Agenda packet, closed session, first session — Inglewood City Council, July 8, 2025 (part 12 of 22)

2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Properties surrounding the Project Site have a land use and zoning designation of TOD Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1) to the west, General Commercial (C-2) to the northwest, Residential Multiple Family (R-4) to the north, Heavy Commercial (C-3) to the northeast, Light Manufacturing (M-1) and Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2) to the east, and Transportation Corridor (T-C) to the south. Additionally, properties with a land use and zoning designation of TOD Mixed-Use 2 (M-2) are approximately 0.06 mile west of the Project Site, across N. La Brea Avenue, and with a designation of Residential Multiple Family (R-4) are approximately 0.05 mile south of the Project Site, across E. Florence Avenue. The Metro K-Line Downtown Inglewood Station is directly south of Project Site and accessible via E. Florence Avenue.

33ADOPTED OCT. 2016
La Brea Av.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

Forum
La Brea Av.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

Forum
La Brea Av.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

Forum
Plazas
TOD Mixed Use 1 (MU-1)
TOD Mixed Use 2 (MU-2)
TOD Corridor Mixed Use (MU-C)
Historic Core (HC)
Parking
TOD Mixed Use 1 Above Parking
Downtown
Preferred Land Use Plan
FIGURE 3.2
Crenshaw/LAX Line
Downtown Plan Boundary
Residential Single Family (R-1)
Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2)
Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2A)
Residential Multiple Family (R-3)
Residential Multiple Family (R-4)
General Commercial (C-2)
Heavy Commercial (C-3)
Civic Center (C-C)
Light Manufacturing (M-1)
Parking (P-1)
Open Space (O-S)
Transportation Corridor (T-C)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000500
Feet
N2 minute
walk (480 ft) 2 minute
bike (1,760 ft)
2 minute
hoverboard
(1,060 ft)
Potential Plaza
Residential Medical (R-M)
Edgewood StEdgewood St
E Beach AveE Beach Ave
E Florence AveE Florence AveM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
200
Figure 4 - Existing Zoning and General Plan Land Use
Edgewood StEdgewood St
E Beach AveE Beach Ave
La Colina DrLa Colina Dr
E Florence AveE Florence Ave
E Ivy AveE Ivy Ave
N Market StN Market St
E Ivy AveE Ivy Ave
N Market StN Market St
Metrorail K-Line
M
Warren StWarren St Warren StWarren St
Grace AveGrace Ave Grace AveGrace Ave
N Hillcrest BlvdN Hillcrest Blvd
N Hillcrest BlvdN Hillcrest Blvd
La Colina DrLa Colina Dr
N Locust StN Locust St
N Locust StN Locust St
M
Metrorail K-Line
Overall Project Site
300 Beach Avenue Project Site
338 Beach Avenue Project Site
M
Downtown Inglewood
Metro Station
Existing Zoning Existing General Plan Land Use
TOD Mixed use 1 (MU-1)
TOD Corridor Mixed Use (MU-C)
Residential Limited Multi Family (R-1)
Light Manufacturing (M-1)
Heavy Commercial (C-3)
Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2)
Residential Multiple Family (R-3)
Residential Multiple Family (R-4)
Parking
TOD Mixed Use 1 Above Parking
Plazas
Source: City of Inglewood 2016.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF INGLEWOOD

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

2. Environmental Setting

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2025 Page 3-1

3. Project Description

3.1 MODIFIED PROJECT
As described in Section 2.1, Project Location, the Project Site encompasses 6.92 acres within the Beach Avenue District of the Downtown Inglewood TOD Plan Area. The Modified Project is a rezone of 17 of the 20 parcels in the Project Site (12 parcels would be rezoned to TOD Mixed-Use 1(MU-1), five parcels would be rezoned to Light Manufacturing (M-1), and zoning for three parcels would not change). Additionally, for the purposes of conducting the CEQA analysis, conceptual plans have been analyzed in this EIR Addendum for reasonably anticipated potential future improvements to an existing industrial facility to support Don Lee Farms and construction of a new mixed-use development in the 300 Beach Avenue Site , and construction of a new residential development in the 338 Beach Avenue Site. For the purpose of this EIR Addendum, implementation of all three components have been analyzed as one whole project; t herefore, all proposed rezoning and improvements on the two separate sites will herein be referred to as the Modified Project. Descriptions of each project component are provided below.

