July 2, 2024
Cindy Gordon
City of Beverly Hills
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, 450 N. Roxbury - Parking-to-Retail Conversion Project, Los Angeles County
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.
Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.
Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.
The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.
Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano
COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla
COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
CP
C
Z SC-
& /
ol"K:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.
3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians on the attached list for more information.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Onowur JHleer
Appendix D
Energy Calculations
Kimley»Horn
Construction Fuel Consumption
On-Site Diesel1 (off-road construction Equipment) MTCO2e Gallons of Fuel4 County Fuel in 2025 (Start of Construction) Percent
Demolition 9 879
Building Construction 155 15,254
Architectural Coating 1 120
Total 165 16,252 532,570,627 0.00305%
Off-Site Diesel1 (on-road construction trips)
Demolition 0 45
Building Construction 4 429
Architectural Coating 0 0
Total 5 475 532,570,627 0.00009%
Off-Site Gasoline2
Demolition 1 160
Building Construction 3 393
Architectural Coating 0 6
Total 5 558 3,536,229,368 0.00002%
Total Diesel Fuel 16,727 16,727 532,570,627 0.00314%
Total Gasoline Fuel 558 558 3,536,229,368 0.00002%
Total Construction Fuel 175 17,286 4,068,799,996 0.00316% On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
2025 8.92 0.46 1.41 141.68 3.99 3.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
2026 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.15 0.36 0.29 1.22 0.00 0.05
Total 8.92 0.46 1.41 154.82 4.36 3.46 1.22 0.00 0.05
Notes:
1 Fuel used for off-road, hauling, and vendor trips assumed to be diesel. 2 Fuel used for worker trips assumed to be gasoline.
3 MTCO2e rates from CalEEMod (3.0 Construction Emission Details). 4 For CO2e emissions, see Chapter 13 (page 94); Conversion Ratios: Climate Registry, General Reporting Protocol, 2022.
Construction Phase3
Demolition Building Construction Architectural Coating
Vehicle Type Percent Annual VMT1 MPG2 Annual Fuel
(Gallons) Fuel Type
Los Angeles
County
Gallons (2026)3
RS
Percent
Passenger Cars 94.2% 858,115 21.6 39,728 Gas 3,446,400,365 0.00115% Light/Medium Trucks 4.9% 44,745 17.2 2,601 Diesel 535,038,344 0.00049% Heavy Trucks/Other 0.9% 7,983 6.1 1,309 Diesel 535,038,344 0.00024% Total 1.00 910,843 3,910 0.00073%
Land Use5 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MCY MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD OBUS UBUS SBUS MH HHD Strip Mall 0.499 0.0431 0.2362 0.0217 0.1418 0.0265 0.0067 0.0109 0.0009 0.0006 0.0006 0.0028 0.0088 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.499 0.0431 0.2362 0.0217 0.1418 0.0265 0.0067 0.0109 0.0009 0.0006 0.0006 0.0028 0.0088 Operational Fuel
Notes:
1 Total annual operational VMT based on annual VMT from CalEEMod (5.9 Operational Mobile Sources). 2 Average fuel economy derived from Department of Transportation. 3 Total annual county fuel per EMFAC 2021 model of projected operational fuel usage.
UNMITIGATED
Operational Water Energy
Unmitigated Indoor 0.5 million gallons
Indoor Energy Intensity Factor1
6,807 kWh/MG
Unmitigated Outdoor 0 million gallons
Outdoor Energy Intensity Factor2
5,306 kWh/MG
Operational Water Energy 3,427 kWh
0.003 GWh
68,485 GWh
0.00001%
Indoor Outdoor
Strip Mall 503471 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces - -
Total Operational Water (MG/year) 0.503 0.000
Los Angeles County Annual Electricity
Percentage Increase
UNMITIGATED
Operational Water Energy
Notes:
1 Indoor water energy intensity factor for South Coast subarea per CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix G, Tab G-32. Factor includes supply, treatment, distribution, and wastewater. 2 Outdoor water energy intensity factor for South Coast subarea per CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix G, Tab G-32. Factor includes supply, treatment, and distribution. 3 Operational water use values per CalEEMod (5.12 Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption).
Land Use3 Unmitigated (gal/year)
Elecricity/Natural Gas Energy
Unmitigated Project
Annual Energy
Los Angeles County
Annual Energy3
Percentage
Increase
Electricity (kWh/yr) 67,675 68,484,956,280 0.0001%
Electricity (GWh/yr) 0.068 68,485 0.00010%
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 33,469 282,029 11.867%
Natural Gas (therms/yr) 335 2,820,285,935 0.00001%
Electricity1 (kWh/yr) Natural Gas2 (kBTU/yr)
Unmitigated Unmitigated 0.071
Strip Mall 67675 33469 0.0001%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0
Total Energy 67,675 33,469
Land Use
Notes:
1 Electricity use per CalEEMod (5.11 Operational Energy Consumption). 2 Natural Gas use per CalEEMod (5.11 Operational Energy Consumption). 3 County total energy values from California Energy Commission energy reports available through ecdms.energy.ca.gov. (year 2022)
UNMITIGATED
Appendix E
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Klrnley>»HOrn
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
450 North Roxbury Drive Project
City of Beverly Hills, California
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050
Los Angeles, California 90017
213.261.4040
September 2024
KimleyHorn
Expect More. Experience Better.
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Location and Setting............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.............................................................................................. 6 3 REGULATORY SETTING
3.1 Federal .............................................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 State.................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Regional........................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Local................................................................................................................................................ 17 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 CEQA Thresholds and Significance Criteria........................................................................................ 19
4.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 20 5 POTENTIAL GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Compliance.................................................................................... 23
5.3 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 30 6 REFERENCES
References....................................................................................................................................... 32 TABLES
Table 1 Description of Greenhouse Gases....................................................................................................... 7 Table 2 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................. 22 Table 3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 23 Table 4 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.................................. 24 Table 5 Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures.................................................... 26
FIGURES
Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map.............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Regional Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 4
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
AB Assembly Bill
CARB California Air Resource Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CalGEM California Geologic Energy Management Division
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CH4 methane
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
Gt gigatons
GHG greenhouse gas
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent mpg miles per gallon
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
N2O nitrous oxide
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PFC Perfluorocarbon
RPS Renewable Portfolio standards
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Government
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SF square feet or square foot
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TACs toxic air contaminants
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ZEV zero emission vehicle
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment for the 450 N.
Roxbury Drive Project (Project) located at 450 North Roxbury Drive (Project Site). The purpose of this GHG Emissions Assessment is to evaluate potential Project construction and operational emissions and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Project would redevelop a 6,797 square foot portion of the ground floor of a five-floor, partially subterranean parking garage (the upper two levels are above ground) with rooftop parking located on a
0.8-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 4343-024-020) (Project Site); see Figure 1: Local Vicinity Map. The five-floor parking garage is attached to a 10-story, 155-foot-tall office building located on the northern portion of the same parcel, constructed in 1970. The parking garage and office building together are considered the Project Site; however, the remainder of the parking garage and the attached office building would not be redeveloped as part of this Project. The Project Site is bound by Santa Monica Boulevard to the north, Bram Goldsmith Way (an alley) to the east, an existing commercial building to the south, and North Roxbury Drive to the west. The Project Site is in the southwestern portion of the City, in Los Angeles County (County), approximately 3.0 miles north of Culver City and 8.5 miles west of downtown Los Angeles; see Figure 2: Regional Vicinity Map.
Public transit access in proximity to the Project Site includes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Line 20 bus stop at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and North Linden Drive, located approximately 400 feet southwest of the Project Site; the Metro Line 4 bus stop at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and North Camden Drive, located approximately 600 feet northeast of the Project Site; and the Metro Line 720 bus stop at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, located approximately 740 feet southwest of the Project Site. The Project Site is also approximately 0.31 miles northwest of the future Metro D Line Wilshire/Rodeo Station, which slated to open in 2026.1 Pursuant to SCAG’s 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, the Metro Line 720 bus stop at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard and future Metro D Line Wilshire/Rodeo Station are each designated a “Major Transit Stop” as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21064.3.2
1.2 Project Description
The Project would convert a portion of the ground level of the existing parking garage to approximately 6,797 square feet of retail uses, split into four retail spaces ranging from 1,397 square feet to 1,841 square feet. The retail spaces would be accessed from the North Roxbury Drive street frontage. Storefront facades would consist of louvers, cast-in-place (CIP) concrete, and storefront glazing, with signage installed on top. Approximately 300 square feet of planter area would also be added; see Figure 3:
Conceptual Site Plan.
1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Westside Purple Line Extension Section 2 Project December 2023 Quarterly Project Status Report, 2023, libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/StatusReports/2023-decemberwestside-purple-line-extension-section-2.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2024. 2 Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024: The 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Local Data Exchange (LDX) Process Data/Map Book for the City of Beverly Hills, page 44. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/p0222-beverly-hills.pdf?1655312455. Accessed July 3, 2024.
Kimley»Horn
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2024
Bedford Dr
S Santa Monica Blvd
N Roxbury Dr
State Route 2
Brighton Way
Bram Goldsmith Way
FIGURE 1: Local Vicinty Map
450 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE PROJECT
Business Triangle
Project Site
Wilshire Blvd
Canon Drive
N Crescent Dr
AYR% Ls.' PWee ) • W X et), 1040 • hs 0 E
83 0
if . B
••. s •, V
y
Ai L. ar
3 "T" -l s t. f Y %
s
Y
' r
1 'w
.( %
A 5
", I ? . I $ 0 ...
*
A
“Isd vei w
A
v* s %
p A .. '
*
% 5
Y 2 3 UN 5 st 5 -t e / ‘o
- Ji vx A S
*
a . t
A ? s.
dg
s. ). s
AX
* A. v‘% or Y
.7 1Z ri Aw A
1 4
4 ■
V
Me’t’
Kimley>»Horn
‘‘s V4
)
Ne
t
iro
□
□
/ .■ //
4 ■ .
S%gk 4
3 -1 e
V.
N
1st 2
e
f.%, ■ Nwe *es r
d
V / Ss
‘h -
50 2
& *
:4s
X..
a%
♦ Y e"
254
&a
1,
' -‘y
wrV, S * Xde
P
yi St
..
o
Y
«.s
%i l
5 “V
C
2 V
*. MssA
• a • )2wee ‘a “
ll
a
va
y —ly.
".Y
X. A "
s.
Fs
z-w
Pat’ Y
e’V .
e s 6:
AT. fe
V.
1 vgos
S\ *
*a- n r. A Le
Arg
, 40 ewet
te.g
C
by
0Ropr.
