Bellflower council approves four‑story self‑storage project with $2.5 million one‑time city payment

Bellflower — The Bellflower City Council voted Nov. 10 to approve a development agreement allowing a four‑story, climate‑controlled self‑storage facility on a long‑vacant parcel near the 91 Freeway and to accept a one‑time payment of $2,500,000 to the city in lieu of ongoing annual payments tied to the transient‑occupancy tax (TOT) revenue the city had expected from a previously proposed hotel.

The ordinance (No. 1451) and development agreement (file No. 1118) authorize a 152,300‑square‑foot facility with an interior corridor design, approximately 1,100 storage units (final unit count subject to plan‑check), about 12 dedicated parking spaces plus 11 shared spaces under a 2022 shared‑parking agreement, roughly 3,000 sq. ft. of landscaping, exterior lighting, and security measures. Planning staff recommended opening the public hearing, receiving evidence and testimony, and introducing the ordinance; the council then debated the project at length before voting to approve the development agreement.

Why it mattered: The developer proposed the storage project as an alternative to a 69‑room hotel previously entitled for the site. To compensate for the city’s lost potential TOT from the hotel, the development agreement offers a “menu” of mitigation payment options: an annual $170,000 payment phased in over three years, two lump‑sum options calculated as a net present value ($2,125,000 at different trigger points), or a one‑time payment of $2,500,000 prior to final certificate of occupancy. Council debate focused on which option best protects the city’s fiscal interests, how the values were calculated, and whether a lump‑sum or an ongoing payment would be preferable.

Council concerns and the debate: Council members pressed staff and the applicant on the assumptions behind the $170,000 annual figure and on the discount rate used to compute present‑value lump sums. Planning staff and the developer said the $170,000 figure represents a derisked estimate of the annual TOT the city would receive from a fully stabilized 69‑room limited‑service hotel and that the developer used an 8% discount rate to calculate a net present value. Council members noted the city’s current investment yields are lower (about 4.15–4.5%), explained how a lower discount rate would materially increase present value, and asked whether the city should prefer a one‑time payment for administrative simplicity and to avoid counterparty risk.

Developer presentation and public input: Jason Borg of Terrace Group Holdings (the developer) told the council the storage proposal came after hotels demonstrated poor economic viability for this constrained parcel and described public benefits included in the development agreement: installation of high‑speed public wireless facilities, security patrols (minimum twice daily for three years), lighting and landscaping improvements, and increased property‑tax revenue from an improved site. Nearby residents who spoke during the hearing expressed support for the project, citing improved security and reduced transient activity in the area following patrols; neighbors also asked how operators would prevent prohibited or hazardous materials from being stored, and the applicant said third‑party managers (such as Extra Space Storage, with which negotiations were underway) have protocols to screen tenants and prohibited items.

Fiscal and regulatory details: Planning staff explained development impact fees applicable to the project — public facilities, public safety and transportation — total roughly $1,540,000 and are restricted to designated fund accounts; school district fees (Paramount School District) and a 1% public‑art in‑lieu fee also apply separately and are not included in the city’s $1.54 million figure. The development agreement will be recorded against the property and include operating memoranda to implement the payment option chosen by the city. Staff also noted geotechnical work revealed liquefaction mitigation that increased project costs.

Vote and next steps: Councilmember Dan Coops moved to approve the project selecting the one‑time $2,500,000 payment; Councilmember Wendy Morris seconded. The final roll call was: Mayor Pro Tem Sonny Santinez — No; Councilmember Dan Coops — Yes; Councilmember Morse — Yes; Mayor Dutton — Yes. The motion passed and the public hearing was closed. Staff said the city manager and city attorney will implement the operating memorandum and associated agreements; final building permits and plan check remain necessary before construction begins. The applicant estimated plan‑check and construction submittals would begin immediately if approved and projected 12–14 months of construction after permit issuance, with occupancy timing dependent on plan check and approvals.

What remains unresolved: Council did not select specific payment mechanics beyond approving the development agreement with the one‑time payment option; staff said the timing and administrative mechanism (operating memorandum, recording against the property, and subsequent consent calendar items or council ratification) will be worked out during implementation. The developer and staff agreed to return final implementing documents for administrative processing and any required council ratification.

Community context: The parcel has been vacant for several years and is visible from the freeway but lacks Artesia Boulevard street frontage; council members said the site’s constraints and post‑COVID construction cost increases limited hotel feasibility. Several council members said they preferred the one‑time payment for administrative simplicity and to reduce the city’s risk, while others emphasized the theoretical long‑term value of annual TOT‑style payments if indexed for inflation.

The council adjourned to its next regular meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 24, 2025.