3.1.1 Proposed Rezoning
The Modified Project is a rezone 17 of the 20 parcels within the Project Site , 12 parcels would be rezoned to TOD Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1), five parcels would be rezoned to Light Manufacturing (M-1), and zoning for three parcels would not change (see Figure 5, Proposed Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations). The development standards for 17 of the 20 parcels on the Project Site would change to comply with the permitted uses and development standards of the TOD Mixed -Use 1(MU-1) zoning district for maximum height, minimum lot size, public street setback, public alley setback, and parking requirements shown in Table 3.

It should be noted that the project analyzed in this EIR Addendum only involves rezoning of the Project Site.

While no physical changes, construction, or development are proposed for the Project Site at this time , the analysis in this EIR Addendum for reasonably anticipated future development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site and 338 Beach Avenue Site is based on conceptual plans and are presented for the purposes of conducting the CEQA analysis. Future development for the Project Site would be consistent with t he proposed zoning regulations and would be subject to the City’s design review and approval process, and the assumptions detailed in this EIR Addendum would be verified or updated as appropriate.

3.1.2 300 Beach Avenue Site
As described in Section 2.1, Project Location, the 300 Beach Avenue Site is on the western portion of the Project Site, and would encompass 3.99 acres in six parcels. The 300 Beach Avenue Site currently includes Don Lee Farms and light manufacturing properties (see Figure 6, 300 Beach Avenue : Existing Site Plan ). As shown in Table 4, Conceptual Development at 300 Beach Avenue Site , the Modified Project would result in approximately 64,639 square feet of new development. Parcel 1 would include 35,237 square feet of industrial uses to support

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

the existing operations at Don Lee Farms, and Parcel 2 would be a mixed -use development in two separate buildings. Details of each component of the 300 Beach Avenue Site are discussed below.

Table 4 Conceptual Development at 300 Beach Avenue Site Development Type Conceptual Development (Quantity) Square Footage per Unit Total Square Footage Industrial
Dry Storage Facility (1) 21,858
35,237 Freezer (1) 12,372
Loading Dock (1) 1,007
Commercial
Building 1
3,727 Ground Floor Commercial (1) 3,727
Residential
Building 1
18,486
Town Homes A (9) 907
Town Homes B (3) 1,005
Building 2
Town Homes C (3) 498
Town Homes D (3) 717
Town Homes E (3) 590
Town Homes F (3) 631
Open Space
Building 1
7,243
Roof Deck (1) 3,727
Building 2
Roof Deck (1) 3,516
Total Square Footage 64,639

3.1.2.1 DEMOLITION
Implementation of the Modified Project within the 300 Beach Avenue Site would require approximately 11,942 square feet of demolition to remove seven buildings on the site that are currently owned and operated by Don Lee Farms.

3.1.2.2 CONCEPTUAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
The conceptual industrial development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site would include the development of a new 21,858-square-foot dry storage facility, a 1,007 -square-foot loading dock, and a 12,372 -square-foot freezer in APNs 4015-017-004 and -005 (see Figure 7, 300 Beach Avenue : Conceptual Site Plan). The purpose of these structures is to centralize cold and dry storage in the Don Lee property as they currently utilize an off -site location for cold and dry storage that is approximately eight miles to the northeast at 4010 Compton Avenue, near downtown Los Angeles. Development of these facilities would not increase the operational capacity of the existing uses, but would more efficiently use space on-site for current operations. 33ADOPTED OCT. 2016
La Brea Av.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

Forum
La Brea Av.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

Forum
La Brea Av.

Hyde Park Bl.

Hazel St.

Eucalyptus Av.

Market St.

Prairie Av.

Queen St.

Warren Ln.

Stepney St.

Centinela Av.

Olive St.

Oak St.

Hillcrest Bl.

Regent St.

Spruce Av.

Locust St.Fir Av.

Manchester Bl.

Inglewood Av.

Grevillea Av.

Exton Av.

Aerick St.

Manchester Ter.

Cable Pl.

Manchester Dr.

Railroad Pl.

Juniper St.

Regent Cir.

Howland Dr.

Hillcrest Bl.

Kelso St.