3M
i "*
SOURCE: Nearmap, 2024
FIGURE 2: Regional Vicinty Map
450 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE PROJECT
Project Site
and Business
Business Triangle
Project Site
Cienega Historic
Leimert
Arlington
Heights
Harvard
Heights
Jefferson
Park
2O
%
Hollywood
Wall me
Larchmont
Fairfax
Central
Hollywood
West
Hollywood
Runyon
Park
Hollywood
Hills West
Wilshire
Country Club
Hollywood- ■
Forever
Memorial Park
Beverly
Grove
%
s
%
Jefferson
PicoUnion
Rosedale
Cemetery
Exposition
Park
University of
Southern •
California i
University
Park
/
2 f
- —T
Tropico
Atwater
G
o
LOS
%
8 0. Los Feliz )
D
C. O
Edendale
101
a
%, %4
Silver
Lake
Echo
Park
Elysian
Park
Dodger
Stadium
Silver Lake
Reservoir
East
Hollywood
9C
(D5
c9
%
Forest Lawn
Memorial
Park
%
Elysian
Va 1 (
Cs
o rel
4.“odifwy.
Sr. “orO,
4 $
Hollywood -
Sign View
Point Q
Mid City
anta Monica.EWy
McManus
Sentous
Kenneth Hahn
West
Adams
Blair
Hills
Wilshire Blvd oo
Koreatown
Carthay
Los Angeles
G
Z
Windsor
Square
Rampart
Village
Mi
Jun Park La
Brea
Hancock
Park
Nose la
MidWilshire MacArthur
Park
%
a
Bel Air
lvd
Mt wil
an Nuys Burbank ltadena
,Cal Beverlywood a lenc Ar ac? Topanga
Los Ai
Malibu
Montebello City 7 • - Huntington Pico
Park 8 Rivera Inglewood
Hawthorne (
Junction Comptor
(6 Beach
Torrance
Cy Lomita
ing
Beach
larkdale
Lower
Franklin
Reservoir
Rancho
Palos
Beverly
Glen
Westwood
Village
Culver
City
Stone Canyon
Reservoir
Santa
Monica
Los Angeles
Country Club
Fryman
Canyon
Park
University of
California-LA
Seal
Roar li Park
East
Century
City
Beverly
Crest
Bel-Air
Country
Club
Santa Monica
Mtns National
Rec Area
PicoRobertson
Beverly
Hills
6 scenta
Beverly
Hills
San Gabriel
•I
□
Kimley»Horn
(N,
o Ol
s Alameda St
S
s
O
S Western Ave N western Ave
SOURCE: HLW International LLP, 2024
FIGURE 3: Conceptual Site Plan
450 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE PROJECT
0U
33'-9 3/4"
-25' -8" -24'
STALLS &*
A CESSIBLE PARI
CD
&&
0/////////7
Restroom Restroom
— 03B |
57 SF 57 SF
Tenant Space Tenant Space
1,397 SF 1,602 SF
Restroom
| 02B }
57 SF
Tenant Space I 03
1,602 SF 6
Restroom F
57 SF
Tenant Space I
1,841 SF
02 1'
102 SF
T I T I
9 TANDEM & 9 SINGLE PARKING STALLS
24-61/2" 1 PARKING
J 1
13' - 3 3/4" Total Area = 6,797 SF 7
Stair
05 110SF
Ql 240'-0"
25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25’-0" 25'-0" I
04B
04 DDX
3'-0" Setback
Property Line
Stair
5'-0" 9' -0"
9 1
. O' 51 - 0" 91 - 0"
27 TOTAL PARKING STALLS ON LEVEL 1
336 TOTAL PARKING STALLS IN BUILDING
Parking Garage
06 I
Not Enclosed
z*
A
■■
T
C
4 EXISTING TO REMAIN AP V
Generator 11
221 SF
Trash 12
195 SF
4 Fire Pump
13 1
391 SF
&
d &. &. &.
CD
5 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS
OO
EXISTING TO REMAIN
V
1/2"- -24-61/2" -35'-7 1/2" 20'-0"7
1 -6
KIIKIIII
Existing striped access aisle from
ADA parking to Roxbury Drive.
C
LO
(E) OFFICE BUILDING
NOT IN SCOPE
01B
Kimley»Horn
y I
45'-0 3/4'
>
68‘-5"
68'-11 3/4
I
26'-5 1/4'8'-8 1/4 1 10'-7" 42'-11 1/2' 21 -7 3/4'
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 5
The Applicant is requesting a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) to allow an increase in the maximum FAR as a result of the conversion of the ground level of an existing parking structure abutting a public street to retail business(es), as defined in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-100, up to a depth of 70 feet from the front property line, subject to approval of a Development Plan Review pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3100.3In compliance with the proposed ZTA and GPA, the Project is proposing a conversion of 6,797 square feet of an existing parking structure, resulting in a new total of 103,647 square feet of proposed floor area. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3- 2745, the maximum allowable floor area for the Project Site is 72,960 square feet. Therefore, the 6,797 square feet conversion is approximately 9.3 percent of the existing building square footage (96,850 square feet) and would be less than 10 percent of the maximum allowable floor area for the site.
The Project would remove 29 existing parking spaces (including 24 single parking spaces and five tandem parking spaces) on the ground floor and restripe the remaining ground level of parking to replace the 3 ADA spaces, which would be relocated to be adjacent to the northeastern end of the proposed retail spaces. Vehicular access to the Project Site would continue to be provided via the two existing in/out driveways on North Roxbury Drive. Pedestrian access would continue to be provided via the existing sidewalk along North Roxbury Drive. The Project would not modify the existing driveways and sidewalk.
A new mechanical split heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system would be installed above the ceilings of the retail spaces. A new rooftop HVAC unit would be provided immediately south of an existing HVAC unit on the rooftop of the parking garage. The Project would also install four 5-ton heat pump condensers along the western edge of the rooftop. An automated sprinkler system would also be installed within the retail spaces for fire protection purposes, including a fire pump on the eastern portion of the Project Site.
Project construction would include the demolition of the existing building façade, flooring, and planters, building construction, and architectural coatings. Demolition activities would require the use of haul trucks. No grading or excavation will be required to construct this Project. Project construction is anticipated to begin as early as January 2025 and would be completed as early as February 2026.
Construction of the Project is estimated to require approximately 14 months. 3 The ZTA and GPA would apply to the entire Business Triangle of the City; however, future projects that would seek to utilize the ZTA and GPA would be subject to environmental review at such time.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 6
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.
This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere.
4 Table 1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.
4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013, www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2024.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 7
Table 1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential [GWP] of 1) for determining GWP for other GHGs.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The GWP of N2O is 298.
Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the GWP is 25.
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning.
The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year GWP of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC23.
Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years.
Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. GWP range from 6,500 to 9,200.
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. GWP for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.
Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The GWP of SF6 is 23,900.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year GWP of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.
Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high GWP of 17,200.
Source: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases; U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 8
3 REGULATORY SETTING
3.1 Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the U.S. EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions.
Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.
In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017– 2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017– 2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On January Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 9
12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 miles per gallon [mpg]), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).
In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the U.S.
EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.
According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.
In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.5 On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA published the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019).6 The SAFE Rule (Part One) revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA finalized rulemaking for SAFE Part Two sets CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021-2026. The current U.S. EPA administration has repealed SAFE Rule Part One, effective January 28, 2022 and is reconsidering Part Two.
In December 2021, the U.S. EPA finalized federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for Model Years 2023 through 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and are based on sound science and grounded in a rigorous assessment of current and future technologies. The updated standards will result in avoiding more than three billion tons of GHG emissions through 2050.7
3.2 State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 gross million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2013. The transportation sector is the State’s largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.
5 U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2, 2016, www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2024. 6 U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program, September 27, 2019, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-09-27/pdf/2019-20672.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2024.
7 U.S. EPA, Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026, 2021, www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions.
Accessed July 8, 2024.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 10
The State’s legislature enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the legislation’s major provisions.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissionslimit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.
California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve AB 32 goals. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business-as-usual”).
8 The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program.
9 Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key Scoping Plan elements include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020. • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted).
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009). • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
8 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. 9 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency secretaries and heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 11
• The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution. • CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years. The mobile Source Strategy includes increasing zero emission vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks.
In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 MMTCO2e to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised businessas-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.
CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. By 2016, California had reduced GHG emissions below 1990 levels, achieving AB 32’s 2020 goal four years ahead of schedule.
In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan.
10 The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other federal actions.
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.
The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world.
Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead 10 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2024.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 12
advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new residential and mixed-use development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.11 These approaches are recommendations only and are not requirements. They do not supplant lead agencies’ discretion to develop their own evidence-based approaches for determining whether a project would have a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions.
Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.
SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet AB 32’s GHG reduction goals.
SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The U.S. EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for passenger vehicle and light duty truck model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new passenger vehicles are anticipated to emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.
SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The law effectively prevents California’s 11 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, 2022.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 13
utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.
The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.
SB 1078, SB 107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) SB 1078 requires California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23. SBX1-2 codified the 33 percent by 2020 target.
SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements Executive Order B-30-15’s goals. The SB 350 objectives are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 45 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.
AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.
AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Capand-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.
SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.
SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.
AB 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB, to adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. AB 1346 requires CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 14
to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.
AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.
SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.
SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of State agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.
Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.
Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency’s development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order S-14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21- 09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 15
sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal that was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.
Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO2e. The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S3-05. Executive Order B-30-15 also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.
Executive Order N-79-20. Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavyduty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.
California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances.
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 16
mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December 2021, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. Among other updates like strengthened ventilation standards for gas cooking appliances, the 2022 Energy Code includes updated standards such as new electric heat pump requirements for residential uses, schools, offices, banks, libraries, retail, and grocery stores; the promotion of electric-ready requirements for new homes including the addition of circuitry for electric appliances, battery storage panels, and dedicated infrastructure to allow for the conversion from natural gas to electricity; and the expansion of solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards to additional land uses including high-rise multi-family residences, hotels and motels, tenant spaces, offices (including medical offices and clinics), retail and grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and civic uses (including theaters auditoriums, and convention centers). Projects whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality. The CALGreen Code also provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics.
The CEC adopted the 2022 CALGreen Code in December 2021, went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 CALGreen code focuses on battery storage system controls, demand management, heat pump space and water heating, and building electrification.
3.3 Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020−2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The 2020 RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Projectregion consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15. The 2020 RTP/SCS is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals.
The 2020 RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 17
seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone.
Since Connect SoCal was adopted in 2020, SCAG gained responsibility for the selection of transportation projects to be funded with federal revenue. The RTP/SCS invests $751.7 billion in our transportation system, primarily in operations and maintenance, to ensure the continued performance of our current network. Implementation of the 2024 RTP/SCS would add 181,200 new miles of transit revenue service, 4,000 new miles of bike lanes and 869 new miles to the Regional Express Lane Network. Strategic investments in infrastructure and transportation would improve access to employment centers and stimulate regional economic growth and opportunity in historically underserved areas. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing public agencies to implement transportation projects in a coordinated manner while qualifying for federal and state funding. Connect SoCal also supports local jurisdictions in making informed land use planning and housing development decisions.
The RTP/SCS accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. It is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve State GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently.
3.4 Local
City of Beverly Hills General Plan
The City of Beverly Hills General Plan contains the following goals and policies that address GHG emissions and sustainability. The following apply to the Project:
City of Beverly Hills General Plan, Land Use Element
Land Use Policy LU 14.2: Require that sites and buildings be planned and designed to meet applicable environmental sustainability objectives by: (a) facilitating pedestrian access between properties and access to public transit; (b) providing solar access; (c) assuring natural ventilation; (d) enabling capture and re-use of stormwater and graywater on-site while reducing discharge into the stormwater system; and (e) using techniques consistent with the City's sustainability programs such as the City's Green Building Ordinance.
