibited, unpermitted signs, per the Order.
7 .Remove shortened fence. Why it has to be removed its in concrete And was never a blight before. [sic]
Response: As referenced above, the shortened fence was created in 2015, which was after the setback requirement was enacted. Further, this was done without the required plan review and building permit. Finally, it has long been a blight and is a blight now.

8. Remove all wires. They were removed again why you have an item that does not exist. You were there Jan 17th. And saw [sic]
Response: This is only referring to wires, lines, ropes that are not permitted electrical lines. If there are no such wires, lines, or ropes, then your property is not in violation. 9 Rehabilitate all lights. The ones needed repair was repaired in 2021 and some were stalled new in 2022 [sic]
Response: This is referring to eliminating the dilapidated appearance of the light poles. -124-

9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

March 29, 2024

Page 4 ends

10 . Resurface , Why there are no pot holes it was resurfaced 5 years ago. [sic] Response: The entire surface of the lot is grossly out of conformity with the area, particularly how pervasive unsightly motor oil stains are throughout the parcel. That is on top of already mismatched and inconsistent shades of asphalt. The asphalt on this parcel is in much worse condition than your lot at 17321 Clark Ave. where you applied a fresh slurry seal to achieve a uniform appearance. The subject lot in this case requires a resurfacing sufficient to eliminate its blighted appearance.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Timothy E. Campen
Assistant City Attorney
TEC:meh
cc: Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-125-

EXHIBIT M
-126-

Direct No.: 619. 814.5810
[email protected]
File No. 08481-0017
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 501 West Broadway - Suite 1600
San Diego, California 92101 -8474
voice 619.814.5800 - fax 619.814.6799
www.bwslaw.com
April 30, 2024
VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
7624 Firestone Blvd.

Downey, CA 90241
[email protected]
Re: Code Enforcement Compliance; Further Reponses to Questions 9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706
APNs 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Dear Mr. Sharaf:

This correspondence is in response to your various inquires to different Divisions of the City of Bellflower regarding use and compliance of your property located at 9103 - 9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706, APNs 7162 -016-044 and 7162-016-045 together, the “Property”).

By way of background, on March 29, 2024, I sent to you a comprehensive written response to each of your seven questions regarding compliance, but did not receive any reply to the same. Then on April 5, 2024, you sent the following email to Code Enforcement Supervisor David Fawcett, without copying me:
-127-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

April 30, 2024

Page 2 ends

Mr. Fawcett responded that same day with “This matter is under the ultimate authority of the City Attorney’s Office, and any questions about compliance with the administrative hearing officer’s order should be directed to Assistant City Attorney Tim Campen. For your convenience I have included him in this email.” I have not heard from you regarding your April 5, 2024 email.

On April 19, 2024, you sent the following correspondence to Rowena Genilo- Concepcion in the City’s Planning Department:

May I remind you that since my letter on March 29, 2024, I have not received any correspondence from you regarding bringing your Property into compliance with the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) as required pursuant to the administrative order dated February 14, 2024.

To be absolutely clear and unambiguous, bringing your Property into compliance with the BMC takes priority over any intended use of it, whether that be immediate use as a contractor’s office and/or contractor’s equipment yard, or any major development. I appreciate that there may be some aspects of bringing your property into compliance that could also incorporate or facilitate an intended use, and I am certainly willing to make reasonable accommodations for such. However, such accommodations will not include extending time to bring your Property into compliance beyond the deadline established in the administrative order.

Regarding your intended use of the Property as a contractor’s office and/or contractor’s equipment yard, I am providing below verbatim responses from Rowena Genilo-Concepcion. The reason this is being provided here, rather than direct correspondence from Ms. Genilo-Concepcion, is to reinforce the priority of the code enforcement compliance and how all City departments are working together to ensure there is no miscommunication concerning your Property.
-128-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

April 30, 2024

Page 3 ends

The following are your statements from your letter to her dated March 22, 2024, and Ms. Genilo-Concepcion responses to the same:1
Response #1
Statement: “I was under the impression that I have already responded to your questions.”
Response: Although you have previously provided responses, your responses did not completely address each question.

Response #2
Statement: “I have provided site plan and aerial photo of the property. We intend to use all the offices.”
Response: As noted on the letter sent by Assistant City Attorney Timothy E.

Campen dated March 11, 2024, unpermitted structures must be cleared from the property under Code Enforcement, and you will need to designate or construct other structure(s) for office use, which will be subject to review for compliance i.e., occupancy requirements, necessary tenant improvements). Please provide an updated site plan / aerial photo and photographs indicating which permanent structures will be used as the contractor’s office, parking area for contractor’s office, and designated areas proposed to be used as the contractor equipment yard. Upon providing a revised site plan / aerial photo, clearly indicate whether the use is proposed to be conducted indoors or outdoors.

Response #3
Statement: “At this time there will be one employee.”
Response: This information is noted as if the one employee will be for the entire site.
1 Note that all Statements provided in quotes are copied exactly as they appear in your letter dated March 22, 2024.
-129-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

April 30, 2024

Page 4 ends

Response #4
Statement: “I am a General contractor and I use rental equipment’s. What they are and how many depends on the jobs individually.”
Response: To better understand your proposed use, please provide a list and number of typical equipment you use for your current operation. Alternatively, you could delineate on the site plan / aerial photo where you intend to park your vehicles / store your equipment. Areas designated for parking of vehicles / storing of equipment must comply with Bellflower Municipal Code. Please provide plans that illustrate compliance with the Bellflower Municipal Code.

Response #5
Statement: “Currently, they are no businesses operating at the site. The remaining tenants, I believe, are moving out soon. But If I get a potential tenant that is acceptable to the city I may lease a portion to them.” Response: This information is noted. Please indicate the business names and type of operations of the “remaining tenants.” In addition, specify when they are leaving the subject site. As previously noted, there is no approval to use the site as either a contractor’s office or a contractor’s equipment yard. The zoning clearance that is currently under review is for your own business and does not include use of the property by your subcontractors.

Response #6
Statement: “8:am to 5: pm”
Response: This information is noted.

Response #7
Statement: “Depending on the job I may store temporarily construction materials.

At the site inside the building.”
Response: Please indicate whether your statement above was intended to clarify what “construction purpose” is - this is in reference to your previous comment that you intend to use the property for “construction purpose until we get permit to start buildings.”
-130-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

April 30, 2024

Page 5 ends

I would further like to reiterate what has been communicated to you many times now: other than the three permanent structures on the north end of the Property designated below as A, B and C), all other structures must be removed from the Property. This includes, without limitation, all trailers and non -permanent structures and without regard to any intention for these structures to be used a contractor’s office or contractor storage. They are a blight under any circumstance and must be removed. -131-

Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

April 30, 2024

Page 6 ends

Take further note that Structures A, B and C must still otherwise comply with the BMC for however you intend to use them. This may affect use as an office space, storage, workshop, or anything else. It is your responsibility to specify how it each will be used to ensure compliance.

Providing the Planning Department with as much information and detail as possible about how you intend to actually use all aspects of the Property will facilitate approval. Ms. Genilo-Concepcion has been remarkably patient with her repeated attempts to elicit such information from you, with limited success. May I suggest you carefully read her responses above, and respond to each directly and with specificity to move forward. Being vague and unresponsive will only further delay this process. Also be mindful that your primary responsibility is to bring your Property in compliance with the hearing officer’s order from February 2024. I suggest you focus on that.

Finally, please be sure to copy me on any email correspondence to City staff regarding the Property, be it Code Enforcement, Planning, or anyone else. Including me in your emails to City staff will facilitate an overall quicker response and avoid the perception of trying to obtain approvals from individual staff members without my office or other staff being aware of it. I am sure you understand.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Timothy E. Campen
Assistant City Attorney
City of Bellflower
TEC:meh
cc: David Fawcett, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
Elizabeth Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
-132-

EXHIBIT N
-133-

Direct No.: 619. 814.5810
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 501 West Broadway - Suite 1600
San Diego, California 92101 -8474
voice 619.814.5800 - fax 619.814.6799
www.bwslaw.com
August 2, 2024
VIA U.S. MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Eitan Sharaf
Artesia Enterprises LLC
7624 Firestone Blvd.

Downey, CA 90241
Email: [email protected]
Re: Code Enforcement Final Notice of Compliance
9103-9121 Artesia Blvd., Bellflower CA 90706
APNs 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Dear Mr. Sharaf:

This letter represents the City of Bellflower’s Final Notice of Compliance with the administrative hearing officer’s amended order dated May 31, 2024 (“Amended Order”), concerning the above referenced real property (the “Property). Please read every word of this Notice carefully, as it provides important direction on your obligations, deadlines, and consequences of non-compliance.

The Amended Order states in relevant part for purposes of this Notice as follows:

The conditions described in Findings 2 -9 (of the Order) constitute a public nuisance on the Property subject to abatement, including, without limitation: … [1] removal of all blighted and unpermitted structures from the Property; [2] removal or elimination of blight of permitted structures (exterior siding, paint, and condition); … 3] elimination of stained and blighted lot surfaces; [4] bring all fencing and signage into compliance with Municipal Code; [5] generally bring entire property into conformity with area standards. Such abatement shall be made by the Owner within 90 days of this Amended Order and, if not completed within said time, shall be conducted by the City using its own or contracted personnel and all costs thereof shall be assessed against Property as a lien.