Market St.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
200

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF INGLEWOOD
Figure 5 - Proposed Zoning and General Plan Land Use
E Beach AveE Beach Ave
Metrorail K-Line
M
Grace AveGrace Ave
M
Metrorail K-Line
TOD Mixed use 1 (MU-1)
TOD Corridor Mixed Use (MU-C)
Residential Limited Multi Family (R-1)
Light Manufacturing (M-1)
Heavy Commercial (C-3)
Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2)
Residential Multiple Family (R-3)
Residential Multiple Family (R-4)
TOD Mixed Use 1 Above Parking
Plazas
Overall Project Site
300 Beach Avenue Project Site
338 Beach Avenue Project Site
M
Downtown Inglewood
Metro Station
Proposed Zoning Proposed General Plan Land Use
Edgewood StEdgewood St
La Colina DrLa Colina Dr
E Florence AveE Florence Ave
E Ivy AveE Ivy Ave
N Market StN Market St
E Ivy AveE Ivy Ave
N Market StN Market St
Warren StWarren St Warren StWarren St
Grace AveGrace Ave
N Hillcrest BlvdN Hillcrest Blvd
N Hillcrest BlvdN Hillcrest Blvd
La Colina DrLa Colina Dr
N Locust StN Locust St
N Locust StN Locust St

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

PlaceWorks

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF INGLEWOOD
Source: Aero Collective 2023.
0 Scale (Feet)
70 Figure 6 - 300 Beach Avenue – Existing Site Plan

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

GSPublisherVersion 279.40.49.4

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
NO. ISSUES/REVISIONS DATE
G0.02
Preposed
KEY PLAN:

STAMP:
11/28/23

PRE-DESIGN
3 00 E B E A C H
CONSULTANT:

ALL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE

INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE
PROPERTY OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. COPIES

OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS RETAINED BY

THE CLIENT MAY BE UTILIZED ONLY FOR HIS USE AND

FOR OCCUPYING THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY

WERE PREPARED, AND NOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ANY OTHER PROJECTS. ANY USE OR

REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IN WHOLE OR IN

PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER IS STRICTLY

PROHIBITED EXCEPT WITH WRITTEN CONSENT OF

AERO COLLECTIVE
2 0 9 S M A R K E T S T
323.553.2376
INGLEWOOD , CA 90301
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO:

CLIENT:
300 E B E A C H A V E
INGLEWOOD , CA 90302
#23 0 13

DON LEE FARMS, DONALD

GOODMAN, CLIENT ADDRESS,

CITY, STATE ZIP
PROJECT NO. #23013
PLOT DATE 11/28/23

SCALE AS SHOWN
300 BEACH - PRE DESIGN (Preposed)
11/28/2023

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
- REDEVELOP EXISTING DON LEE FARMS PRODUCTION FACILITY AND WAREHOUSE SPACES. - CREATE TWO NEW PARCELS
PARCEL 1 TO BE ZONED M-1
- ADD NEW DRY AND COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSEA ND CREATE ADDTIONAL PARKING ALONG WITH FIRETRUCK ACCESS PARCEL 2 TO BE ZONED MU-1
- CREATE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF 8 RESIDENTIAL TOWN HOMES AND 3,727 SF NEIGHBORHOOD

SERVING RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING

GENERAL SUMMARY
PROJECT ADDRESS 300 E BEACH AVE, INGLEWOOD, CA 90302
PARCEL 1

PREPOSED USE LIGHT MANUFACTURING
ZONING DISTRICT M-1

SPECIFIC PLAN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT

SUBAREA NORTH STATION
MINIMUM LOT SIZE 120,000 SF (MU-1, DOWNTOWN TOD, NORTH STATION) GROSS LOT AREA 152,477 SF (PRE-DEDICATION)
(E) WAREHOUSE 57,123 SF
(N) DRY STORAGE 21,858 SF
(N) FREEZE 12,372 SF
PARKING SUMMARY (IMC TOD FIG. 4.3) REQ. PARKING PROVIDED (E) PARKING (W/ MANUFACTURING FACILITY): 57,123 SF (E) 20 (N) DRY STORAGE WAREHOUSE 21,858 SF @ 2.5 /1,000 SF 9 SPACES (N) 30 (N) FREEZE WAREHOUSE 12,372 SF @ 2.5 /1,000 SF 5 SPACES (N) 29 TOTAL 14 SPACES 79 SPACES
PARCEL 2

PROPOSED USE MIXED-USE
ZONING DISTRICT MU-1

SPECIFIC PLAN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT

SUBAREA NORTH STATION
MINIMUM LOT SIZE 120,000 SF (MU-1, DOWNTOWN TOD, NORTH STATION) GROSS LOT AREA 22,233 SF (PRE-DEDICATION)
(N) TOWNHOMES 13,044 SF
(N) GROUND FLOOR COMMERICAL 3,727 SF
TOTAL 16,771 SF
PARKING SUMMARY (IMC TOD FIG. 4.3) ` REQ. PARKING PARKING PROVIDED (N) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 3,727 SF @ 2/1,000 SF 2 SPACES (N) RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES 13,044 SF @ 1 /8 UNITS 8 SAPCES TOTAL 10 SPACES 22 SPACES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
123456789
1 2 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 1234567891011
1 1
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3
12345
26'-0"
FIRE