Land Use Policy LU 14.4: Require that new and substantially renovated buildings be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's sustainability programs such as the City's Green Building Ordinance or comparable criteria to reduce energy, water, and natural resource consumption, minimize construction wastes, use recycled materials, and avoid the use of toxics and hazardous material.
Land Use Policy LU 14.6: Promote and provide incentives for the retrofit of existing structures with green building techniques such as those required by the City's Green Building Ordinance, including installation of water-conserving fixtures in multifamily housing units on change of tenancy.
Land Use Policy LU 16.9: Require that private and public buildings be designed to promote public health by prohibiting the use of toxic building materials and high-VOC paints, providing adequate ventilation and access to natural lighting, and using “green building” techniques as required by the City's sustainability programs such as the Green Building Ordinance.
City of Beverly Hills General Plan, Open Space Element
Open Space Policy OS 7.7: Work with the South Coast Air Quality Management Board to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 18
Open Space Policy OS 7.8: Require new development projects that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management Board’s (SCAQMB) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) operational thresholds to incorporate design or operational features that reduce emissions equal to 15-percent from the level that would be produced by an unmitigated project.
Open Space Policy OS 7.9: Work with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to comply with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals as established in the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 for 2020” (AB 32) and any other subsequent legislation.
Open Space Policy OS 7.10: Comply with pertinent State regulations to assess citywide greenhouse gas emissions for existing land uses and the adopted general plan build-out.
Open Space Policy OS 7.11: Educate the public about air quality standards, health effects, and efforts that residents can make to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Los Angeles Basin.
Open Space Policy OS 7.12: Review proposed development projects to ensure projects incorporate feasible measures that reduce construction and operations emissions for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
City of Beverly Hills Sustainable City Plan
The Beverly Hills Sustainable City Plan establishes guiding principles and goals that the City uses to develop and implement programs that focus on sustainability. The following goal and policies are applicable to the Project:
Climate Change and Air Quality Goal: Combat climate change and improve air quality Policy 1: Minimize greenhouse gas and other emissions from City facilities and operations Policy 2: Minimize mobile source emissions from on- and off-road (construction) vehicles.
Policy 3: Minimize stationary source air emissions.
Policy 4: Minimize particulate matter, both airborne photochemical precipitates and windborne dust.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 19
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 CEQA Thresholds and Significance Criteria
Based upon the criteria derived from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or • Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions.
GHG Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. This Working Group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the South Coast Air Basin, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the South Coast Air Basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations.
The Working Group proposed a tiered approach to evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency, wherein projects are evaluated sequentially through a series of “tiers” to determine whether the project is likely to result in a potentially significant impact due to GHG emissions.
With the tiered approach, a project is compared against the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold.
The SCAQMD established a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial projects and a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was proposed for non-industrial projects but it has not been adopted. The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.
Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, the SCAQMD initially outlined that a project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a recommendation for this approach. The Working Group folded the Tier 4 second option into the third option. Under the Tier 4 third option, a project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 20
Tier 3 Screening Thresholds. When the tiered approach is applied to a proposed project, and the project is found not to comply with Tier 1 or Tier 2, the project’s emissions are compared against a screening threshold, as described above, for Tier 3. The screening threshold formally adopted by SCAQMD is an “interim” screening threshold for stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency under CEQA. The threshold was termed “interim” because, at the time, SCAQMD anticipated that CARB would be adopting a statewide significance threshold that would inform and provide guidance to SCAQMD in its adoption of a final threshold. However, no Statewide threshold was ever adopted, and the interim threshold remains in effect.
For projects where SCAQMD is not a lead agency, no screening thresholds have been formally adopted.
However, in 2008, the SCAQMD Working Group has recommended a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects. The SCAQMD staff determined that these thresholds would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from these sectors, “capture” meaning that 90 percent of total emissions from all new projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis (i.e., found potentially significant).12 On September 28, 2010, air quality experts serving on the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group recommended an interim screening level numeric bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e annually. The Working Group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, various city and county planning departments. The numeric bright line and efficiency-based thresholds, which were developed for consistency with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, are supported by substantial evidence and provide guidance to CEQA practitioners and lead agencies for determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant. Therefore, this analysis relies on SCAQMD’s recommended Tier 3 screening thresholds to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. To provide the most conservative analysis, the City will apply the 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold recommended by SCAQMD for residential and commercial projects.
4.2 Methodology
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there is no project-level analysis. The baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project includes the natural and anthropogenic drivers of global climate change, including world‐wide GHG emissions from human activities that almost doubled between 1970 and 2010 from approximately 27 gigatons (Gt) of CO2/year to nearly 49 GtCO2/year.13 As such, the geographic extent of climate change and GHG emissions cumulative impact discussion is worldwide.
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from 12 SCAQMD, “Staff Report: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” December 5, 2008, Attachment E: “Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold,” October 2008, page 3-2.
13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 21
CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles.
The Project’s operational GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste. These emissions categories are discussed below. • Area Sources. Area source emissions occur from architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer products. Additionally, the primary emissions from architectural coatings are volatile organic compounds, which are relatively insignificant as direct GHG emissions. • Energy Consumption. Energy consumption consists of emissions from project consumption of electricity and natural gas. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy emissions are calculated based on consumption rates and emissions factors in CalEEMod. No changes were made to the default energy usage consumption rates or emissions factors. • Solid Waste. Solid waste releases GHG emissions in the form of methane when these materials decompose. Solid waste emissions are calculated based on generation rates and emissions factors in CalEEMod.
• Water and Wastewater. Project GHG emissions would be generated from energy consumption associated with water and wastewater conveyance and treatment. Water and wastewater emissions are calculated based on the estimated consumption and emissions factors in CalEEMod. • Mobile Sources. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles. Project trip generation is based on the following 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use categories:
− ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) – 6,797 square feet, 370 total daily vehicle trips.
The Project would generate 370 net daily trips. For this analysis, it was assumed the mobile source emission rates in CalEEMod used the CARB SAFE Rule adjustment factors. 14 14 The U.S. EPA repealed SAFE Rule Part 1 on January 28, 2022. Therefore, the mobile source emissions in this analysis are conservative.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 22
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 5.1 Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project Site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would be cease once construction is complete. The total GHG emissions (in MTCO2e) generated during construction are shown in Table 2: ConstructionRelated Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
Construction Year 1 (2025) 159.6
Construction Year 2 (2026) 15.07
Total Construction Emissions 174.7
30-Year Amortized Construction Emissions 5.82
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data for model outputs.
As shown in Table 2, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 174.7 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30-year period and then added to the operational emissions.
15 The amortized Project construction emissions
would be 5.82 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, onsite combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City would review and verify that the Project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required to adhere to the provisions of the CALGreen Code, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, and energy efficiency. Construction activities would be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance such as the SCAQMD Rules.
The Project’s operational GHG emissions are summarized in Table 3: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 3, the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 344.93 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. The majority of the GHG emissions (over 90 percent) 15 The Project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the SCAQMD (SCAQMD, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 23
are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards. Therefore, the Project would not generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 3: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e Emissions Per Year
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 5.82
Area Source 0.14
Energy 12.47
Mobile 323.04
Waste 2.23
Water 1.23
Refrigerants 0.01
TOTAL 344.93
Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data for model outputs.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Compliance
Threshold 5.2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions?
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal 2024 (2024 - 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2024 RTP/SCS]). This analysis also discusses the Project’s consistency with the previously adopted Connect SoCal (2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]) which was adopted on September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
Under SB 375, SCAG’s 2024 RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals to reduce GHG emissions in the region by eight percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 2035. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
Since Connect SoCal was adopted in 2020, SCAG gained responsibility for the selection of transportation projects to be funded with federal revenue. The 2024 RTP/SCS invests $751.7 billion in our transportation Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 24
system, primarily in operations and maintenance, to ensure the continued performance of our current network. The 2024 RTP/SCS would also add 181,200 new miles of transit revenue service, 4,000 new miles of bike lanes and 869 new miles to the Regional Express Lane Network. Strategic investments in infrastructure and transportation would improve access to employment centers and stimulate regional economic growth and opportunity in historically underserved areas. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing public agencies to implement transportation projects in a coordinated manner while qualifying for federal and state funding. Connect SoCal also supports local jurisdictions in making informed land use planning and housing development decisions.
The 2024 and 2020 RTP/SCS plans account for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The 2024 and 2020 RTP/SCS are also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA requirements, increased housing production, improved equity and resilience, the preservation of natural lands, improvement of public health, increased transportation safety, support for the region’s vital goods movement industries and more efficient use of resources. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions; therefore, the Project’s comparison to the 2024 and 2020 RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The Project’s consistency with the 2024 and 2020 RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.
Table 4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Consistency
2024 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY CONSISTENCY1 Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network.
Support investments that are well‐maintained and
operated, coordinated, resilient and result in improved safety, improved air quality and minimized greenhouse
gas emissions
Not Applicable. This is not a project‐specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Ensure that reliable, accessible, affordable, and
appealing travel options are readily available, while
striving to enhance equity in the offerings in high‐need communities
Not Applicable. This is not a project‐specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Support planning for people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds
Not Applicable. This is not a project‐specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Communities: Develop, connect, and sustain communities that are livable and thriving Create human‐centered communities in urban,
suburban, and rural settings to increase mobility
options and reduce travel distances
No Conflict. The Project is located in an urban area in proximity to existing community services. Additionally, the Project is located near existing transit routes and access to State Route 2 [SR‐2]).
Produce and preserve diverse housing types in an effort to improve affordability, accessibility, and opportunities for all households
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose residential uses.
Environment: Create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow Develop communities that are resilient and can
mitigate, adapt to, and respond to chronic and acute
stresses and disruptions, such as climate change
No Conflict. As discussed above, the Project would not exceed the City’s GHG emission threshold, and therefore would not result in significant GHG impacts.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 25
Table 4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Consistency
Integrate the region’s development pattern and
transportation network to improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and enable more sustainable
use of energy and water
No Conflict. While the Project is not a transportation improvement Project, location of the Project within a developed area would reduce trip lengths, which would reduce GHG emissions.
Additionally, the reduction of energy use and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development are encouraged through the development of alternative transportation methods, green design techniques for buildings, and other energy‐reducing techniques such as compliance with the provisions of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
Conserve the region’s resources No Conflict. The Project is located on land that is not designated for agricultural uses, natural resources, or conservation. Therefore, Project development would not result in a loss of the region’s resources.
Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient, and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people in the region
Improve access to jobs and educational resources No Conflict. The Project proposes a retail development within an urban area, in close proximity to residential uses. Therefore, the location of the Project would improve access to employment opportunities.
Advance a resilient and efficient goods movement
system that supports the economic vitality of the
region, attainment of clean air and quality of life for our communities
No Conflict. The Project includes retail uses that would support goods movement.
2020 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY CONSISTENCY2 GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.