Bold and numbering added for emphasis and clarity.)
-134-

Eitan Sharaf
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

August 2, 2024

Page 2 ends

FINAL NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE
Compliance with the following corrective actions must be completed no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 2, 2024:
1] removal of all blighted and unpermitted structures from the Property.

After thorough review and consideration of all available evidence, including documentation provided by you, the City has confirmed that the remaining trailer in the middle of the Property designated as area “D” in Exhibit 1 below is an unpermitted structure. It is also among the structures found to be blighted in the Amended Order.

There are no City permits or approvals for trailers on the Property. Accordingly, you must either remove all trailers from the Property, including all blight associated with any such trailers, or obtain all required permits and approvals from the City for such trailers. 2] removal or elimination of blight of permitted structures (exterior siding, paint, and condition).

The three structures designated as areas “A,” “B,” and “C” in Exhibit 1 remain dilapidated and are a blight on the City. You must either demolish and remove these structures, or obtain necessary permits and approvals from the City to rehabilitate all the structures you wish to remain.
3] elimination of stained and blighted lot surfaces.

You must eliminate all illicit discharge from the Property, including, without limitation, removing all stains, oil, and other vehicle fluids, from all surfaces on the Property such that the Property remains free of blight.
4] bring all fencing and signage into compliance with Bellflower Municipal Code This includes, without limitation, ensuring no fencing is within the 10-foot setback from any public sidewalks, and that any other fencing remaining on the Property complies with the Bellflower Municipal Code, including, without limitation, all required approvals and permits.
5] generally bring entire property into conformity with area standards.

This refers to bringing the condition and appearance of the Property into conformity with the maintenance standards of other properties in the vicinity, including, without limitation, removing all blight from the Property.
-135-

Eitan Sharaf
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

August 2, 2024

Page 3 ends

Exhibit 1
For reference on understanding what physical “blight” of property includes, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines blight as “a deteriorated condition.” California Health & Safety Code § 33031, (although originally intended for redevelopment law) is also instructive, and states in relevant part as follows:1
a) This subdivision describes physical conditions that cause blight:
1) Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These conditions may be caused by serious building code violations, serious dilapidation and deterioration caused by long-term neglect, construction that is vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geologic hazards, and faulty or inadequate water or sewer utilities.
2) Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. These conditions may be caused by buildings of 1 Definitions and examples of blight provided in this Notice are not intended to be exhaustive and should not be interpreted as any limitation of the types or extent of conditions that amount to physical blight. -136-

Eitan Sharaf
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

August 2, 2024

Page 4 ends

substandard, defective, or obsolete design or construction given the present general plan, zoning, or other development standards.

Applied to the Property, and as previously communicated to you many times: the structures on the Property show deteriorated conditions, lack of maintenance, and haphazard repairs; fencing is old and dilapidated; the lot surfaces are stained from illicit discharge, cracked and damaged due primarily to years of auto repair work and exposure to industrial substances. Examples of blighted conditions, which are not exhaustive, are shown in the following photos of the Property:
-137-

Eitan Sharaf
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

August 2, 2024

Page 5 ends

By way of example, compare the conditions of the Property to your other commercial properties located at 17321-17341 Clark Ave. in Bellflower and at 7624 Firestone Blvd. in Downey, as depicted below in Examples 1 and 2, respectively.

Example 1 - 17321-17341 Clark Ave
-138-

Eitan Sharaf
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

August 2, 2024

Page 6 ends

Example 2 - 7624 Firestone Blvd.

Your other two commercial properties shown above demonstrate your experience with well-maintained properties and provide a clear guide for expectations of abatement of your blighted Property.

TAKE NOTICE
Be further advised that your obligation to timely comply with the Amended Order abating the nuisances on the Property takes priority over, and is independent from, any intended uses of the Property as a contractor’s office, contractor’s equipment yard, or any long-term development of the Property. You are free to combine your abatement efforts with construction for intended uses of the Property, but doing so will not extend the abatement deadline.

Be further advised that compliance with the Amended Order does not necessarily mean that the Property would then necessarily be fully compliant with the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”). The Amended Order addresses specific nuisances on the Property. It is your responsibility to ensure it is otherwise compliant with all applicable law . Every day a violation of the BMC exists, it is considered a new and independent violation. The City reserves the right to pursue enforcement of all violations on the Property, beyond the Amended Order, by any and all means permitted by law.

Be further advised that no further extensions or notices will be provided, and the City reserves its right to pursue an abatement warrant to enter upon the Property to abate -139-

Eitan Sharaf
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

August 2, 2024

Page 7 ends

the public nuisances thereon consistent with the Amended Order, its police powers, and as otherwise provided by law if this deadline is not strictly met. You have been aware of your obligation to abate the nuisances specified in the Amended Order going bac k to at least February 2021 when a formal Notice of Public Nuisance was served on you by the City Attorney’s Office, and numerous notices since.

Be further advised that after inspection of the Property by the Building Official, he has confirmed that October 2, 2024, is sufficient time to comply with the Corrective Actions listed in this Notice, particularly given your being a licensed contractor and property development experience.

Be Advised that the City is not going to provide you with detailed, pinpoint instruction or lists of the exact aspects of the Property that are blighted or otherwise not in conformity with the BMC, nor precisely how to eliminate their blighted conditions. As a licen sed contractor and owner of many other commercial developments over the years, you are well equipped to understand the difference between a deteriorated property and one that appears respectable and well maintained from the public right-of-way. Using your own commercial properties mentioned above provides sufficient examples of the level of appearance and maintenance that would eliminate the blight of the Property.

Be Advised that during the Building Official’s recent inspection of the Property, he observed conditions that are not compliant with current building codes and/or indicated unpermitted work. This includes, without limitation, issues with the structures, electrical and plumbing. Any structures you intend to keep and use on the property may involve work that requires permits from the City.

Be Advised that City staff will review and process any plans that you submit within a reasonable time. It is your responsibility to factor in time for plan review in meeting your October 2, 2024 deadline. Feedback will be provided by comments and corrections to plans, as needed. You should not expect any direction or informal review from any City staff before, or in preparation of, submitting plans to the City.

Be Advised that should the City abate your Property, you will be responsible for the City’s costs of abatement, including attorney fees. Failure to pay the City’s abatement costs in full will result in the City placing a lien and special tax assessment on your Property to recoup these costs. Further, the City may seek foreclosure and sale your Property under that lien to recover its abatement costs.

Be Advised that any communications with this Office or City staff regarding the contents of this Notice or compliance with the Amended Order should be in writing or witnessed by at least two City personnel. Doing so will help preserve a clear record of events and avoid any misunderstandings.
-140-

Eitan Sharaf
9103-9221 Artesia Blvd.

August 2, 2024

Page 8 ends

Be Advised that the directives and contents of this Notice have the support and backing of the City Council, City Manager, and City Executive Management. As always, the City encourages and prefers voluntary compliance. But given the long history of unlawful uses and maintenance of your Property, particularly where these violations pose an immediate threat to public health, safety, and general welfare, the City’s patience has come to an end.

In conclusion, you have been on notice of your obligation to eliminate the blighted conditions of the Property for years, and were ordered to do so within 90 days of the Administrative Order dated February 14, 2024. The Amended Order of May 31, 2024, which was provided as a courtesy for additional clarity concerning your obligations of compliance, extended that deadline to August 29, 2024. This current deadline of October 2, 2024, represents the final extension of time promised by this Office—there will be no further extensions. You may wish to consult with legal counsel.

You or your legal counsel may me regarding this Notice by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Timothy E. Campen
Assistant City Attorney, City of Bellflower
cc: Bellflower City Council
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
Elizabeth Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
Brian McNerney, Interim Director of Public Safety
David Fawcett, Code Enforcement Supervisor
-141-

EXHIBIT O
-142-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. 24-54

A RESOLUTION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS
CODE § 20168 FINDING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS WITHIN THE

CITY AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACTING WITHOUT THE NEED FOR
BIDDING PURSUANT TO § 20168 AND BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL
CODE ("BMC") CHAPTERS 3.28 AND 8.36
THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Pursuant to Public Contracts Code ("PCC") § 20168, the City Council may, upon a four -fifths vote, declare that public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, or property because of an emergency.

B. The real property located at 9103-9123 Artesia (the "Property") consists of two adjacent parcels at the corner of Artesia Blvd. and Virginia Ave. They are owned by Artesia Enterprises, LLC, with Eitan Sharaf as its principal.

On May 31, 2024, an administrative hearing officer issued an order of abatement ("Abatement Order") that requires the Property to be cleared and cleaned in accordance with applicable law including the BMC. A final deadline for voluntary compliance is October 2, 2024.

C. A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the property owner is unwilling or unable to timely cooperate with the City as to bringing the Property into compliance. Both the written record and verbal testimony make it apparent that any reasonable person should anticipate that the Property will continue to violate applicable law on and after October 2, 2024.

This is also demonstrated by the Property now being a vacant parcel that must comply with BMC Chapter 8.40 — something not contemplated by the Abatement Order, but constituting a new and ongoing violation of the BMC.

Among other things, the Property must be landscaped along all perimeters adjacent to public streets.

D. In accordance with PCC § 20168, and BMC Chapters 3.28, 8.36 and 8.40, the City Council may expend public money in furtherance of action required by that emergency, including procuring the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without soliciting for bids.