TRUCK AISLE
20'-0"
1 G0.01
22,233 sq ft
152,477 sq ft
(E) POWER POLE

DRY STORAGE
21,858 sq ft

LOADING DOCK
1,007 sq ft

FREEZER
12,372 sq ft

LW TOWN HOME (A)
907 sq ft

LW TH (A)
907 sq ft

LW TH (B)
1,005 sq ft
TOWN HOME RES. (C)
498 sq ft
TH RES. (F)
631 sq ft
TH RES. (D)
717 sq ft
TOWN HOMES RES. (E)
590 sq ft

LW TH (A)
907 sq ft

GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIALGROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL

FIRE LANE
C L

METRO K LINE
(CRENSHAW)

EDGEWOOD ST

E IVY AVE

DOWNTOWN

INGLEWOOD STATION

E BEACH AVE
P L
P L
P L
P L
P L
P L

LA COLINA DR
C L
PL
LIGHT

MANUFACTURING
(M-1)
MIXED USE - 1
(MU-1)
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2

LW TH (A)
907 sq ft
11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
44'-0"

GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL
3,727 sq ft

FIRE TRUCK LANE

ROOF DECK
3,727 sq ft

ROOF DECK
3,516 sq ft
BEACH AVE.

LW TOWN HOME (A)
907 sq ft

LW TOWN HOME (A)
907 sq ft
TOWN HOME RES. (C)
498 sq ft
TOWN HOME RES. (C)
498 sq ft
TOWN HOME RES. (C)
498 sq ft
TOWN HOMES RES. (E)
590 sq ft
TOWN HOMES RES. (E)
590 sq ft
TOWN HOMES RES. (E)
590 sq ft

METRO LINE
PL PL
OPEN SPACE - 7243 SF
RESIDENTIAL - 1 6,771 SF
COMMERCIAL - 3,727 SF
SCALE: 1:512 12nd Floor Plan (Proposed)
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 3Building Section A
300 BEACH
GSPublisherVersion 279.40.49.4

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
NO. ISSUES/REVISIONS DATE
G0.02
Preposed
KEY PLAN:

STAMP:
11/28/23

PRE-DESIGN
3 00 E B E A C H
CONSULTANT:

ALL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE

INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE
PROPERTY OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. COPIES

OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS RETAINED BY

THE CLIENT MAY BE UTILIZED ONLY FOR HIS USE AND

FOR OCCUPYING THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY

WERE PREPARED, AND NOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ANY OTHER PROJECTS. ANY USE OR

REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IN WHOLE OR IN

PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER IS STRICTLY

PROHIBITED EXCEPT WITH WRITTEN CONSENT OF

AERO COLLECTIVE
2 0 9 S M A R K E T S T
323.553.2376
INGLEWOOD , CA 90301
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO:

CLIENT:
300 E B E A C H A V E
INGLEWOOD , CA 90302
#23 0 13

DON LEE FARMS, DONALD

GOODMAN, CLIENT ADDRESS,

CITY, STATE ZIP
PROJECT NO. #23013
PLOT DATE 11/28/23

SCALE AS SHOWN
300 BEACH - PRE DESIGN (Preposed)
11/28/2023

SERVING RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING

GENERAL SUMMARY
PROJECT ADDRESS 300 E BEACH AVE, INGLEWOOD, CA 90302
PARCEL 1

PREPOSED USE LIGHT MANUFACTURING
ZONING DISTRICT M-1

SPECIFIC PLAN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT

PROPOSED USE MIXED-USE
ZONING DISTRICT MU-1

SPECIFIC PLAN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT

TRUCK AISLE
20'-0"
1 G0.01
22,233 sq ft
152,477 sq ft
(E) POWER POLE

DRY STORAGE
21,858 sq ft

LOADING DOCK
1,007 sq ft

FREEZER
12,372 sq ft

LW TOWN HOME (A)
907 sq ft

LW TH (A)
907 sq ft

LW TH (B)
1,005 sq ft
TOWN HOME RES. (C)
498 sq ft
TH RES. (F)
631 sq ft
TH RES. (D)
717 sq ft
TOWN HOMES RES. (E)
590 sq ft

LW TH (A)
907 sq ft

GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIALGROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL

FIRE LANE
C L

METRO K LINE
(CRENSHAW)

EDGEWOOD ST

E IVY AVE

DOWNTOWN

INGLEWOOD STATION

E BEACH AVE
P L
P L
P L
P L
P L
P L

LA COLINA DR
C L
PL
LIGHT

MANUFACTURING
(M-1)
MIXED USE - 1
(MU-1)
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2

LW TH (A)
907 sq ft
11'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
44'-0"

GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL
3,727 sq ft

FIRE TRUCK LANE

ROOF DECK
3,727 sq ft

ROOF DECK
3,516 sq ft
BEACH AVE.