Not Applicable: This is not a project-specific goal. Notwithstanding, the Project is of retail usage, which would further promote regional economic activity and commercial competition.
GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.
No Conflict: Although this Project is not a transportation improvement project, the Project is located near existing transit routes on SR-2 to the north, Metro Line 20 bus stop to the southwest, Metro Line 4 bust stop to the northeast, and Metro Line 720 bus stop to the southwest. The Project is also northwest of the future Metro D Line Wilshire/Rodeo Station.
GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation
system.
Not Applicable: The Project is not a transportation improvement project.
GOAL 4: Increase person and goods movement
and travel choices within the
transportation system.
Not Applicable: The Project is not a transportation improvement project.
GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.
No Conflict: The Project Site is in an urban area near existing public transit routes and freeways. The Project’s location within an urbanized area would reduce trip lengths, which would reduce GHG and emissions.
GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
No Conflict: The Project does not exceed the City’s GHG emission threshold. The Project would not violate any GHG standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected GHG violation, or result in significant GHG impacts.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 26
Table 4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Consistency
GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support
an integrated regional development
pattern and transportation network.
Not Applicable: This is not a project-specific goal.
GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven solutions
that result in more efficient travel.
Not Applicable: This is not a project-specific goal.
GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are supported
by multiple transportation options.
Not Applicable: The Project is not a residential project.
GOAL 10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.
Not Applicable: The Project Site is not located on agricultural lands and does not contain native habitat.
Sources:
1. SCAG, Connect SoCal (2024 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy), 2024.
2. SCAG, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy), 2020. 2017 California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which provides a range of GHG reduction actions. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan in 2013.
The Project’s consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan, and implementing regulatory programs, is analyzed in detail in Table 5: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures. As indicated in Table 5, the Project would comply with the applicable measures. As such, impacts related to consistency with the Scoping Plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Table 5: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Transportation California Cap-andTrade Program
Linked to Western
Climate Initiative
Regulation for the
California Cap on
GHG Emissions and
Market-Based
Compliance
Mechanism October
20, 2015 (CCR 95800)
No Conflict. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers. However, the regulation indirectly affects people who use the products and services produced by these industrial sources when increased cost of products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in California, generated in-State or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period. The proposed Project would not conflict with implementation of the Cap-and-Trade Program and would indirectly be consistent with regard to the use of electricity and fuel.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 27
Table 5: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
California Light-Duty
Vehicle GHG
Standards
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to
Control GHG
Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to
Control GHG
Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
No Conflict. This measure applies to all new vehicles starting with model year 2012. The Project would not conflict with its implementation as it would apply to all new passenger vehicles purchased in California. Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later, associated with Project construction and operation would be required to comply with the Pavley emissions standards.
2012 LEV III
California GHG and
Criteria Pollutant
Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission
Standards
No Conflict. The LEV III amendments provide reductions
from new vehicles sold in California between 2017 and
2025. Passenger vehicles associated with Project
construction and operations would be required to comply with LEV III standards.
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
2009 readopted in
2015. Regulations to
Achieve GHG
Emission Reductions
Subarticle 7. Low
Carbon Fuel Standard
CCR 95480
No Conflict. This measure applies to transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in California. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. It is assumed that any motor vehicles associated with Project construction and operations would be consistent with the measure and utilize low carbon transportation fuels.
Regional
TransportationRelated GHG
Targets.
SB 375. Cal. Public
Resources Code §§
21155, 21155.1,
21155.2, 21159.28
No Conflict. The Project would provide development in the region that is consistent with the growth projections in the 2020 RTP/SCS. The Project does not propose any dwelling units which would increase population .
The Project would result in additional employment
opportunities and foot traffic in the area. However, the Project is a retail project that is near major freeways and other services. By facilitating a development near existing public transit options and reducing single-passenger vehicle parking available on the Project Site, the Project would also reduce mobile-source GHG emissions. The Project would
generate 370 net daily trips and public transit will be locally accessible.
Goods Movement Goods Movement
Action Plan January
2007
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose any changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities or forms of transportation.
Medium/Heavy-Duty
Vehicle
2010 Amendments
to the Truck and Bus
Regulation, the
Drayage Truck
Regulation and the
Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulation
No Conflict. This measure applies to medium- and heavyduty vehicles that operate in the State. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Mediumand heavy-duty vehicles associated with Project construction would be required to comply with this
regulation.
High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862 Not Applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or Lead Agency.
Electricity and
Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance
Efficiency Regulation
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 28
Table 5: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Title 24 Part 6 Energy
Efficiency Standards
for Residential and
Non-Residential
Building
No Conflict. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure, as it would be subject to compliance with the latest energy efficiency standards.
Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Renewable Portfolio
Standard/Renewable
Electricity Standard.
2010 Regulation to
Implement the
Renewable Electricity
Standard (33% 2020)
No Conflict. The Project would obtain electricity from the electric utility, Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE obtained 30.9 percent of its power supply from renewable sources in 2020 and include 50 percent and 100 percent
renewable Green Rate options. Therefore, the utility would provide power to the Project that would be is comprised of a greater percentage of renewable sources.
Million Solar Roofs
Program
SB 350 Clean Energy
and Pollution
Reduction Act of
2015 (50% 2030)
Million Solar Roofs
Program
Tax Incentive
Program
No Conflict. This measure is to increase solar use
throughout California, which is being done by various
electricity providers and existing solar programs. The
program provides incentives that are in place at the time of construction.
Water Water Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
No Conflict. The Project would comply with the CALGreen Code, which require a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use.
SBX 7-7—The Water
Conservation Act of
2009
Model Water
Efficient Landscape
Ordinance
Green Buildings Green Building
Strategy
Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
No Conflict. The State is required to increase use of green building practices. The Project would implement required green building strategies through existing regulations that require the Project to comply with various CALGreen Code standards.
Industry Industrial Emissions 2018 CARB
Mandatory Reporting
Regulation
Not Applicable. The Mandatory Reporting Regulation
requires facilities and entities with more than 10,000
MTCO2e of combustion and process emissions, all facilities belonging to certain industries, and all electric power entities to submit an annual GHG emissions data report
directly to CARB. As shown above, although total Project GHG emissions would not exceed 3,000 MTCO2e, the Project is not considered a “facility” and the majority of these emissions are from mobile sources. Therefore, this
regulation would not apply.
Recycling and
Waste
Management
Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
No Conflict. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of these measures. The Project is required to achieve the recycling mandates via compliance with the CALGreen Code.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 29
Table 5: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
AB 341 Statewide 75
Percent Diversion
Goal
Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Offset
Projects
Not Applicable. The Project is in an area designated for urban uses. No forested lands exist on the site.
High Global
Warming
Potential
High Global
Warming Potential
Gases
CARB Refrigerant
Management
Program CCR 95380
No Conflict. The regulations are applicable to refrigerants used by large air conditioning systems and large commercial and industrial refrigerators and cold storage systems. The Project would not conflict with the refrigerant management regulations adopted by CARB.
Agriculture Agriculture Cap and Trade Offset
Projects for Livestock
and Rice Cultivation
Not Applicable. No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural activities that generate manure occur currently on site or are proposed by the Project.
Source: CARB, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008. 2022 California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy ZEV buses and trucks. Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road ZeroEmission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road DieselFueled Fleets Regulation, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap-and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.
As indicated above, GHG reductions are also achieved as a result of State of California energy and water efficiency requirements for new residential developments. These efficiency improvements correspond to reductions in secondary GHG emissions. For example, in California, most of the electricity that powers homes is derived from natural gas combustion. Therefore, energy saving measures, such as Title 24, reduces GHG emissions from the power generation facilities by reducing load demand.
As discussed above and identified in Table 4 and Table 5, the Project would be consistent with all applicable plan goals and applicable regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions generated by land use projects. The Project would be subject to compliance with all building codes in effect at the time of construction, which include energy conservation measures mandated by California Building Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 30
Standards Code Title 24 – Energy Efficiency Standards. Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high-efficiency lighting, high-efficiency HVAC systems, thermal insulation, double-glazed windows, water conserving plumbing fixtures), they indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle.
As shown in Table 3, approximately 97 percent of the Project’s emissions are from energy and mobile sources, which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan actions described above. The City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 96.7 percent of the Project’s total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to Statewide measures, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or State efforts to improve system efficiency. Compliance with applicable State standards (e.g., continuation of the Capand-Trade regulation; CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and Advanced Clean Truck Regulation; Executive Order N-79-20; SB 100: renewable electricity portfolio improvements that require 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045, etc.) would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts, including the 2022 Scoping Plan. It is also noted that the Project would not convert any Natural and Working Lands (NWL) and/or decrease the State’s urban forest carbon stock, which are areas of emphasis in the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Further, the Project includes residential land uses that would potentially reduce the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions.16 Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that Project operations would benefit from applicable measures enacted to meet State GHG reduction goals. The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. As such, impacts related to consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
In conclusion, the Project does not conflict with the applicable plans and regulatory programs that are discussed above and therefore with respect to this particular threshold, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.3 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Setting
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of one year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe. 16 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, 2010. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 31
Cumulative Impacts
It is generally the case that an individual project of the proposed Project’s size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Project-related GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. As discussed above, Project GHG emissions would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold and would not impede the achievement of Statewide 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Kimley»Horn
City of Beverly Hills 450 North Roxbury Drive Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
September 2024
Page | 32
6 REFERENCES
1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010.
2. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
3. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017.
4. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2022.
5. City of Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills General Plan, 2010.
6. City of Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills Sustainable City Plan, 2009.
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013.
9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014.
10. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Westside Purple Line Extension Section 2 Project December 2023 Quarterly Project Status Report, 2023,
11. National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010.
12. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020.
13. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2024 - 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2024.
14. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
15. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, 2009.