E. Based upon the history of the Property, the City Council finds it is in the public interest to ensure that the Property is brought into compliance with the Abatement Order and applicable law. Because the property owner has failed at this point to take substantive efforts towards compliance, the City will assume responsibility for completing required abatement at the Property owner's cost. Accordingly, the City Council finds it to be in the public interest to authorize the City Manager to take the actions set forth in this Resolution.

Page 1 of 3 ends

-143-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 24-54

Page 2 ends

F. Any delay resulting from the City's need to abate the imminent threats to public health on the Property will exacerbate the public nuisance already present on the Property. Among other things, the Property — as set forth in the Abatement Order — houses structures constituting attractive nuisances and blight. These nuisances constitute an emergency as contemplated by Public Contracts Code § 20168 and BMC Chapters 3.28, 8.36 and 8.40.

G. Under such conditions, the City Council finds that the delay resulting from public bidding would imperil public health and safety, and it is in the public's interest to complete procurement of a new contractor in the most expedient fashion.

SECTION 2. Environmental Assessment. The emergency and extended repairs are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15269 (demolition of the identified facilities is necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency) and § 15301 Existing Facilities). The expected action would demolish structures constituting a threat to public health and safety with no expansion of the existing use. The project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts regarding traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Additionally, the City Council's actions are exempt from additional CEQA review as they are being made to protect public and private property and necessary to maintain services essential to the public, health and welfare (see, CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 529: CEQA findings regarding an anticipated imminent emergency are valid).

SECTION 3. Declaration of Emergency; Authorization. In adopting this Resolution, the City Council takes the following actions:

A. Based upon the entirety of the administrative record including, without limitation, the staff report, the City Council finds that an emergency exists as to abating the Property which constitutes an imminent threat to public health and safety that requires immediate action.

B. If, based upon the sole discretion of the City Manager, the property owner fails to commence substantive progress toward completing abatement as required by the Abatement Order and Final Notice by October 3, 2024 Project"), then the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the best qualified contractor to abate all public nuisances on the Property as authorized by an abatement warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. While BMC Chapter 8.36 should be used for competitive selection of an appropriate contractor, all contracts may be awarded and executed in accordance with PCC § 20168 and BMC Chapter 3.28, 8.36 and 8.40.

C. The City Manager and City Attorney are authorized to undertake all actions required to recover the City's costs related to the Project as authorized by applicable law.
-144-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 24-54

Page 3 of 3 ends

D. The City Manager is authorized to amend the 2024-25 budget to establish a$4 00,000 appropriation in CDBG and/or General Fund Code Enforcement including corresponding adjustments to revenues (cost recovery), to pay for property abatement at 9103-9121 Artesia Boulevard.

SECTION 4. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 5. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 6. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to affix its signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Bellflower, and the City Clerk, or its duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024.
gray
Dan Koops, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ma r'
APPR
chi 1, ity Clerk
FORM:
arl H. Berg , City Attorney
-145-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )SS

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
I, Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk of the City of Bellflower, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-54 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bellflower at its Regular Meeting of the City Council on September 9, 2024, by the following vote to wit:

AYES: Council Members — Santa Ines, Dunton, Morse, Sanchez and Mayor Koops
Dated: September 10, 2024
Mayra
City ofBellfiower, California
i, City Clerk
SEAL)
-146-

EXHIBIT P
-147-

-148-

-149-

EXHIBIT Q
-150-

-151-

-152-

-153-

-154-

-155-

-156-

-157-

-158-

-159-

-160-

-161-

-162-

-163-

-164-

-165-

EXHIBIT R
-166-

-167-

-168-

-169-

-170-

-171-

EXHIBIT S
-172-

-173-

-174-

Page 1 of 6 ends

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

RESOLUTION NO. 26-04

A RESOLUTION TO RECORD A NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT OF 9111-9119 ARTESIA BOULEVARD
(APN 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045)

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Chapter 8.36 of the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) (“Chapter 8.36”) establishes certain public nuisances for which the City maintains the ability to abate;

B. The subject parcel is a commercial property located at 9111-9119 Artesia Boulevard in the City of Bellflower (“City”), Accessor Parcel Number 7162 -016-044 and 7162-016-045 (the “Property”). The Property owner is Artesia Enterprises LLC (“Property Owner”);

C. The Property has a long history of blight and unpermitted uses, mostly centering around auto repair and sales, amongst other violations. Over the years, the City’s enforcement would result in the appearance of good faith efforts towards compliance, only for the Property to revert to its old ways. The City’s recoupment of abatement-related expenses includes Code Enforcement and City Attorney costs which have accumulated since January 2022;

D. On May 19, 2022, after inspection of the Property, Code Enforcement sent the Property Owner a Notice of Violation (“NOV”). The NOV listed a violation of BMC

17.52.030 (Conditional Uses (M1 Zone)). The Property Owner was notified that the Property was not allowed to operate as a truck yard in the M1 Zone without a CUP and was demanded to cease all truck yard activity and remove all vehicles until proper approvals and permits were obtained;

E. On July 21, 2022, the City’s Director of Planning and Building Services sent the Property Owner a “Notice of Nonconformity Abatement” whereby the City listed multiple violations of the BMC, mostly having to do with the Property’s nonconforming uses related to auto sales, repair, and storage;

F. On July 27, 2022, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a “Final Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” (“July 2022 Final Notice”) which highlighted the Property’s history of being used by numerous tenants simultaneously to engage in activities not permitted under any circumstances. This “July 22 Final Notice” listed the following violations: BMC § 8.36.030(A)(2) – partial construction of structures; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(3) – abandoned buildings or -175-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-04

Page 2 of 6 ends

structures; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(6) -dilapidated exterior of structures; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(14) – accumulation of junk and debris; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(16) – accumulation of combustible material; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(18) – storage dismantled, inoperable vehicles; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(21) – unpermitted signs; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(24) – graffiti; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(25) – storage of hazardous materials; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(29) – unpermitted tarps on property; BMC § 8.36.030(A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards; BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto repair center; BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto sales; BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto storage; and BMC § 17.52.060(A) & (B) – 10-foot setback;

G. The July 22 Final Notice listed a series of corrective actions and deadlines. The July 22 Final Notice also recounted the findings from a January 10, 2022 inspection warrant (“January 2022 Inspection Warrant”) which was executed by the City. The findings of this warrant confirmed structures on the Property were in disrepair, a blight, and unsafe. Furthermore, resident complaints reporting that the old chicken coup on the Property was being used as an unlicensed nightclub with loud music and significant numbers of people coming and going after dark. Code Enforcement’s findings during their execution of the January 2022 Inspection Warrant substantiated those resident claims.

H. On July 29, 2022, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a “Notice of Public Nuisance Hearing of Appeal on Nonconformity” whereby the Property Owner was put on notice for two separate hearings regarding the Property, both concerning the July 2022 Notices. The hearing was set to take place on October 3, 2022.

However, due to the Property Owner’s initial attempts to gain compliance, the City postponed the hearing only to later have the Property backslide;

I. On January 12, 2023, the City Council considered a resolution denying the Property Owner’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement Appeal for automobile sales and automobile repair center on the Property. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s decision;

J. Once it became clear the nuisances on the Property were not going to be abated by the Property Owner, the City sent a “Final Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” on November 21, 2023 (“November 2023 Final Notice”). The Notice listed 19 different violations of the BMC, including: BMC § 8.36.030(A)(2) – partial construction of structures; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(3) – abandoned buildings or structures; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(6) – dilapidated exterior of structures; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(10) – boarded up windows; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(14) – accumulation of junk and debris; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(16) – accumulation of combustible material; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(18) – storage dismantled, inoperable vehicles; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(21) – unpermitted signs; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(24) – permitting graffiti; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(25) – storage of hazardous materials, motor -176-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-04

Page 3 of 6 ends

oil and other auto-related substances; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(29) –unpermitted tarps on property; BMC § 8.36.030 (A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards; BMC § 13.20.080 - allowing pollutants to runoff into storm drains; BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto repair center; BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto sales; BMC Chapter 17.52 – use for auto storage; BMC § 17.52.060(A) & (B) – 10-foot setback required; BMC § 8.36.030(F) – operating without a Bureau of Auto Repair license; and BMC § 5.04.050 – operating without a City business license;

K. On February 14, 2024, Hearing Officer Richard Terzian issued an “Order re Abatement” after a hearing was held on February 8, 2024 (“Order”). The Hearing Officer determined several violations of the BMC, including BMC §§ 8.36.030 – prohibiting operation of business, 8.36.030(A)(3)(6)(10) – abandoned or dilapidated buildings or structures, 17.52.060(A)(3) – requiring fences to be back 10 feet from the property line; 8.36.030(A)(29) – prohibiting tarpaulins on chain link fence; 8.36.030(A)(21) – unpermitted signs; 13.20.080 – pollutant runoff;

17.52.060(A) & (B) – prohibited auto repair, auto sales, and auto storage; and

8.36.050(A)(31) – maintenance of property out of conformity with area standards.

The Order required abatement by the Property Owner within 90 days of the Order and, if not completed within said time, the City would have authority to conduct such abatement.

L. To provide additional clarity concerning the Property Owner’s obligations of compliance, on May 31, 2024, the Hearing Officer issued an Amended Order re Abatement (“Amended Order”). This ordered abatement including; removal of all unpermitted uses on the Property; removal of all blighted and unpermitted structures; elimination of any polluting substances from possible runoff into storm drains; elimination of stained and blighted lot surfaces; bringing all fencing and signage into compliance with the BMC; and generally bringing the entire Property into conformity with area standards. All such changes were ordered to be made within 90 days of the Amended Order.

