Bellflower residents press council over ‘Willows’ by‑right housing site as council says state law limits review

Dozens of residents urged the Bellflower City Council on Jan. 26 to oppose a proposed apartment project called the Willows at the Lakewood Boulevard/Rendelia Street corridor, arguing the site is too dense for the surrounding neighborhood and raises traffic, parking and public‑safety concerns.

"To add a complex of this magnitude will only increase congestion and endanger our first responders," said resident Laura Milne, who identified herself as a Rendelia Street homeowner of more than 40 years and called for the city to seek alternative sites. "We are urging the city of Bellflower to stand with us in opposition to the Willows project."

The public comments marked a tense exchange between neighbors and elected officials over an application the council described as a by‑right development under recent state housing laws. Mayor Santinez and Mayor Pro Tem Victor Sanchez told residents the city’s authority is limited when projects meet statutory requirements but emphasized the developer is voluntarily working with staff to add on‑site services, security and a small number of parking spaces.

"This is not a homeless shelter," the mayor said, stressing the developer is proposing a subsidized apartment complex with on‑site programming, management and security. "It is an apartment complex composed of so many units. By state law, we cannot even stop it."

Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez said he and the mayor visited comparable sites in San Diego and found the projects "well maintained, well secured" with programming and transportation assistance, and said the council will continue to advocate in Sacramento against by‑right bills that limit local review.

Developer representative Jim described the project as "a high‑quality subsidized apartment complex with wraparound services targeted to people who need them," and said the proposal includes 50 residential units with one on‑site manager’s unit, on‑site security, job training and a computer lab.

Residents raised a mix of procedural and substantive objections: lack of notice in the newly mailed City Life magazine, potential strain on Rendelia Street parking, a requested but missing Phase‑2 environmental assessment, displacement of two long‑standing businesses and worry that the project’s reduced parking (the developer proposes six on‑site spaces) would push cars into adjacent residential streets.

"All we are asking for is transparency on issues directly affecting us as residents," Milne said. "City Life is supposed to provide us with the information we need to know as residents." Another speaker, Sandra Robas, representing the Vandalia Adversary Action Team, cited local code sections and urged the council to hold the city to its own development standards.

Council members repeatedly told attendees that the developer had held a neighborhood meeting on Dec. 1 for residents within the required radius, but that attendance was low. The mayor said he and the mayor pro tem had visited model projects and were satisfied the developer was offering additional services above minimum requirements.

The council did not take formal action on the Willows project during the meeting; the mayor and staff said they would continue to press the developer on design details and programmatic commitments while the applicant proceeds under state law.

What happens next: the city will continue its voluntary coordination with the developer and forward any formal permit filings through the required ministerial review channels; residents were encouraged to follow upcoming public hearings and contact the planning department for schedule updates.