16. U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018.
17. U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, 2010.
18. U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2018.
19. U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2, 2016.
20. U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program, 2019.
21. U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026, 2021.
Kimley»Horn
Appendix A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
1 / 40
450 Roxbury Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.7. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
2 / 40
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
3 / 40
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
4 / 40
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
5 / 40
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
6 / 40
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
7 / 40
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 450 Roxbury
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 19.6
Location 450 N Roxbury Dr, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, USA County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Beverly Hills
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4308
EDFZ 16
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.25
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
8 / 40
Strip Mall 6.80 1000sqft 0.16 6,797 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.07 1000sqft < 0.005 0.00 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.63 0.53 5.19 7.11 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.26 0.20 0.01 0.21 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.02 0.21 1,377 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.30 3.27 5.19 7.09 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.35 0.20 0.04 0.21 — 1,369 1,369 0.06 0.02 0.02 1,375 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.45 0.38 3.67 5.03 0.01 0.15 0.04 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.15 — 960 960 0.04 0.01 0.07 964 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08 0.07 0.67 0.92 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 160
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
9 / 40
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.63 0.53 5.19 7.11 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.26 0.20 0.01 0.21 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.02 0.21 1,377 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.63 0.53 5.19 7.09 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.35 0.20 0.04 0.21 — 1,369 1,369 0.06 0.02 0.02 1,375 2026 3.30 3.27 4.86 7.04 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.23 0.17 0.01 0.18 — 1,367 1,367 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,373 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.45 0.38 3.67 5.03 0.01 0.15 0.04 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.15 — 960 960 0.04 0.01 0.07 964 2026 0.22 0.21 0.34 0.49 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 90.6 90.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.08 0.07 0.67 0.92 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 160 2026 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.0 15.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.1
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.47 1.37 0.77 8.88 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 4.81 2,059 2,064 0.60 0.09 6.67 2,111 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.41 1.30 0.84 8.03 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 4.81 1,976 1,981 0.60 0.09 0.21 2,023 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
10 / 40
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 1.43 1.33 0.85 8.42 0.02 0.01 1.75 1.76 0.01 0.44 0.46 4.81 1,999 2,003 0.60 0.09 2.90 2,048 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.26 0.24 0.15 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.80 331 332 0.10 0.01 0.48 339
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.26 1.16 0.76 8.58 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 — 1,979 1,979 0.11 0.08 6.63 2,013 Area 0.22 0.21 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.22 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 74.9 74.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.3 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96 3.25 4.22 0.10 < 0.005 — 7.41 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 0.00 3.85 0.38 0.00 — 13.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 1.47 1.37 0.77 8.88 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 4.81 2,059 2,064 0.60 0.09 6.67 2,111 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.24 1.14 0.83 8.03 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 — 1,898 1,898 0.11 0.09 0.17 1,926 Area 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 74.9 74.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.3 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96 3.25 4.22 0.10 < 0.005 — 7.41 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 0.00 3.85 0.38 0.00 — 13.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
11 / 40
Total 1.41 1.30 0.84 8.03 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 4.81 1,976 1,981 0.60 0.09 0.21 2,023 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.23 1.13 0.84 8.21 0.02 0.01 1.75 1.76 0.01 0.44 0.46 — 1,920 1,920 0.11 0.09 2.86 1,951 Area 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.84 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 74.9 74.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.3 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96 3.25 4.22 0.10 < 0.005 — 7.41 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 0.00 3.85 0.38 0.00 — 13.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 1.43 1.33 0.85 8.42 0.02 0.01 1.75 1.76 0.01 0.44 0.46 4.81 1,999 2,003 0.60 0.09 2.90 2,048 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.23 0.21 0.15 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 318 318 0.02 0.01 0.47 323 Area 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.54 0.70 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.23 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.06 0.00 — 2.23 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total 0.26 0.24 0.15 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.80 331 332 0.10 0.01 0.48 339
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
12 / 40
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.56 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.03 0.27 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.9 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.89 8.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.92 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 131 131 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 133 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
13 / 40
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.2 42.2 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 44.2 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.38 8.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.49 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.79 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.39 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.41 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46
3.3. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
14 / 40
Off-Road
Equipment
0.40 0.34 3.36 4.54 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 853 853 0.03 0.01 — 856 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.61 0.83 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 142 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 30.1 30.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 30.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.3 35.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 37.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.5 28.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.4 35.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 36.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.9 18.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 24.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.13 3.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.17 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83 3.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.99 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
15 / 40
3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.59 0.49 4.81 6.91 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.03 0.29 0.42 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.1 79.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 79.4 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
16 / 40
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 36.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.72 1.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.74 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.11 2.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
3.15 3.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
17 / 40
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings
0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
18 / 40
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 1.26 1.16 0.76 8.58 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 — 1,979 1,979 0.11 0.08 6.63 2,013 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.26 1.16 0.76 8.58 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 — 1,979 1,979 0.11 0.08 6.63 2,013 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 1.24 1.14 0.83 8.03 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 — 1,898 1,898 0.11 0.09 0.17 1,926 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.24 1.14 0.83 8.03 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 — 1,898 1,898 0.11 0.09 0.17 1,926 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.23 0.21 0.15 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 318 318 0.02 0.01 0.47 323 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
19 / 40
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.23 0.21 0.15 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 318 318 0.02 0.01 0.47 323
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 64.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 64.6 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 64.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 64.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 64.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 64.6 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 64.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 64.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
20 / 40
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.78 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.78 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.78 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.78
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
21 / 40
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.22 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Total 0.22 0.21 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.22 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
22 / 40
Landsca
Equipment
0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 Total 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96 3.25 4.22 0.10 < 0.005 — 7.41 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96 3.25 4.22 0.10 < 0.005 — 7.41 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96 3.25 4.22 0.10 < 0.005 — 7.41 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96 3.25 4.22 0.10 < 0.005 — 7.41 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.54 0.70 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.23 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.54 0.70 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.23 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
23 / 40
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 0.00 3.85 0.38 0.00 — 13.5 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 0.00 3.85 0.38 0.00 — 13.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 0.00 3.85 0.38 0.00 — 13.5 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 0.00 3.85 0.38 0.00 — 13.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.06 0.00 — 2.23 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.06 0.00 — 2.23
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
24 / 40
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
25 / 40
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
26 / 40
Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
27 / 40
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
28 / 40
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2025 1/31/2025 5.00 23.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/1/2025 1/31/2026 5.00 260 — 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
29 / 40
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2026 3/1/2026 5.00 20.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.61 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 2.18 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
30 / 40
Building Construction Vendor 1.11 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.44 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 10,196 3,399 4.50
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.0 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
31 / 40
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces < 0.005 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Strip Mall 370 370 370 135,085 2,495 2,495 2,495 910,843 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
32 / 40
0 0.00 10,196 3,399 4.50
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Strip Mall 67,675 346 0.0330 0.0040 33,469
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Strip Mall 503,471 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Strip Mall 7.14 —
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
33 / 40
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
34 / 40
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 7.73 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
35 / 40
Wildfire 0.30 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
36 / 40
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 58.2
AQ-PM 69.7
AQ-DPM 73.3
Drinking Water 49.6
Lead Risk Housing 26.7
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 74.0
Traffic 60.7
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
37 / 40
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 80.3
Groundwater 22.1
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 66.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 93.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 4.45
Cardio-vascular 18.3
Low Birth Weights 3.40
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 25.9
Housing 87.0
Linguistic 87.0
Poverty 33.8
Unemployment 70.9
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 68.24072886
Employed 40.65186706
Median HI 72.46246632
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 74.51559091
High school enrollment 4.709354549
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
38 / 40
Preschool enrollment 67.02168613
Transportation —
Auto Access 11.40767355
Active commuting 55.1777236
Social —
2-parent households 85.42281535
Voting 30.52739638
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 22.08392147
Park access 17.55421532
Retail density 98.83228538
Supermarket access 87.86090081
Tree canopy 61.15744899
Housing —
Homeownership 17.77235981
Housing habitability 14.69267291
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 3.464647761 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 49.04401386
Uncrowded housing 62.10701912
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 74.51559091
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 95.8
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
39 / 40
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 92.8
Cognitively Disabled 20.1
Physically Disabled 5.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 85.8
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 68.9
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 90.2
Elderly 3.7
English Speaking 10.3
Foreign-born 93.1
Outdoor Workers 95.0
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 17.3
Traffic Density 77.2
450 Roxbury Detailed Report, 7/2/2024
40 / 40
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 42.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 29.1
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 44.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 49.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases No site prep, grading, or paving; using provided construction total length of 14 months Operations: Vehicle Data Based on project trip generation Appendix F
Noise and Vibration Analysis
Kl^ley»>norn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040
MEMORANDUM
To: Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
From: Olivia Chan and Dharma Truong
Date: September 6, 2024
Subject: 450 North Roxbury Drive Project – Noise and Vibration Analysis Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to assess potential impacts due to noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and operations of the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project), located in the City of Beverly Hills (City), California.
Project Location
The Project would redevelop a 6,797 square foot portion of the ground floor of a five-floor, partially subterranean parking garage (the upper two levels are above ground) with rooftop parking located on a 0.8-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 4343-024-020) (Project Site); see Figure 1: Local Vicinity Map. The five-floor parking garage is attached to a 10-story, 155-foot-tall office building located on the northern portion of the same parcel, constructed in 1970. The parking garage and office building together are considered the Project Site; however, the remainder of the parking garage and the attached office building would not be redeveloped as part of this Project. The Project Site is bound by Santa Monica Boulevard to the north, Bram Goldsmith Way (an alley) to the east, an existing commercial building to the south, and North Roxbury Drive to the west. The Project Site is in the southwestern portion of the City, in Los Angeles County (County), approximately 3.0 miles north of Culver City and 8.5 miles west of downtown Los Angeles; see Figure 2: Regional Vicinity Map.
Project Description
The Project would convert a portion of the ground level of the existing parking garage to approximately 6,797 square feet of retail uses, split into four retail spaces ranging from 1,397 square feet to 1,841 square feet. The retail spaces would be accessed from the North Roxbury Drive street frontage. Storefront facades would consist of louvers, cast-in-place (CIP) concrete, and storefront glazing, with signage installed on top. Approximately 300 square feet of planter area would also be added; see Figure 3: Conceptual Site Plan.
Kimley»Horn
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2024
Bedford Dr
S Santa Monica Blvd
N Roxbury Dr
State Route 2
Brighton Way
Bram Goldsmith Way
FIGURE 1: Local Vicinty Map
450 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE PROJECT
Business Triangle
Project Site
Wilshire Blvd
Canon Drive
N Crescent Dr
AYR% Ls.' PWee ) • W X et), 1040 • hs 0 E
83 0
if . B
••. s •, V
y
Ai L. ar
3 "T" -l s t. f Y %
s
Y
' r
1 'w
.( %
A 5
", I ? . I $ 0 ...
*
A
“Isd vei w
A
v* s %
p A .. '
*
% 5
Y 2 3 UN 5 st 5 -t e / ‘o
- Ji vx A S
*
a . t
A ? s.
dg
s. ). s
AX
* A. v‘% or Y
.7 1Z ri Aw A
1 4
4 ■
V
Me’t’
Kimley>»Horn
‘‘s V4
)
Ne
t
iro
□
□
/ .■ //
4 ■ .
S%gk 4
3 -1 e
V.
N
1st 2
e
f.%, ■ Nwe *es r
d
V / Ss
‘h -
50 2
& *
:4s
X..
a%
♦ Y e"
254
&a
1,
' -‘y
wrV, S * Xde
P
yi St
..
o
Y
«.s
%i l
5 “V
C
2 V
*. MssA
• a • )2wee ‘a “
ll
a
va
y —ly.
".Y
X. A "
s.
Fs
z-w
Pat’ Y
e’V .
e s 6:
AT. fe
V.
1 vgos
S\ *
*a- n r. A Le
Arg
, 40 ewet
te.g
C
by
0Ropr.
3M
i "*
SOURCE: Nearmap, 2024
FIGURE 2: Regional Vicinty Map
450 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE PROJECT
Project Site
and Business
Business Triangle
Project Site
Cienega Historic
Leimert
Arlington
Heights
Harvard
Heights
Jefferson
Park
2O
%
Hollywood
Wall me
Larchmont
Fairfax
Central
Hollywood
West
Hollywood
Runyon
Park
Hollywood
Hills West
Wilshire
Country Club
Hollywood- ■
Forever
Memorial Park
Beverly
Grove
%
s
%
Jefferson
PicoUnion
Rosedale
Cemetery
Exposition
Park
University of
Southern •
California i
University
Park
/
2 f
- —T
Tropico
Atwater
G
o
LOS
%
8 0. Los Feliz )
D
C. O
Edendale
101
a
%, %4
Silver
Lake
Echo
Park
Elysian
Park
Dodger
Stadium
Silver Lake
Reservoir
East
Hollywood
9C
(D5
c9
%
Forest Lawn
Memorial
Park
%
Elysian
Va 1 (
Cs
o rel
4.“odifwy.