M. On March 8, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a “Notice of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” (“March 2024 Notice”).

This March 2024 Notice listed BMC §§ 17.52-030(H) & (Q) – unpermitted storage of vehicles; BMC § 17.52.030(A)(9) – unpermitted vehicle sales; and BMC § 17.72.070(A) – lack of wall or fence obscuring vehicle storage. On March 11, 2024, Timothy Campen sent a follow up correspondence to provide additional clarity regarding the City’s expectations and the Property Owner’s obligations as it relates to bringing the Property into compliance with the BMC (“March 11, 2024 Correspondence”).

N. On March 18, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent a ”Notice of Appeal Hearing on Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate with City Personnel” (“March 2024 Notice of Appeal”). The Property Owner had requested to appeal the -177-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-04

Page 4 of 6 ends

City’s March 2024 Notice of Appeal and was advised that the appeal hearing would take place on March 28, 2024. On March 29, 2024, Timothy Campen responded to a series of questions posed by the Property Owner in relation to the March 2024 Notice of Appeal, explaining the listed nuisances. On April 30, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen sent another correspondence in response to the Property Owner’s various inquiries to different Divisions of the City of Bellflower (“April 2024 Correspondence”).

O. By August 2, 2024, Timothy Campen sent a “Final Notice of Compliance” demanding all listed corrective actions be completed no later than October 2, 2024, in accordance with the Amended Order (“August 2024 Final Notice”). This Final Notice reminded the Property Owner that he would be responsive “for the City’s costs of abatement, including attorney fees.” And that “Failure to pay the City’s abatement costs in full will result in the City placing a lien and special tax assessment on [the] Property to recoup these costs.”

P. On September 9, 2024, the City Council considered and passed Resolution 24-54, declaring that an emergency exists as to abating the Property which constitutes an imminent threat to public health and safety that requires immediate action.

Q. The Property Owner was advised the City was pursuing an abatement warrant to tow and impound any and all unpermitted vehicles remaining on the Property by October 31, 2024. On or about October 10, 2024, the City obtained a public nuisance abatement warrant issued by the Honorable Deborah Sanchez. After being fully advised of the City’s intention to abate, at the eleventh hour, just prior to the City executing the warrant, the Property Owner voluntarily complied. The Property Owner abated the nuisances existing on the Property by the due date and, as such, avoided incurring further costs.

R. By November 17, 2025, the Property Owner was sent a Demand for Payment to recoup all abatement-related costs incurred in anticipation of the City’s abatement (“November 2025 Demand Letter’). The City Attorney’s Office sent the Owner and related parties a demand for $82,740.82 representing the City’s abatement-related costs (attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution). This included an itemization of all abatement-related costs and that a Resolution would be presented to the City Council. if any representative of the Property wished to be heard on it.

S. On November 26th and December 11th, 2026, the City Attorney’s Office received a “Contest of Statement of Abatement Costs” from the Property Owner. On January 6, 2026, Deputy City Attorney Solange Fortenbach responded to these Contests via e-mail and advised that the public hearing on the Demand would be scheduled for the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting and that any evidence the Property Owner wished to submit needed to be done by January 21, 2026.

-178-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-04

Page 5 of 6 ends

T. On January 5, 2026, Solange Fortenbach spoke with Eric Chalif, a real estate broker who was working on behalf of the Property Owner, over phone and email.

Mr. Chalif requested further information regarding the abatement-related expenses. The City Attorney’s Office treated a follow-up email by Mr. Chalif reiterating his request for further information as a PRA request for which responsive materials, documenting the City’s efforts to bring the Property into compliance since January 2022, were produced on or a round January 20, 2026.

U. While the City did not have to engage in abating the Property, it is indisputable that the City obtaining the warrant and being on the cusp of executing said warrant was the direct catalyst for the Property Owner’s compliance. Therefore, the November 2025 Demand Letter comprises of costs accumulated to gain the Property Owner’s compliance, totaling $82,740.82. The City has not received any payment towards abatement costs as of this date.

V. Pursuant to Government Code § 38773.5 and BMC § 8.36.190, the City may recoup its abatement-related costs in the form of a lien against the Property to be collected by special assessment.

SECTION 2. Approval. The City Council approves, confirms and adopts the Statement attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference, and determines that each such charge, totaling $82,740.82, is proper and correct. Such charges constitute a lien on the real property upon which the public nuisance was abated and will be collected as a special assessment against the real property.

SECTION 3. Authorization. The City Clerk is directed to:

A. Mail a copy of the Notice of Special Assessment attached as Exhibit “B ,” and incorporated by reference, to the Owner by certified mail;

B. File a certified copy of this Resolution (with attachments) with the Los Angeles County Assessor and Treasurer and Tax Collector upon notice of non-payment from the City Attorney, and in any event no later than 60 days from the adoption of this Resolution;

C. Submit a certified copy of this Resolution (with attachments) with the Los Angeles County Recorder for recordation, pursuant to Government Code § 38773.5;

D. Direct the Los Angeles County Assessor to enter the amount of the charge against the real property described in this Resolution on the current assessment rolls; and

E. Take any other action necessary to effectuate this Resolution.

-179-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-04

Page 6 of 6 ends

SECTION 4. The Los Angeles County Assessor and Treasurer and Tax Collector are requested to record a public nuisance abatement lien in the amount of $82,740.82 against the Property pursuant to BMC § 8.36.200.

SECTION 5. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation incurring before, this Resolution’s effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

SECTION 6. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 7. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 8. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Bellflower and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 9. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER ON THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.

____________________________
Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor
ATTEST:

_______________________________
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

________________________________________
By: Solange Fortenbach, Deputy City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibits: A – Statement of Abatement Costs
B – Notice of Special Assessment
-180-

RESOLUTION NO. 26-04
EXHIBIT A – STATEMENT OF ABATEMENT COSTS
-181-

-182-

-183-

-184-

-185-

-186-

-187-

-188-

-189-

-190-

-191-

-192-

-193-

-194-

-195-

-196-

RESOLUTION NO. 26-04
EXHIBIT B – NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
-197-

Recording requested by:

City of Bellflower

When recorded, mail to:

City of Bellflower
Attn: City Clerk
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, CA 90706

No fee per Government Code § 6103

NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND LIEN

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Bellflower claims a special assessment against the real property hereafter described ("the subject property") for the costs it incurred to abate a public nuisance threat as ordered by City Council Resolution No. 26- 04 adopted on February 9, 2026 (attached as Exhibit "A"), pursuant to an abatement of public nuisance action.

The amount of the abatement is $82,740.82.

Recordation of this notice against the subject properties is made pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code § 8.36.190. Once recorded, this notice will constitute a lien against the subject property until the special assessment is paid in full. The special assessment will be collected in the manner prescribed by Government Code § 38773.5. In addition to constituting a lien against the subject properties, this special assessment will be a personal obligation of its owner(s).

Pursuant to Government Code § 38773.5(c), the owner of record of the subject property has been notified by certified mail as follows: THE PROPERTY MAY BE SOLD AFTER

THREE YEARS BY THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR UNPAID DELINQUENT
ASSESSMENTS.

This Notice concerns the following real property:

L.A. County A.P.N.: 7162-016-044 and 7162-016-045
Street Address: 9111-9119 Artesia, Bellflower, CA 90706 Legal Description:

CALIF COOPERATIVE COLONY TRACT W 193.5 FT OF E 387 FT OF N 280 FT EX OF ST OF LOT 16 BLK 18
CALIFORNIA CO-OPERATIVE COLONY TRACT LOT COM W 129 FT
FROM NE COR OF LOT 16 BLK 18 TH W 64.5 FT
TH S 280 FT TH E 64.5 FT TH N 280 FT TO BEG
PART OF LOT 16 BLK 18
-198-

The owner of record of the subject property according to Los Angeles County Assessor Records is Artesia Enterprises LLC.

Signed the ______ day of February, 2026.

City of Bellflower

___________________________
Ryan Smoot, City Manager

-199-

THIS PAGE IS FOR INSTRUCTION ONLY. DO NOT INCLUDE.

(ATTACH NOTARY PAGE RE CITY MANAGER SIGNATURE)

(ATTACH RESOLUTION AND A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT TO THE

PROPERTY OWNER)
-200-

14-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 adopt Resolution No. 26-05 – A Resolution implementing Title 14 of the Bellflower Municipal Code by establishing policies and procedures for obtaining, modifying, and maintaining Cannabis Business Permits (“CBP”); and superseding Resolution No. 23-18.

DATE: February 9, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In October 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution 16-72, which established the City’s first minimum standards and qualification requirements for cannabis-related businesses. Since then, the City Council adopted and implemented a series of revisions, including minor adjustments, consolidations, and statements of prior cannabis regulations, which culminated in the adoption of Resolution 23-18. Although these actions improved clarity and organization, the core minimum standards and qualification requirements have substantively remained unchanged. Since the adoption of Resolution 16-72, the cannabis industry faced significant regulatory, economic, political, social and operational changes. In response to the evolving cannabis industry conditions and emerging challenges, the City is evaluating updates to its cannabis policies and procedures related to the issuance, modification and ongoing maintenance of cannabis business permits (“CBP”) to update regulatory oversight, ensure ongoing compliance, and support the continued operations of high-quality cannabis businesses in the City. If Resolution No. 26-05 is adopted, the City Manager is also seeking City Council’s authorization to begin accepting and processing cannabis-related conditional use permit (“CUP”) applications and CBP applications starting March 1, 2026 , through March 31, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-05; and

2) Authorize the City Manager to accept and process applications for cannabis-related CUPs and CBPs; or

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

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

Page 1 of 3 ends

-1-

Staff Report – Resolution No. 26-05
February 9, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION

The City Council established the City’s first minimum standards and qualification requirements for cannabis-related businesses in 2016. Since then, the City Council has adopted and implemented a series of revisions, including minor adjustments, consolidations, and restatements of prior cannabis regulations, which culminated in the adoption of Resolution 23-18. Although these actions improved clarity and organization, the core minimum standards and qualification requirements have substantively remained unchanged. However, over the past decade, the cannabis industry underwent notable changes, including increased regulatory scrutiny, market volatility, competition from the illicit market, and banking challenges – all of which have effectively led to the consolidation or strategic acquisition of struggling cannabis operations, but the challenges remain. Overall, the challenges facing the cannabis industry and the unique challenges faced by Bellflower’s cannabis operators have highlighted the City’s need to reassess its cannabis regulations to ensure that they remain effective, defensible, and aligned with the City’s current needs.

There are four key proposed updates under Resolution No. 26-05 outlined below:

1. Resolution 23-18 does not authorize the concurrent acceptance and evaluation of CUPs and CBPs. By requiring a sequential CUP and CBP review process, there is a six to nine-month delay before CBP applications are even accepted for City Manager’s review to determine eligibility. Moreover, a concurrent application process would expand the pool of qualified applicants by allowing participation from prospective cannabis operators who do not yet hold ownership interest or long-term lease agreements for properties with existing CUPs. Under the current resolution, the City is limited to accepting CBP applications only from applicants who can demonstrate proof of an existing CUP at the proposed location of cannabis operations. To streamline the City’s cannabis application procedures, reduce unnecessary delays and promote a more competitive and equitable selection process, staff recommends authorizing the concurrent acceptance and review of CUP and CBP applications.

2. Resolution No. 23-18 currently requires applicants to demonstrate an “adequate period of performance” and “adequate financing”; however, these terms are not clearly defined, resulting in ambiguity in their application and evaluation. To address this, the City Manager recommends adopting more specific and objective definitions to strengthen the City’s review criteria. The City Manager proposes defining an “adequate period of performance” as a minimum of seven years of continuous cannabis business operations conducted in a financially stable manner, as evidenced by the absence of bankruptcies, predatory lending arrangements, and excessive debt-to-equity ratios. Additionally, the City Manager recommends enhancing the definition of “adequate financing” by replacing the current requirement of demonstrating a minimum of $400,000 through a letter of credit or similar documentation with a requirement that applicants demonstrate sufficient financial resources to cover at least 12 months of projected operating expenses. Together, these updated definitions are intended to work synergistically to raise the standard and quality of both existing and prospective cannabis operators by promoting long -term operational stability and financial viability. The City may also request periodic financial statements from cannabis operators to ensure ongoing compliance.
-2-

Staff Report – Resolution No. 26-05
February 9, 2026

Page 3 of 3 ends

3. Several cannabis operators within the City operate under long-term lease agreements with third-party property owners who may elect to sell the property at any time. The City’s cannabis regulations currently require operators to demonstrate either ownership of the property or a long -term lease accompanied by a notarized acknowledgment and authorization from the property owner permitting onsite cannabis operations. The City Manager identified a potential compliance concern as property owners do not consistently notify the City of their intent to sell, which could affect a cannabis operator’s continued eligibility under the City’s cannabis regulations. To preemptively address this issue, the updated resolution introduces a new requirement which would obligate cannabis applicants and existing operators to provide written notice to the City within ten days of a property being listed for sale. This additional requirement is intended to enhance transparency and ensure continued compliance with property authorization requirements.

4. Resolution 23-18 currently requires the City Council to “force rank” CBP applicants based on established standards and qualification criteria. With the proposed updates to the minimum standards and eligibility requirements, the City Manager recommends eliminating the forced-ranking system and instead adopting a first-come-first-serve consideration process, following an initial eligibility determination by the City Manager, or his designee. This approach provides a more objective method of evaluating applications. Additionally, in part due to the limited nature of cannabis business permits for retail sales, the City Manager recommends implementing a separate sealed -bidding system for dispensary and retail CBPs, modeled after public works projects bidding procedures, to foster a competitive environment among qualified applicants.

Under the proposed Resolution No. 26-05, once the City Manager establishes a pool of eligible dispensary applicants, those eligible applicants would be required to submit sealed bids. Each sealed bid would be required to include a guaranteed minimum annual revenue proposal supported by appropriate substantiating documents – unlike public works projects, the City Council would select the highest bidder rather than the lowest bidder . All sealed bids would be anonymized before presentation to the City Council for evaluation and consideration. Overall, this process is intended to promote objective decision making while ensuring the City is able to attract the highest quality cannabis businesses. Resolution No. 26-05 does not propose any alterations to the number of authorized CBPs; rather, it modernizes and strengthens the City’s existing cannabis regulations to better reflect current industry conditions and establish clear application and review procedures.

If Resolution No. 26-05 is adopted, the City Manager is also seeking City Council’s authorization to begin accepting and processing cannabis-related CUP applications and CBP applications starting March 1, 2026 through March 31, 2026.

ATTACHMENTS

Resolution No. 26-05....................................................................................................... 4 Resolution No. 23-18..................................................................................................... 16 -3-

Page 1 of 12 ends

CITY OF BELLFLOWER

RESOLUTION NO. 26-05

A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING TITLE 14 OF THE BELLFLOWER

MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

FOR OBTAINING, MODIFYING, AND MAINTAINING CANNABIS
BUSINESS PERMITS (“CBP”); AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
NO. 23-18

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Purpose. This Resolution is intended to implement Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) Title 14 by, among other things, amending and restating all currently applicable Cannabis Regulations (as defined below) and superseding outdated policies and procedures. Unless amended or superseded by this Resolution all parts of the uncodified Cannabis Regulations (as defined below) remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 2: Maximum CBPs. Pursuant to BMC § 14.08.030(A), the City Council authorizes a maximum total of 22 CBPs. Of these, a maximum of four cannabis dispensary CBPs may be active at any time. CBPs may be granted for recreational cannabis use. The following types of cannabis-related business activities are authorized with a CBP issued in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations including, without limitation, this Resolution:

A. Cannabis cultivation (including a nursery component);

B. Cannabis dispensary (including the incidental retail sale of cannabis accessories and cannabis delivery);

C. Cannabis manufacturing;

D. Cannabis distribution (see Business and Professions Code §§ 26001 and 26070); and

E. Cannabis testing.

SECTION 3: Definitions. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions will govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this Resolution. Words and phrases undefined in this Resolution have the same meaning as set forth in BMC Chapter 3.37 (Cannabis Tax); Chapter Title 14 (Cannabis-Related Businesses); Chapter 17.94 (Cannabis-Related Uses); and the Cannabis Regulations.

“Applicant” means any person seeking a CBP in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations including, without limitation, persons with an existing CBP seeking a different CBP Category and/or a Modified CBP.

“Application Fee” means those fees established by city council resolution in accordance with the BMC.
-4-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 2 of 12 ends

“Business Name” means the name of the permittee holding a valid CBP issued in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations.

“Cannabis Regulations” means this Resolution along with all other cannabis related regulations including, without limitation, Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) Chapters 3.37 and 17.94; BMC Title 14; Resolution No. 17-44 (adopted August 14, 2017); Resolution No. 17-65 (adopted October 9, 2017); Resolution No. 18 -05 (adopted February 26, 2018); Resolution No. 18-69 (adopted October 22, 2018); Resolution No. 19-33 (adopted April 29, 2019); Resolution No. 19-65 (adopted August 12, 2019); Resolution No. 20-75 (adopted December 10, 2020); Resolution No. 21-07 (adopted January 11, 2021); Resolution No. 21-08 (adopted February 8, 2021); and Resolution No. 23-18 (adopted June 12, 2023)

“CBP” means a cannabis business permit issued in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations. For purposes of this Resolution, the singular includes the plural, i.e., “CBP” is intended to include all CBPs held by a permittee.

“CBP Category” means the cannabis-related businesses listed in Section 2 of this Resolution.

“CBP Renewal” means an application submitted pursuant to the Cannabis Regulations including, without limitation, BMC § 14.08.060. The phrase “CBP application” may include a “CBP Renewal application.”

“Conversion Applicant” means a person with one or more valid CBPs that seek to convert one or more CBPs from one CBP Category to another.

“Modified CBP” means an application requesting to modify an existing CBP by changing ownership, business name, or CBP Category.

“Origination Date” means the date upon which the City Council issued the original CBP to a permittee.

“Ownership” means either of the following:

A. A person with an aggregate ownership interest of 2 5 percent or more is the person seeking a CBP or a permittee seeking a CBP Renewal, unless the interest is solely a security, lien, or encumbrance; or

B. An individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of a permittee.

“Permittee” means a person who holds a valid CBP in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations.