Sr. “orO,
4 $
Hollywood -
Sign View
Point Q
Mid City
anta Monica.EWy
McManus
Sentous
Kenneth Hahn
West
Adams
Blair
Hills
Wilshire Blvd oo
Koreatown
Carthay
Los Angeles
G
Z
Windsor
Square
Rampart
Village
Mi
Jun Park La
Brea
Hancock
Park
Nose la
MidWilshire MacArthur
Park
%
a
Bel Air
lvd
Mt wil
an Nuys Burbank ltadena
,Cal Beverlywood a lenc Ar ac? Topanga
Los Ai
Malibu
Montebello City 7 • - Huntington Pico
Park 8 Rivera Inglewood
Hawthorne (
Junction Comptor
(6 Beach
Torrance
Cy Lomita
ing
Beach
larkdale
Lower
Franklin
Reservoir
Rancho
Palos
Beverly
Glen
Westwood
Village
Culver
City
Stone Canyon
Reservoir
Santa
Monica
Los Angeles
Country Club
Fryman
Canyon
Park
University of
California-LA
Seal
Roar li Park
East
Century
City
Beverly
Crest
Bel-Air
Country
Club
Santa Monica
Mtns National
Rec Area
PicoRobertson
Beverly
Hills
6 scenta
Beverly
Hills
San Gabriel
•I
□
Kimley»Horn
(N,
o Ol
s Alameda St
S
s
O
S Western Ave N western Ave
SOURCE: HLW International LLP, 2024
FIGURE 3: Conceptual Site Plan
450 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE PROJECT
0U
33'-9 3/4"
-25' -8" -24'
STALLS &*
A CESSIBLE PARI
CD
&&
0/////////7
Restroom Restroom
— 03B |
57 SF 57 SF
Tenant Space Tenant Space
1,397 SF 1,602 SF
Restroom
| 02B }
57 SF
Tenant Space I 03
1,602 SF 6
Restroom F
57 SF
Tenant Space I
1,841 SF
02 1'
102 SF
T I T I
9 TANDEM & 9 SINGLE PARKING STALLS
24-61/2" 1 PARKING
J 1
13' - 3 3/4" Total Area = 6,797 SF 7
Stair
05 110SF
Ql 240'-0"
25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25’-0" 25'-0" I
04B
04 DDX
3'-0" Setback
Property Line
Stair
5'-0" 9' -0"
9 1
. O' 51 - 0" 91 - 0"
27 TOTAL PARKING STALLS ON LEVEL 1
336 TOTAL PARKING STALLS IN BUILDING
Parking Garage
06 I
Not Enclosed
z*
A
■■
T
C
4 EXISTING TO REMAIN AP V
Generator 11
221 SF
Trash 12
195 SF
4 Fire Pump
13 1
391 SF
&
d &. &. &.
CD
5 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS
OO
EXISTING TO REMAIN
V
1/2"- -24-61/2" -35'-7 1/2" 20'-0"7
1 -6
KIIKIIII
Existing striped access aisle from
ADA parking to Roxbury Drive.
C
LO
(E) OFFICE BUILDING
NOT IN SCOPE
01B
Kimley»Horn
y I
45'-0 3/4'
>
68‘-5"
68'-11 3/4
I
26'-5 1/4'8'-8 1/4 1 10'-7" 42'-11 1/2' 21 -7 3/4'
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 The Applicant is requesting a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) to allow an increase in the maximum FAR as a result of the conversion of the ground level of an existing parking structure abutting a public street to retail business(es), as defined in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-100, up to a depth of 70 feet from the front property line, subject to approval of a Development Plan Review pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3100.1In compliance with the proposed ZTA and GPA, the Project is proposing a conversion of 6,797 square feet of an existing parking structure, resulting in a new total of 103,647 square feet of proposed floor area. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2745, the maximum allowable floor area for the Project Site is 72,960 square feet.
Therefore, the 6,797 square feet conversion is approximately 9.3 percent of the existing building square footage (96,850 square feet) and would be less than 10 percent of the maximum allowable floor area for the site.
The Project would remove 29 existing parking spaces (including 24 single parking spaces and five tandem parking spaces) on the ground floor and restripe the remaining ground level of parking to replace the 3 ADA spaces, which would be relocated to be adjacent to the northeastern end of the proposed retail spaces. Vehicular access to the Project Site would continue to be provided via the two existing in/out driveways on North Roxbury Drive. Pedestrian access would continue to be provided via the existing sidewalk along North Roxbury Drive. The Project would not modify the existing driveways and sidewalk.
A new mechanical split heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system would be installed above the ceilings of the retail spaces. A new rooftop HVAC unit would be provided immediately south of an existing HVAC unit on the rooftop of the parking garage. The Project would also install four 5- ton heat pump condensers along the western edge of the rooftop. An automated sprinkler system would also be installed within the retail spaces for fire protection purposes, including a fire pump on the eastern portion of the Project Site.
Project construction would include the demolition of the existing building façade, flooring, and planters, building construction, and architectural coatings. Demolition activities would require the use of haul trucks. No grading or excavation will be required to construct this Project. Project construction is anticipated to begin as early as January 2025 and would be completed as early as February 2026.
Construction of the Project is estimated to require approximately 14 months.
Noise Background
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been 1 The ZTA and GPA would apply to the entire Business Triangle of the City; however, future projects that would seek to utilize the ZTA and GPA would be subject to environmental review at such time.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of various distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. For example, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time; thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
The Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. and an additional 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Noise and Vibration Standards
There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the Project. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 1919 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted regulations designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational noise exposure. These regulations list permissible noise level exposure as a function of the amount of time during which the worker is exposed. The regulations further specify a hearing conservation program that involves monitoring the noise to which workers are exposed, ensuring that workers are made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically testing the workers’ hearing to detect any degradation.
State of California Noise Standards
The State of California does not have standards for environmental noise, but the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has established general plan guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. 2 The purpose of these guidelines is
to maintain acceptable noise levels in a community setting for different land use types. Noise 2 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines, page 374, 2017, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2024.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 compatibility by different land use types is categorized into four general levels: “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable.” For instance, a noise environment ranging from 50 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses, while a noise environment of 75 dBA CNEL or above for multi-family residential uses is considered to be “clearly unacceptable. In addition, California Government Code Section 65302(f) requires each county and city in the State to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development, with California Government Code Section 65302(f) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels.
Groundborne Vibration
The California Department of Transportation’ (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual provides thresholds of vibration for human annoyance. Based on the Caltrans criteria, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.5 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at older residential structures, which is the limit for potential building damage at these structures.3
City of Beverly Hills General Plan
The City of Beverly Hills Noise Standards are developed from those of several federal and State agencies including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and the State of California Department of Health Services. These standards set limits on the noise exposure level for various land uses. As with the California Noise Standards described above, these General Plan standards are related to the siting of land uses and are not typically used as thresholds of significance for determining noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. However, the standards do provide a means for judging whether an existing noise environment would be compatible with development of a new noisesensitive land use or whether a new use would create an incompatible noise environment for existing noise-sensitive uses. The City of Beverly Hills General Plan (BHGP) provides noise and land use compatibly criteria in Noise Element Table N-2 (Table 1: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix). 3 Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2020.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 Table 1: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential (Low-Density Single
Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes)
50 – 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 85
Residential (Multiple Family) 50 – 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 70 - 85 Transient Lodging (Hotel, Motel) 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80-85 Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 60 – 85
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator
Sports
NA 50 - 75 NA 65 - 85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 NA 67.5 – 75.5 70 - 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
50 - 70 NA 70 - 80 72.5 - 85
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional 50 – 75 67.5 – 77.5 75 - 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture
50 - 75 70 - 80 75 - 85 NA
NA: Not Applicable; dBA: Decibel
Notes:
Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, assuming buildings are of conventional construction.
Conditionally Acceptable – New development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements are made.
Normally Unacceptable – New development should be discouraged, or a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made.
Clearly Unacceptable – New development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: City of Beverly Hills, Beverly City General Plan, Appendix B: Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines, Table N 2: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix, 2010.
Source: State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines, page 374, 2017, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2024 The compatibility criteria presented in Noise Element Table N-2 (Table 1: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix) above indicate that residential (multiple family) land uses are considered “Normally Acceptable” with noise levels below 65 dBA Ldn, “Conditionally Acceptable” with noise levels between 60-70 dBA Ldn, normally unacceptable with noise levels between 70-75 dBA Ldn, and clearly unacceptable between 70-85 dBA Ldn.
Residential dwellings are a concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as schools, churches, and libraries are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are a church and residential communities located approximately 350 feet northwest of the Project Site.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 Beverly Hills General Plan
The Noise Element of the General Plan provides specific objectives to ensure that City residents will be protected from excessive noise. The following policies are applicable to the Project:
Policy N 1.1 Revise the noise regulations of the Municipal Code to eliminate current ambient noise level standards in residential and commercial areas and replace them with Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix (Appendix B [of the Noise Element]), to govern acceptable levels of noise for specific land uses and provide a baseline for mitigating land uses that exceed acceptable noise levels.
Policy N 1.2 Consider developing standards for new high-density residential development that adequately minimize noise between adjacent units within the development and between the development and adjacent buildings through the use of design features and building materials such as orientation, window insulation, common wall separation, common floor/ceilings separation.
Policy N 1.3 Limit hours of commercial and entertainment operations adjacent to residential neighborhoods and other noise-sensitive receptors in order to minimize exposure to excessive noise.
Policy N 1.4 Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential neighborhoods and other noise-sensitive receptors in order to minimize exposure to excessive noise, unless there is no feasible alternative or there are overriding transportation benefits by scheduling deliveries at other hours Policy N 1.5 Require noise mitigation measures for noise-sensitive receptors when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in CNEL, as shown in the table below
Policy N 1.6 In Beverly Hills, it is against the law to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on any building, structure, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist, or other construction type devices, between the hours of 6:00 P.M. of one day and 8:00 A.M. of the next day, or at any time on any public holiday so as to cause discomfort or annoyance in a residential zone, unless beforehand a permit therefore has been obtained.
Policy N 2.1 Require that the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses within the 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL (and higher) roadway contours demonstrate that the project will meet interior and exterior noise standards. Require the use of interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, to achieve required standards.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 Policy N 3.1 Continue to enforce interior and exterior noise standards to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources such as machinery, equipment, fans, and air conditioning equipment Policy N 3.2 Continue to regulate the use of sound-amplifying equipment.
Policy N.4.1 Continue to enforce restrictions on hours of construction activity to minimize the impact of noise and vibration from trucks, heavy drilling equipment, and other heavy machinery on adjacent noise-sensitive receptors, particularly in and near residential areas.
City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code
City of Beverly Hills City Municipal Code (BHMC) Title 5, Chapter 1, Noise Regulations provides specific noise restrictions and exemptions for noise sources within the City. BHMC Section 5-1-205 states that construction activity shall be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. any day, or at any time on Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday without an after hours permit pursuant to subsection C.
Noise level at the property line shall not exceed the ambient noise level by more than five decibels.
Existing Noise Levels
Mobile noise sources, especially cars, trucks motorcycles, and aircrafts, are the City’s most common and substantial noise sources. The existing mobile noise sources in the Project area are the motor vehicles traveling on Santa Monica Boulevard, Bram Goldsmith Way, North Roxbury Drive, and State Route 2 (SR-2). The primary stationary noise sources in the Project vicinity are those associated with the surrounding residential uses. Such stationary noise sources include mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment), moving vehicles, music playing, dogs barking, and people talking. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise.
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted one long-term noise measurement on July 9, 2024; see Appendix A: Noise Data. The noise measurement site was representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project Site.
The 24-hour measurement was taken between 8:04 A.M. on July 9, 2024 to 8:04 A.M. on July 10, 2024. Measurements of Leq are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day, and summarized in Table 2: Existing Noise Measurement, below. The sources of noise measured at each location are shown on Figure 4: Noise Measurement Location.
Table 2: Existing Noise Measurement
Location Day (dBA Leq) Night (dBA Leq)
Time
Along North Roxbury Drive 64.1 59.7 July 9, 2024 8:04 A.M. – July 10, 2024 8:04 A.M.
Source: Noise measurement taken by Kimley-Horn, July 9, 2024. See Appendix A for noise measurement results.
Kimley»Horn
SOURCE: Google Earth, 20
450 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE PROJECT
1000 ft
Willshire Blvd
Bedford Dr
S Santa Monica Blvd
N Roxbury Dr
Project Site
Noise Monitor
State Route 2
Brighton Way
Bram Goldsmith Way
FIGURE 4: Noise Measurement Location
P
—7
A-4 e “A9 2 4.17 t s -C. 2
5 1
-- 1
tj S ?
1 s NC Be s ' S % e Ahi 4 s e s
' f Ct s q
-
?.
6. We 76
d
4 . ...
A '■
k < v .4. s
43 t d 7
ig
0 ‘ .. x
%
v
Mi ISA ■
T
x
Py y
■ « < t A ae A
_... A“) Sx *♦3 . X ’8) N v 9
3 3
) "S. A <S
N so %
N
53, • A
22 t
'4.
i . M. w X
112 it • 3 CR T
P he .
-Illill 11 ,9 MudII7
a Y
Mb
[ (le —1 K K
et usy
■ L“r357
3 98-888 9
3 89ee
?%
t F TCP
1 1 9 □
’APl ■ 3
Is X - 9.5 t h
eba7t. 1
( ...
'8 - 4
1 3 । II.
1, Em
1 % C rih
■
IIi
[a en
____
Uam
da
KimleyHorn
J
I—a'
:!
k <
.33
* ) 7 . 0 -
. <
(09
ey
<
*2
2. E9
Eat
IL
118
-so".
Vr.
-s
Ge, •
= pi
724 wh.s
Y
2. ’g20
2 * *’
—
U’s
0 122 "a ne Rd
-0“a
247
S%
muny mwuc. eSrw= mmmol.o "dempr
7."
.XF. /
) See
e)
B I I 010 helll”
thJ
V
’y
6 11
Ses
y ■ w
P ■
f ....N
39 If
Sy
n". a
SA5 <
I
Pod C 3
5. -e G%
<o0
h
noomeas
y
y
"es..
. 2
t
Pew "ys
a* a
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect varying noise sensitivities associated with uses. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site consist mostly of a church and residential communities located approximately 350 northwest of the Project Site.
Construction Noise
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction. Noise generated by construction equipment can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the noise-sensitive receptors near the construction site.
The proposed construction activities would require tractors, concrete saws, and dozers during demolition; cranes, forklifts, and tractors during building construction; and air compressors during architectural coatings. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).
Noise generated by construction equipment, including dozers, excavators, loaders, forklifts, and air compressors, can reach high levels. Lmax is the maximum level of a noise source environment and is often used as a threshold value for typical noise levels of construction activities. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 3: Typical Construction Noise Levels.
Table 3: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 50 feet from Source Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 Table 3: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 50 feet from Source Saw 76
Shovel 82
Truck 84
1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2) Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Daytime construction noise is not typically a concern for human health and is a common occurrence within the urban environment. The impact analysis is based on the potential temporary increase in ambient noise and the construction time limits in the BHMC Section 5-1-205 including the allowable hours of hours of construction. Construction activity would occur within the allowable hours of construction including Mondays through Fridays 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Construction is prohibited outside of these hours and on holidays.
The FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the worst-case construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the Project Site during construction. All construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously and at the center of the Project Site to represent a worst-case noise scenario, as construction activities would routinely be spread throughout the construction site and would operate at different intervals. The modeled receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses to Project construction activities.
Noise levels at other sensitive receptors surrounding the Project Site would be located further away and would experience lower construction noise levels than the closest receptors modeled. Table 4:
Project Construction Noise Levelsshows estimated exterior daytime noise levelsfor each construction phase at the closest receptors without accounting for attenuation from intervening barriers, structures, or topography.
Although the noise generated by Project construction would be higher than ambient noise levels, which may result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, construction would be temporary and cease once Project construction is completed. Construction activities would comply with BHMC Section 5-1-205 and would be prohibited outside the hours of Mondays through Fridays 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. While construction may cause short-term annoyance to adjacent uses, it would be Table 4: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase Land Use
Receptor Location
Direction
Distance
(feet)1
Exterior Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Demolition Residential/ Church Northwest 410 68.2
Building Construction Residential/ Church Northwest 410 67.7 Architectural Coating Residential/ Church Northwest 410 55.4
1. Per the methodology described in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), distances are measured from the nearby buildings to the center of the Project construction site.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix A for noise modeling results.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 temporary and restricted to the hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance. In addition, BHMC Section 5-1-205 states that construction work is prohibited any time on Saturdays within a residential zone or within five hundred feet of a residential zone unless issued an after hours construction permit.
Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
Project implementation would introduce new noise sources in the Project vicinity. The Project’s primary noise sources that could potentially impact nearby noise-sensitive land uses include mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC, etc.) and trash/recycling truck pickup noise.
Mechanical Equipment
Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term Project operations include mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment). Mechanical equipment typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet.4 Noise has a decay rate due to distance attenuation, which is calculated based on the Inverse Square Law of sound propagation. Based upon the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the noise source. Typically, a 5 dBA change in noise levels is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.5 HVAC equipment would be installed on the roof the Project Site south of an existing HVAC unit. The nearest sensitive receptors would be located 250 feet northwest from the HVAC equipment. As indicated in Table 5: On-Site Composite Noise Levels, noise levels from mechanical equipment at the Project Site would be 38.0 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses to the northwest and would notresult in increases of 5 dBA Leq over ambient conditions. Furthermore, HVAC equipment operations currently occur under existing conditions and would not be a new noise source. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning mechanical equipment noise levels.
Trash/Recycling Truck Pickups
During loading and unloading activities of trash and recycling pickups, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities, as well as the opening and closing of the trash/recycling bins. Trash/recycling truck pickup noise is typically 41.4 dBA Leq at 50 feet.6The trash room is located on the ground level. It is conservatively assumed that trash/recycling would occur along North Roxbury Drive, approximately 250 feet southeast of the nearest sensitive receptor (when measured from the trash room location rather than the parking lot boundary). Trash/recycling truck pickup noise would attenuate to approximately 27.4 dBA at the nearest noise receptors. As indicated in Table 5, noise levels from trash/recycling truck 4 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015.
5 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, and FHWA, Noise Fundamentals, 2017.
6 Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 pickup at the Project Site would not result in increases of 5 dBA Leq over ambient conditions at the nearest affected sensitive receptors. In addition, trash/recycling truck pickup activity servicing the Project area currently occurs under existing conditions and would not be a new noise source. The hours of trash/recycling pick up activity would be dependent on the service provider and not be regulated by the Project. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning trash/recycling truck pickup noise levels.
Composite On-Site Noise Levels
An evaluation of the combined noise levels from the Project’s various operational noise sources (i.e., composite noise level) was conducted to conservatively ascertain the potential maximum Projectrelated noise level increase that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. In general, an increase of 3 dBA is considered to be barely perceptible, and a 5 dBA change in noise levels is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. Table 5 details the on-site noise levels from the Project Site at the nearest residential uses located approximately 250 feet away from mechanical and trash/recycling activities. As shown in Table 5, the composite on-site operational noise attributable to the Project would not increase ambient conditions at the residential uses.
Composite noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s (3 dBA) annoyance criteria or the City’s (65 dBA CNEL) standard for exterior noise. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Table 5: On-Site Composite Noise Levels
Receptor
Maximum On-Site Noise
Levels by Source (dBA Leq)
Combined
Noise Level
at
Receptor
(dBA Leq)
Ambient
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
1 Ambient +
Combined
Project
Noise
(dBA Leq)
Incremental
Increase
over
Ambient
(dBA Leq)
Mechanical
Equipment
Trash/
Recycling
Residential Community 38.0 27.4 38.4 64.1 64.1 0.0
1. See Table 2 for measured ambient noise level.
Construction Traffic Noise
In addition to on-site construction noise, the project would generate mobile-source noise from delivery/haul trucks and construction workers traveling to and from the Project Site during the project’s construction. In general, a 3‐dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. Traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to generate a barely perceptible 3‐dBA increase.7
Haul trucks would travel to and from the Project Site using North Roxbury Drive. Haul and delivery trucks and construction workers are expected to arrive at the Project Site before construction starts 7 According to the California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013), it takes a doubling of traffic to create a noticeable (i.e., 3 dBA) noise increase.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 and leave when construction ends, and thus, would not overlap with the noise generated by the project’s construction equipment. It is reasonable to assume that workers would already have arrived at the Project Site to begin demolition activities prior to the arrival of haul trucks. The greatest contributor to on-road traffic noise during construction would be haul trucks arriving from SR-2 to the Project Site along North Roxbury Drive. Therefore, this analysis only considers noise generated by haul trucks. According to modeling assumptions included in the air quality assessment prepared by KimleyHorn in July 2024, the construction phase with the highest assumed number of haul trucks would be demolition, when it is assumed there would be up to 1 daily haul truck trip accessing the Project Site.
Assuming that 1 haul truck would pass through the roadway segment along North Roxbury Drive within a 15-minute period, the estimated noise level from the demolition phase haul truck trips would be 48.5 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The estimated worst-case noise level would not result in increases of 5 dBA Leq over ambient conditions or increases above the barely perceivable (3dBA) criteria. In addition, 1 daily haul truck trip would not double existing traffic volumes along North Roxbury Drive and thus would not increase noise levels compared to existing conditions.
Therefore, noise impacts from construction traffic would be less than significant.