-5-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 3 of 12 ends

SECTION 4: Applications Generally. Conditional use permits (“CUPs”) and cannabis business permits (“CBPs”) were previously considered by the City Council through separate application processes, consistent with the Cannabis Regulations. This Resolution establishes a concurrent application and review process for CUPs and CBPs, under which applications may be submitted, processed and considered concurrently in accordance with the BMC.

SECTION 5: Application Fees. Applications submitted for any CBP must be accompanied by an Application Fee.

SECTION 6: Conversion Applicants. A Conversion Applicant must file an application with the City Manager, or designee, to seek conversion from on e CBP Category to another. Such application must demonstrate that the permittee complies with all aspects of its existing CBP and CUP. The application must also provide a supplementary security plan that must be approved by the City Manager, or designee, to ensure that there are sufficient protections to public health and safety from any new security concerns arising from utilization of the new CBP Category. Such approval cannot be unreasonably withheld. A Conversion Applicant may appeal any decision regarding the security plan to the City Council in accordance with the BMC.

SECTION 7: Combined Applications. A Conversion Applicant may seek a Modified CBP as part of the same application.

SECTION 8: Form and Content of Application. In addition to the requirements set forth in BMC § 14.08.040, applications for any CBP including those for a new CBP Category must be in a form prescribed by the City Manager, or designee. Unless otherwise provided by the City Manager in writing for a Conversion Applicant or a Modified CBP application, all CBP applications must comply with the following :

A. Be filed by a natural person in the name of each Applicant. The person filing the application must have an existing ownership interest in the Applicant.

B. Every application must be signed under penalty of perjury.

C. Include the name, mailing address, email address and daytime and evening telephone numbers of the person filing the application;

D. The business name, mailing address, email address and telephone number; (if applicable) the number of any existing CBP; and a single fixed location for which a CBP is sought;

E. The applicant’s Federal Employer Identification Number;

F. If the applicant is not the owner of record of the property, the applicant must provide a notarized statement from the owner of the property acknowledging and consenting to the application for a CBP;

G. The name and mailing address authorized by each proprietor to receive all -6-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 4 of 12 ends

notices. If such an address is not supplied, notices will be sent to the business address;

H. Government issued identification to determine that each applicant, manager, and employee of the cannabis related business is over 21 years of age;

I. Whether or not the proprietor was previously issued a CBP that was suspended or revoked and, if so, the dates of the suspension period or revocation date;

J. Documentation demonstrating that that 75 percent of the applicants and managers of the cannabis related business are California residents and have been for at least three years immediately preceding the date of the application;

K. Evidence of the legal right for the applicant to occupy and use real property proposed for a cannabis related business. In the event that the applicant is not the owner of record of the property, the applicant must provide a notarized statement from the owner of the property acknowledging and consenting to use of the real property as a cannabis related business by the applicant. The permittee must immediately notify the City if the property on which the cannabis business operates is placed for sale by the property owner. and

L. Such other information as the City Manager, or designee, deems reasonably necessary for administering or enforcing BMC Title 14.

M. If an applicant is a corporate entity, the application must also include:

1. A copy of the applicant’s Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization;

2. A copy of the applicant’s bylaws or operating agreement;

3. A copy of the applicant’s Certificate of Status issued by the California Secretary of State;

4. A copy of the applicant’s Entity Status Letter from the California Franchise Tax Board;

5. The identification of any individual with a financial interest in the applicant including the address, phone number, email address, description of percentage ownership interest, and copies of government issued identification for each individual; and

6. Such other information as the City Manager, or designee, deems reasonably necessary for administering or enforcing BMC Title 14. -7-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 5 of 12 ends

N. If the application seeks a change to the Business Name, the application must also include:

1. A copy of the applicant’s Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization;

2. A copy of the applicant’s bylaws or operating agreement;

3. A copy of the applicant’s Certificate of Status issued by the California Secretary of State; and

4. A copy of the applicant’s Entity Status Letter from the California Franchise Tax Board.

O. If the application seeks an ownership change, the application must also include:

1. Evidence demonstrating there has been no change in ownership since the Origination Date;

2. Evidence demonstrating that the ownership will be substantially the same as on the Origination Date. Such evidence must include a comparison of owner interest (percent owned by each owner) between the origination date and application for a Modified CBP, and an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the key individuals will continue in the same position or in a position with greater responsibility; and

3. An explanation regarding the reasons for the request to change ownership.

P. A schedule for beginning operation, including a narrative outlining any proposed construction and improvements and a timeline for completion.

Q. A budget for construction, operation, maintenance, compensation of employees, equipment costs, utility costs, and other operation and maintenance costs.

R. A pro forma (including revenue projections, expense forecasts, and asset and liability estimates) for at least three years of operation.

S. How the cannabis related business, including its exterior areas and surrounding public areas, will be managed so as to avoid becoming a nuisance or having impact on its neighbors and the surrounding community.

T. A demonstration that the applicant will implement a local preference plan to hire City of Bellflower residents at 200% above the “Living wage” for the -8-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 6 of 12 ends

Federal Poverty Level for a family of two.

U. The application must include a detailed description of Fire prevention, suppression, HVAC and alarm systems that includes an assessment of the cannabis related business’s fire safety by a qualified Fire prevention suppression consultant. An appropriate pla n will have considered all possible fire, hazardous material, and inhalation issues/threats and will have both written and physical mechanisms in place to deal with each specific situation.

V. A security plan that includes a description and detailed schematic of the overall security for the cannabis related business. Applicants must detail their operational security including, without limitation, general security policies for the facility, employee specific policies, training, sample written policies, transactional security, visitor security, 3rd party contractor security, and delivery security. In particular, Applicants should address ingress and egress access, perimeter security, product security (at all hours), internal security measures for access (area specific), types of security systems (alarms and cameras), and security personnel to be employed. The security plan must also include an assessment of site security by a qualified security consultant. Such security plans may be submitted in confidence.

W. A traffic and parking study prepared by a licensed engineer to mitigate vehicle and parking impacts. The traffic and parking study must be prepared by a state licensed traffic engineer in accordance with the latest Los Angeles County’s Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation. The traffic engineer preparing the study should define an appropriate approach for determining the amount of trips generated by the type of cannabis -related uses proposed and present this approach in the study. For example, and not limitation, a traffic engineer could equate cannabis manufacturing based upon the ITE Manual definitions for manufacturing of like size; or, for dispensaries, use the ITE Manual definition for retail outlets specializing in herbal products.

X. An annual contribution of $5,000 to a Drug Rehabilitation Program or Homeless Prevention Program identified by City Council resolution or minute order.

SECTION 9: Minimum Qualifications. In addition to all other requirements of applicable law including, without limitation, BMC Title 14, applicants must meet the following minimum qualifications:

A. Unless the application is filed by a Conversion Application or is for a Modified CBP without an ownership change, the Applicant must demonstrate that the Applicant is:

1. Is a person of good character, honesty, and integrity; -9-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 7 of 12 ends

2. Is a person whose background, reputation and associations will not result in adverse publicity for the City of Bellflower or its economic development; and

3. Has adequate business competence and practical experience for operating the cannabis related business.

4. Each person listed in the application will undergo a Fingerprint- Based Criminal History Records Check conducted by the City Police Department (or the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) which may include Live Scan and any indicated follow-up investigation.

5. Each person listed in the application must disclose whether it was (or is) a defendant in any current or past civil or criminal enforcement action. If such enforcement action is concluded, the person must disclose the outcome; if such enforcement is pending, the applicant must disclose its status.

B. If there is a proposed change in ownership that adds persons not previously considered by the City Council on the Origination Date, those persons must meet the requirements in Section 9(A).

C. The applicant must demonstrate that obtaining a CBP will be in the best interests of the City of Bellflower. The following objective criteria may be used in making such a determination for issuing a CBP:

1. Has there been an adequate period of performance by the applicant demonstrating experience for operating a cannabis related business? “Adequate period of performance” means at least seven years of continuous cannabis business operations conducted in a financially stable manner (i.e., no bankruptcies, predatory loans, high debt-to-equity ratios)

2. Does the applicant have sufficient key personnel to operate a cannabis related business to demonstrate effective managerial capacity and control of operations?

3. Does the applicant have other cannabis related businesses inside or outside the City’s jurisdiction that demonstrate the applicant’s competency in operating such businesses?

4. Does the applicant have a reasonable and practical business plan for operating a cannabis related business within the City’s jurisdiction?

5. Notwithstanding the BMC’s minimum requirements as to permissible locations, is the cannabis facility proposed by the applicant in a -10-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 8 of 12 ends

location acceptable to the City Council; aesthetically pleasing; and adequate in size?

6. Would the applicant provide a public benefit in the form of removing blight; improving public welfare; or otherwise assisting in advancing the City’s public interests?

D. The Applicant must demonstrate adequate financing to satisfy all current obligations (including any owed State and Local taxes) and provide sufficient working capital to support the opening and ongoing operation of the cannabis-related business. Such demonstration must include verifiable documentation showing that the applicant has funds sufficient to pay for at least 12 months of projected operating expenses including, without limitation, payroll, recurring debt payments, rent, utilities, insurance, and inventory costs (which may be shown in a business plan described below). “Adequate financing” may be demonstrated by a letter of credit or other financial records.

E. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed funding of the cannabis related business is:

1. Adequate for the nature of the proposed operation; and

2. From a suitable source. The suitability of the source of funds is determined by the criteria set forth in this Resolution.