Mobile Traffic Noise
The Project is anticipated to generate 370 net daily trips.8In general, a 3‐dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. Traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to generate a barely perceptible 3‐dBA increase.9 Roxbury Drive (the primary access roadway to the Project Site) has an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 6,286 vehicles. 10 The Project would result
in approximately 370 net daily trips, which would not double the existing traffic volumes on North Roxbury Drive. Therefore, the Project would not result not result in increases of 5 dBA Leq over ambient conditions or increases above the barely perceivable (3dBA) criteria. Noise impacts from Project-related traffic noise would be less than significant.
Vibration
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Project construction could result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.
The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human 8 The Project’s daily vehicle trips are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
9 According to the California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013), it takes a doubling of traffic to create a noticeable (i.e., 3 dBA) noise increase. 10 Replica HQ, Annual Average Daily Traffic 2023 for the City of Beverly Hills, https://www.replicahq.com/, accessed July 2024.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040 perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. The City has not adopted specific standards for vibration impacts during construction. Therefore, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) is used to evaluate construction vibration impacts related to potential building damage. As the closest structure is a commercial building, this evaluation uses the Caltrans architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at commercial buildings of 0.5 in/sec PPV and the severe human annoyance criterion of 0.4 in/sec PPV.
Table 6: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels identifies vibration velocity levels at 25 feet and at the nearest receptor for the type of equipment likely to operate at the Project Site during construction. As the Project would redevelop an attached parking lot into a commercial space, demolition, grading, and paving would not occur. Furthermore, construction activities would occur as close as 1 foot from an adjacent building. Due to existing site restrictions, a large bulldozer would not be utilized during construction.
Table 6: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 1 foot (in/sec)1
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.375
Structure Damage Threshold 0.5 0.5
Exceeds Threshold? No No
1 Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
As shown in Table 6, the vibration velocities from construction would not exceed the Caltrans’s architectural damage criterion (0.5 in/sec PPV) or human annoyance criterion (0.4 in/sec PPV) at 1 foot from the Project Site. Construction activities would occur throughout the Project Site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest building/structure. Therefore, the frequency of vibration events would be intermittent and temporary. The vibration impact from the construction equipment would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The Project’s construction and operational noise and vibration levels would not exceed applicable City or Caltrans standards. The Project would result in less than significant construction and operational noise and vibration impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Kimley»Horn
kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040
REFERENCES
1. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, and FHWA, Noise Fundamentals, 2017.
2. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013)
3. Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2020
4. Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015.
5. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
6. Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.
7. Replica HQ, Annual Average Daily Traffic 2023 for the City of Beverly Hills, https://www.replicahq.com/.
8. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines, page 374, 2017,
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf.
Kimley»Horn
Appendix A
Noise Data
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Job Number: 099867003
Site No.: Date: 7/9-7/10 2024
Analyst: Time:
Location:
Noise Sources:
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
62.9 43.5 87.7 111.6
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 67 Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 5
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 29.82
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 70%
Photo:
Equipment Weather
450 N Roxbury
LT-1
Kennedy Caudle and Ciara Anderson
Planter box on project site
Traffic along N Roxbury Drive and S Santa Monica Blvd
24-hour noise measurement
ht 9 w
i
h" ar
t
Su
s'
f et
“We
y KimleyHorn
V A
tyl
*
ry-7
Yd
.. (
' h"' '
k"a,
w"as
*a",
• al \
•i*l P
yow —sle
— TH ,"uta
ttaj
f hy huw ANs u lau, htaMy,
tEMAS
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST_.050.s Computer's File Name LxTse_0005586-20240709 080452-ST_.050.ldbin Meter LxT SE 0005586 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-07-09 08:04:52 Duration 24:00:00.0
End Time 2024-07-10 08:04:52 Run Time 24:00:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2024-07-08 15:29:24 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq
62.9 dB
LAE 112.3 dB SEA --- dB
EA 18.7 mPa²h
LApeak 111.6 dB 2024-07-09 12:08:24
LASmax
87.7 dB 2024-07-09 10:31:13
LASmin 43.5 dB 2024-07-10 02:23:40
LAeq 62.9 dB
LCeq 74.8 dB LCeq - LAeq 11.9 dB
LAIeq 65.8 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.9 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 10 0:00:18.2
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
67.1 dB 64.1 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
67.4 dB 64.5 dB 61.8 dB 59.7 dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 62.9 dB 74.8 dB --- dB
Ls(max) 87.7 dB 2024-07-09 10:31:13 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 43.5 dB 2024-07-10 02:23:40 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 111.6 dB 2024-07-09 12:08:24 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 68.0 dB
LAS 10.0 65.6 dB
LAS 33.3 61.6 dB
LAS 50.0 59.6 dB
LAS 66.6 56.3 dB
LAS 90.0 47.1 dB
Project: 450 N Roxbury
Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Construction Hours: Daytime hours (8 am to 6 pm) 11
Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm) 0
Nighttime hours (6 pm to 8 am) 0
Leq to L10 factor 3
Receptor (Land Use)
Average
Distance
(feet)
Distance
to
Property
Line (feet) Shielding Direction
1 Residential Community/Church 350 410 0 NW
RECEPTOR 1
Construction Phase Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Acoustica
l Usage
Factor
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft per Unit,
Lmax
Distance
(feet)
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Lmax
Noise Level
at Receptor 1,
Leq
Demolition
Concrete Saw 1 20% 90 410 71.3 64.3
Tractor 2 40% 84 410 68.7 64.8
Dozer 1 40% 82 410 63.4 59.4
Combined LEQ 68.2
Building Construction
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 1 50% 85 410 66.7 63.7
Tractor 2 40% 84 410 68.7 64.8
Crane 2 16% 81 410 65.3 57.4
Combined LEQ 67.7
Architectural Coating
Compressor (air) 1 40% 78 59.4 55.4 410
Combined LEQ 55.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: RCNM, 2005
1 I
1 Appendix G
Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18
Communications
Kl^ley>»HOrn
July 9, 2024
Cahuilla Band of Indians
BobbyRay Esaprza, Cultural Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA 92539
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Director BobbyRay Esaprza:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA 92539
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Officer Anthony Madrigal:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Erica Schenk, Chairperson
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA 92539
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Chairperson Erica Schenk:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Christina Swindall Martinez, Secretary
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Secretary Christina Swindall Martinez:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Chairperson Andrew Salas:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA 91778
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Chairperson Anthony Morales:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Cultural Resource Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA 93094
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Administrator Christina Conley:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA 90707
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Chairperson Robert Dorame:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso Street, #231
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Chairperson Sandonne Goad:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez, Chairperson
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA 91307
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Chairperson Charles Alvarez:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource Director
P.O. Box 3919
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Director Sam Dunlap:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Steven Estrada, Tribal Chairman
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA 92539
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Chairman Steven Estrada:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Vanessa Minott, Tribal Administrator
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA 92539
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Administrator Vanessa Minott:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Officer Joseph Ontiveros:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
July 9, 2024
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (CEQA) and Senate Bill 18 for the 450 North Roxbury Drive Project, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California Honorable Specialist Jessica Valdez:
The City of Beverly Hills (City) is preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed 450 North Roxbury Drive Project (Project). The Project is located at 450 North Roxbury Road in the City of Beverly Hills within Township 1 South and Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Project area is currently developed and contains a high-rise office building and attached parking garage. The Project area is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential development and is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd./SR-2 to the northwest, Bram Goldsmith Way to the northeast, North Roxbury Drive to the southwest, and a medical office to the southeast. The Project proposes to rehabilitate a portion of the first floor of the existing garage into four retail spaces totaling approximately 6,797 square feet. The Project would retain the parking spaces on the two below ground levels, the northern portion of the ground floor, the entirety of the second above-ground level, and entirety of the roof, as well as retain the vehicle entries and exits on the east and west ends of the garage. The Project Site is fully built out, and no further ground disturbance at the Project Site is contemplated by the Project.
The proposed Project must comply with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52 of 2014), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified by lead agencies of proposed Projects in the geographic area with which the Tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated for the purpose of identifying any known or potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and must also comply with California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4 (Senate Bill [SB] 18), which requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to the adoption or amendment of a City or County general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposed Project. As such, this letter serves as notification to your Tribe of the proposed Project and an invitation to consult on the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
Your Tribe’s input is important to the City of Beverly Hills’ planning process. As such, this letter includes a vicinity and local map of the Project area. While the Tribe has 30 days under the provisions of AB 52 and Goc
ABEVERLV?
HILLS
90 days under the provisions of SB 18 to respond with a request to consult on the Project, the City kindly requests an expedited response for a request to consult under SB 18 and AB 52. Specifically, the City requests that both requests for consultation be provided within the 30 day response timeline accorded for AB 52.
Once again, the City deeply values your input on the Project and its potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) or cultural places on the landscape. If you require any additional information to support your review of the Project or have any questions, please contact me at (310) 285-1136 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Minjee Hahm, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Enclosed:
Project Vicinity Map
Local Project Area Map
126
126 N
Project Vicinity
14 VD
118
VD
“I
Is
Pasadena.
nta Monica 110
Mountains
U
Los Ange
187
Santa Monica
“I V
Huntington Park
O
VID
South Gate
o
“I
□
k 7 m Y
dondo Beach " (
/ A -
7 \ N 7
Redondo
0 N
A □ “D
Rancho Palos
lia State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, 2.51.25 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 USFWS
East Los
Angeles
National
reation Area
Santa Clarita
o
Burbank
P
Glendale
o
Long Beach
o
Simi Valley
o
Inglewood
o
Beverly Hills
o
0 Malibu
o
La Canada
Flintridge
o \
San Fernando
o
213
Topanga State
Park
Calabasas
O
Verdes County of Los Angeles, alif
“SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NA^TUSGS, Bureau of Land Management, ERA, NPS, Magic Mountain
Wilderness Area
GProject Area
14 %
s
**
h r
2 se "SMFr*. , Xi < 3
t
<
(
TY
2 eel
Y
J3 $ ca
1. A e
$e A
5 Al
■ TS
%
1 1
4K r
th w a
——d Esri‘@3
20 10 0 20 40
O[
, SuiGG.xplt, Ip
0O = r
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USWS, MaE IM osoft
80 Meters
___
60 N
A P v
'" L----------k ‘
G, “O
I
les
WftsW
T .2
Pets
S
\ \ \ ✓ V
ommunity Maps Contributors, County tof T__
IWiRireBTSs, (tcroxof; Eri, Tornio:, Gsh
tlogias, Onic, MLOI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Msosgaunant, EPA. mTha" .
Appendix H
Responses to Comments on the Draft
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Klmley>»HOrn
450 North Roxbury Drive Project Responses to Comments on the City of Beverly Hills Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page i October 2024
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSE TO COMMENTS..........................................................3
1.1 CEQA Process .......................................................................................................................3
1.2 Notice of Determination .......................................................................................................3
2.0 COMMENT LETTERS ...................................................................................................4
3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.......................................................................................7 Kimley»)Horn
450 North Roxbury Drive Project Responses to Comments on the City of Beverly Hills Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page ii October 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Kimley»)Horn
450 North Roxbury Drive Project Reponses to Comments on the City of Beverly Hills Initial Study/Negative Declaration