F. As to the real property upon which the cannabis related business is proposed, the applicant must either:

1. Own the real property in fee; or

2. Be a long-term lessee with a possessory interest in the real property.

For purposes of this Resolution, a “long term” lessee means the applicant must have a lease with a term of at least 10 years to use the real property for a cannabis related business. In the event the ownership of the property changes at any time during the lease term, the permittee must notify the City in writing within 10 days of such change and must submit a notarized statement from the new property owner acknowledging and consenting t o the cannabis- related use of the property. Failure to do so may lead to CBP revocation.

SECTION 10: CBP Maintenance. All permittees must meet ongoing requirements for maintaining a CBP, including the following:

A. Financial Responsibility.

-11-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 9 of 12 ends

1. Permittee must maintain adequate financial resources to operate the business in a fiscally sound and lawful manner.

2. Permittee must maintain working capital sufficient to cover at least 12 months of operating expenses including payroll, recurring debt payments, rent, utilities, insurance, and inventory. Financial records must be maintained and made available for inspection by the City upon request.

SECTION 11: Deadline. All applicants must file an application with the City Clerk’s Office by a time and date determined by the City Manager or City Council by minute order.

SECTION 12: Review of Application. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to review all applications submitted pursuant to the Cannabis Regulations in accordance with the following:

A. Applications may be denied for any of the reasons set forth in the Cannabis Regulations.

B. In addition to any other requirements of the Cannabis Regulations, the City Manager must also consider:

1. As to a business name change, whether the new business name will either violate community standards or confuse City residents or consumers regarding the services being provided by the permittee.

For example, if degree of similarity between an existing business name within the City and the proposed new name of the permittee are substantially similar, whether it is reasonable to believe that residents or consumers are likely to mistakenly assume that goods/services offered by both businesses come from a common source. In making that determination, the City Manager may consider, without limitation, how and where the parties’ goods or services are advertised, marketed, and sold; the purchasing conditions; the range of prospective purchasers of the goods or services; and whether there is any evidence of actual confusion.

2. As to an ownership change, whether the permittee will substantially retain its ownership structure as compared with the Origination Date; whether the proposed ownership change meets the requirements of the Cannabis Regulations; and whether the ownership change is sufficiently routine to justify a Modified CBP.

C. For CBP Renewal applications, the City Manager must consider whether the permittee maintained its ownership as required by BMC § 14.08.070 between the time of filing an initial applicable for a CBP and filing a renewal application in any subsequent year. To do so, a CBP Renewal application must provide evidence that a permittee did not change its name; corporate -12-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 10 of 12 ends

structure; or any other part of its ownership to the City Manager’s satisfaction absent good cause shown as determined in the City Manager’s sole discretion.

SECTION 13: Recommendations.

A. Upon receiving a timely filed Application, the City Manager, or designee, will determine the completeness of the Application in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations and this Resolution.

B. Following the City Manager’s consideration of the applications, the City Manager will provide the City Council with a list of Applicants deemed eligible for City Council’s consideration for a CBP.

SECTION 14: Consideration; Conditions. The City Council may determine whether to grant a Modified CBP during a special or regular meeting. If granted, a Modified CBP will

A. Expire at the same time as the existing CBP. A Modified CBP cannot extend the term of an existing CBP;

B. Except for CBP Renewal applications and Conversion Applications, the City Council will conduct a public hearing in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations. For CBP Renewal applications the City Manager (in accordance with the BMC) or City Council may determine whether a CBP Renewal should be issued.

C. Be subject to the same terms and conditions of the existing CBP and CUP.

D. Becomes effective upon the permittee executing an acknowledgement of all conditions of approval.

E. The City Council will consider each CBP application on a first-come-first- serve basis during the public hearing and determine which, if any, person will receive a CBP or CBP Renewal, if desirable.

F. Separately, CBP Applications for dispensaries will be considered through a closed-bidding process. Applicants must submit all documentation required under the Cannabis Regulations in a timely manner. Upon receipt, the City Manager, or designee, will review each application to determine compliance with minimum standards and requirements. Upon review, the City Manager, or designee, will request sealed bids from each qualified Applicant, each of which must include a guaranteed minimum revenue accompanied by substantiating documentation. All sealed bids will be anonymized before presentation to the City Council for consideration.

G. The applicant will comply with all requirements of the Cannabis Regulations.

-13-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 11 of 12 ends

SECTION 15: Application Forms; Standard Conditions of Approval. All application forms and standard conditions of approval previously approved by the Cannabis Regulations may continue to be utilized by the City Manager, or designee. The City Manager is authorized to make changes to such forms and conditions as desirabl e and in a form approved by the City Attorney. No additional City Council approval is required for such changes. Applicant(s) will be required to provide signed acknowledgement of acceptance of the conditions of approval before City Council consideration if an application is recommended for approval.

SECTION 16: Taxes. In addition to any other applicable taxes, CBP permittees must also pay a business license tax and cannabis tax in accordance with the BMC. Such taxes are separate and apart from the Application Fee. For a CBP to become effective, a permittee must:

A. Pay the business license tax and obtain a business license in accordance with the BMC (see, BMC §§ 5.08.020 and 5.08.030); and

B. Ensure, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, or designee, that the permittee will pay all cannabis taxes in accordance with the requirements of BMC Chapter 3.37 including, without limitation, acknowledging the forms required to remit the tax.

SECTION 17: Delegation of Authority; Ratification of Previous Actions. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to promulgate administrative policies and procedures (“AP&P”) that implement BMC Title 14 and, specifically, such additional qualifications for CBP Renewal or Reconsideration Application that may be desirable for administrative purposes. Nothing in such AP&P can substantively alter this Resolution; the AP&P must be reconciled with the intent of BMC Title 14 and this Resolution.

All previous actions exercised by the City Manager, or designee, to implement the Cannabis Regulations as set forth in this Resolution are ratified by the City Council.

SECTION 18: Preservation; Cannabis Regulations. Anything in this Resolution that supersedes previous actions undertaken to implement BMC § 14.08.050 does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Resolution’s effective date.

Any such amended or superseded part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

Unless amended or superseded by this Resolution, all parts of the uncodified regulations implementing Cannabis Regulations within the BMC remain in full force and effect. Any conflict between this Resolution and the uncodified Cannabis Regulations will be resolved in favor of this Resolution.

SECTION 19: Supplemental Requirements. The policies and procedures established by this Resolution are in addition to, and supplement, all other requirements of the BMC including, without limitation, those set forth in BMC § 14.08.060.

-14-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 26-05

Page 12 of 12 ends

SECTION 20: Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 21: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 22: The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Bellflower and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 23: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER ON THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.

________________________________
Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor
ATTEST:

_______________________________
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

________________________________________
By: Justin A. Tamayo, Assistant City Attorney

-15-

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. 23-18
A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING TITLE 14 OF THE BELLFLOWER

MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

FOR OBTAINING, MODIFYING, AND MAINTAINING CANNABIS
BUSINESS PERMITS ("CBP"); AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
NOS. 21-07 AND 21-08
THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Purpose. This Resolution is intended to implement Beilflower Municipal Code ("BMC") Title 14 by, among other things, consolidating and restating all currently applicable Cannabis Regulations (as defined below); and superseding policies and procedures that are now outdated. Nevertheless, unless amended or superseded by this Resolution all parts of the uncodified Cannabis Regulations (as defined below) remain in full force and effect.

A. Cannabis cultivation (including a nursery component); B. Cannabis dispensary (including the incidental retail sale of cannabis accessories and cannabis delivery);
C. Cannabis manufacturing; and
D. Cannabis distribution (see Business and Professions Code §§ 26001 and 26070).

SECTION 3: Definitions. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions will govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this Resolution. Words and phrases undefined in this Resolution have the same meaning as set forth in BMC Chapter 3.37 (Cannabis Tax); Chapter Title 14 Cannabis-Related Businesses); Chapter 17.94 (Cannabis-Related Uses); and the Cannabis Regulations.

Applicant" means any person seeking a CBP in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations including, without limitation, persons with an existing CBP seeking a different CBP Category and/or a Modified CBP.

Application Fee" means those fees established by city council resolutian in accardance with the BMC.

Page 1 of 11 ends

-16-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 2 of 11 ends

Business Name" means the name of the permittee holding a valid CBP issued in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations.

Cannabis Regulations" means this Resolution along with all other cannabis related regulations including, without limitation, Beliflower Municipal Code ("BMC") Chapters 3.37 and 17.94; BMC Title 14; Resolution No. 17-44 (adopted August 14, 2017); Resolution No. 17-65 (adopted October 9, 2017); Resolution No. 18-05 adopted February 26, 2018); Resolution No. 18-69 (adopted October 22, 2018); Resolution No. 19-33 (adopted April 29, 2019); Resolution No. 19-65 (adopted August 12, 2019); Resolution No. 20-75 (adopted December 10, 2020); Resolution No. 21-07 (adopted January 11, 2021}; and Resolution No. 21-08 (adopted February 8, 2021).

CBP" means a cannabis business permit issued in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations. For purposes of this Resolution, the singular includes the plural, i.e., CBP" is intended to include all CBPs held by a permittee.

CBP Category" means the cannabis-related businesses listed in Section 2 of this Resolution.

CBP Renewal" means an application submitted pursuant to the Cannabis Regulations including, without limitation, BMC § 14.08.060. The phrase "CBP application" may include a "CBP Renewal application."
Conversion Applicant" means a person with one or more existing or previously issued CBPs that seek to convert one or more CBPs from one CBP Category to another.

Modified CBP" means an application requesting to modify an existing CBP by changing ownership, business name, or CBP Category.

Origination Date" means the date upon which the City Council issued the original CBP to a permittee. For example, at the time this Resolution was adopted, all existing permittees were issued a CBP on or about December 18, 2017 which constitutes the Origination Date for those permittees.

Ownership" means either of the following:

A. A person with an aggregate ownership interest of 25 percent or more in the person seeking a CBP or a permittee seeking a CBP Renewal, unless the interest is solely a security, lien, or encumbrance; or
B. An individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of a permittee.

Permittee" means a person who holds a valid CBP in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations.
-17-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 3 of 11 ends

SECTION 4: Applications Generally. Conditional use permits ("CUPs°) and cannabis business permits ("CBPs") were previously considered by the City Council as a joint application in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations. This Resolution assumes that all CUPs were approved and recorded in accordance with the Cannabis Regulations.

Any future applications for a cannabis related CUP must be filed and processed in n li i n will not be rocessed.accordance with the BMC, oi t app cat o s p SECTION 5: Applrcation Fees. Applications submitted for any CBP must be accompanied by an Application Fee.

SECTION 6: Conversion Applicants. A Conversion Applicant must file an application with the City Manager, or designee, to seek conversion from one CBP Category to another. Such application must demonstrate that the permittee complies with all aspects of its existing CBP. The application must also provide a supplementary security plan that must be approved by the City Manager, or designee, to ensure that there are sufficient protections to public health and safety from any new security concerns arising from utilization of the new CBP Category. Such approval cannot be unreasonably withheld. A Conversion Applicant may appeal any decision regarding the security plan to the City Council in accordance with the BMC.

SECTION 7: Combined Applications. A Conversion Applicant may seek a Modified CBP as part of the same application.

A. Be filed by a natural person in the name of each Applicant. The person filing the application must have an existing ownership interest in the Applicant.

B. Every application must be signed under penalty of perjury.

C. Include the name, mailing address, and daytime and evening telephone numbers of the person filing the application;
D. The business name, address, and telephone number; (if applicable) the number of any existing CBP; and a single fixed location for which a CBP is sought;
E. The applicant's Federal Employer ldentification Number; F. If the applicant is not the owner of record of the property, the applicant must provide a notarized statement from the owner of the property acknowledging and consenting to the application for a CBP; -18-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 4 of 11 ends

G. The name and mailing address authorized by each proprietor to receive all notices. If such an address is not supplied, notices will be sent to the business address;
H. Government issued identification to determine that each applicant, manager, and employee of the cannabis related business is over 18 years of age;
I.Whether or not the proprietor was previously issued a CBP that was suspended or revoked and, if so, the dates of the suspension period or revocation date;
J. Documentation demonstrating that that 75 percent of the applicants and managers of the cannabis related business are California residents and have been for at least three ears immediatel r iyypeced ng the date of the application;
K. Evidence of the legal right for the appiicant to occupy and use real property proposed for a cannabis related business. In the event that the a licant isPP not the owner of record of the property, the applicant must provide a notarized statement from the owner of the property acknowledging and consenting to use of the real property as a cannabis related business by the applicant; and
L. Such other information as the City Manager, or designee, deems reasonably necessary for administering or enforcing BMC Title 14.

M. If an applicant is a corporate entity, the application must also include:

1. A copy of the applicant's Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization;

2. A copy of the applicanYs bylaws or operating agreement;

3. A copy of the applicant's Certificate of Status issued by the California Secretary of State;

4. A copy of the applicanYs Entity Status Letter from the California Franchise Tax Board;

6. Such other information as the City Manager, or designee, deems reasonably necessary for administering or enforcing BMC Title 14. -19-

City of Beliflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 5 of 11 ends

N. If the application seeks a change to the Business Name, the application must also include:

1. A copy of the applicant's Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization;

2. A copy of the applicant's bylaws or operating agreement;

3. A copy of the applicant's Certificate of Status issued by the California Secretary of State; and

4. A copy of the applicant's Entity Status Letter from the California Franchise Tax Board.

O. If the application seeks an ownership change, the application must also include:

1. Evidence demonstrating there has been no change in ownership since the Origination Date;

3. An explanation regarding the reasons for the request to change ownership.

P. A schedule for beginning operation, including a narrative outlining any proposed construction and improvements and a timeline for completion.

Q. A budget for construction, operation, maintenance, compensation of employees, equipment costs, utility costs, and other operation and maintenance costs.

R. A pro forma for at least three years of operation.

T. A demonstration that the applicant will implement a local preference plan to hire City of Bellflower residents at 200% above the "Living wage" for the Federal Poverty Level for a family of two.
-20-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 6 of 11 ends

U. The application must include a detailed description of Fire prevention, suppression, HVAC and alarm systems that includes an assessment of the cannabis related business's fire safety by a qualified Fire prevention suppression consultant. An appropriate plan will have considered all possible fire, hazardous material, and inhalation issues/threats and will have both written and physical mechanisms in place to deal with each specific situation.

V. A security plan that includes a description and detailed schematic of the overall security for the cannabis related business. Applicants must detail their operational security including, without limitation, general security policies for the facility, employee specific policies, training, sample written policies, transactional security, visitor security, 3rd party contractor security, and delivery security. In particular, Applicants should address ingress and egress access, perimeter security, product security (at all hours), internal security measures for access (area specific), types of security systems alarms and cameras), and security personnel to be employed. The security plan must also include an assessment of site security by a qualified security consultant. Such security plans may be submitted in confidence.

W. A traffic and parking study prepared by a licensed engineer to mitigate vehicle and parking impacts. The traffic and parking study must be prepared by a state licensed traffic engineer in accordance with Los Angeles County's Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines (January 1997) and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 4th Edition. The traffic engineer preparing the study should define an appropriate approach for determining the amount of trips generated by the type of cannabis-related uses proposed and present this approach in the study. For example, and not limitation, a traffic engineer could equate cannabis manufacturing based upon the ITE Manual definitions for manufacturing of like size; or, for dispensaries, use the ITE Manual definition for retail outlets specializing in herbal products.

X. An annual contribution of $5,000 to a Drug Rehabilitation Program or Homeless Prevention Program identified by City Council resolution or minute order.

SECTION 9: Minimum Qualifications. In addition to all other requirements of applicable law including, without limitation, BMC Title 14, applicants must meet the following minimum qualifications:

A. Unless the application is filed by a Conversion Application or is for a Modified CBP without an ownership change, the Applicant must demonstrate that the Applicant is:

1. Is a person of good character, honesty, and integrity; -21-

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 7 of 11 ends

2. Is a person whose background, reputation and associations will not result in adverse publicity for the City of Beliflower or its economic development; and

3. Has adequate business competence and practical experience for operating the cannabis related business.

4. Each person listed in the application wili undergo a Fingerprint- Based Criminal History Records Check conducted by the City Police Department (or the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department) which may include Live Scan and any indicated follow-up investigation.

B. If there is a proposed change in ownership that adds persons not previously considered by the City Council on the Origination Date, those persons must meet the requirements in Section 9(A).

1. Has there been an adequate period of performance by the applicant demonstrating experience for operating a cannabis related business?

2. Does the applicant have sufficient key personnel to operate a cannabis related business to demonstrate effective managerial capacity and control of operations?

3. Does the applicant have other cannabis related businesses inside or outside the City's jurisdiction that demonstrate the applicant's competency in operating such businesses?

4. Does the applicant have a reasonable and practical business plan for operating a cannabis related business within the City's jurisdiction?

5. Notwithstanding the BMC's minimum requirements as to permissible locations, is the cannabis facility proposed by the applicant in a location acceptable to the City Council; aesthetically pleasing; and adequate in size?
-22-

City of Beliflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 8 of 11 ends

6. Would the applicant provide a public benefit in the form of removing blight; improving public welfare; or otherwise assisting in advancing the City's public interests?
D. There must be adequate financing to pay all current obligations and to provide adequate working capital to finance opening of a cannabis related business (which may be shown in a business plan described below).

Adequate financing" means a minimum of$400,000 as demonstrated by a letter of credit or other financial records.

E. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed funding of the cannabis related business is:

1. Adequate for the nature of the proposed operation; and

2. From a suitable source. The suitability of the source of funds is determined by the criteria set forth in Section 9(A) (1-3), above.

F. As to the real property upon which the cannabis related business is proposed, the applicant must either:

1. Own the real property in fee; or

2. Be a long-term lessee with a possessory interest in the real property.

For purposes of this Resolution, a "long term" lessee means the applicant must have a lease with a term of at least 10 years to use the real property for a cannabis related business.

SECTION 10: Deadline. All applicants must file an application with the City Clerk's Office by a time and date determined by the City Manager or City Council by minute order.

SECTION 11: Review of Application. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to review all applications submitted pursuant to the Cannabis Regulations in I accordance with the following:

A. Applications may be denied for any of the reasons set forth in the Cannabis Regulations.

B. In addition to any other requirements of the Cannabis Regulations, the City I Manager must also consider:

1. As to a business name change, whether the new business name will either violate community standards or confuse City residents or consumers regarding the services being provided by the permittee.

City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-18

Page 9 of 11 ends

Bellflower City CouncilFebruary 9, 2026

Bellflower City Council
February 9, 2026