LW TOWN HOME (A)
907 sq ft

METRO LINE
PL PL
OPEN SPACE - 7243 SF
RESIDENTIAL - 1 6,771 SF
COMMERCIAL - 3,727 SF
SCALE: 1:512 12nd Floor Plan (Proposed)
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 3Building Section A
300 BEACH
Source: Aero Collective 2023.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
Figure 7 - 300 Beach Avenue – Conceptual Site Plan
Proposed Floor Plan
Building Section A
1 G0.01
0 Scale (Feet)
110
0 Scale (Feet)
30 Building 1 Building 2
Building 1
Building 2
ResidentialCommercial
Open Space
CITY

OF INGLEWOOD

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description
May 2025 Page 3-9

3.1.2.3 CONCEPTUAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The conceptual mixed-use development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site would include the construction of one new mixed-use building and one residential building in APNs 4015-017-010, -011, -012, and -013. Overall, the proposed mixed-use development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site would include 24 town homes, a ground-level commercial establishment, and 2 roof decks. See Figure 7, 300 Beach Avenue: Conceptual Site Plan. A minimum of five percent of the residential units would provide affordable housing at the 300 Beach Avenue Site.

Building 1 would be along Beach Avenue and would be four stories (maximum 44 feet in height above grade) with a roof deck. Building 1 would include 3,727 square feet of space for ground -floor commercial uses and 11,178 square feet of residential living space in 12 units —9 townhomes of 907 square feet per unit and 3 townhomes of 1,005 square feet per unit. The roof deck would be 3,727 square feet.

Building 2 would be in the interior of the 300 Beach Avenue Site and would include three stories and a roof deck, with a total height of approximately 33 feet above grade. Building 2 would include 7,308 square feet of residential living space in 12 units—3 townhomes of 498 square feet per unit, 3 townhomes of 717 square feet per unit, 3 townhomes of 590 square feet per unit, and 3 townhomes of 631 square feet per unit. The roof deck would be 3,516 square feet. The proposed building at the 300 Beach Avenue S ite would be all-electric, and would not require natural gas use.

3.1.2.4 ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
Industrial Development
Vehicular access to the proposed storage areas and loading dock at Don Lee Farms at the 300 Beach Avenue Site would continue to be provided via Beach Avenue from an existing driveway. Additionally, emergency access to the site via a 20-foot wide dedicated fire lane would be provided on La Colina Drive to the southeast, directly south of the proposed dry storage and freezer facilities. This portion of the 300 Beach Avenue Site would include a 34,230 square foot parking lot with 59 new parking spaces to better serve existing employees, in addition to the 20 existing parking spaces on the west part of the site. Employee pedestrian access to this portion of the site would be provided via the existing Don Lee Farms warehouse, and would be restricted to the public.

Mixed-Use Development
Vehicular access to the proposed mixed-use development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site would be provided via a new driveway from Beach Avenue to the north. Additionally, emergency access to the site would be provided via La Colina Drive to the south, and the site would include a 20-foot-wide fire lane and a 26-foot-wide truck aisle to the west of Building 2 that connects to Don Lee Farms. This portion of the 300 Beach Avenue Site would include a 16,771-square-foot parking lot (3,727 square feet for commercial and 13,044 square feet for residential) with 22 new parking spaces, in addition to the 20 existing parking spaces on the site. Pedestrian access to this portion of the site would be provided via Beach Avenue only. Additionally, the 300 Beach Avenue

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

Site would include 2 electric vehicle (EV) chargers in compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen 2024)1.

3.1.2.5 CONSTRUCTION
For purposes of this environmental review, overall construction at the 300 Beach Avenue Site is assumed to occur in two phases, which would last approximately 30 months, from June 2027 to December 2029.

Construction Schedule
Conceptual Industrial Development
Proposed improvements to the existing industrial facilities at Don Lee Farms would occur between June 2027 and June 2028, and would be completed in approximately 12 months.

Conceptual Residential Development
Construction of the proposed mixed-use development would occur after completion of the improvements to the industrial facilities at Don Lee Farms, between June 2028 and December 2029, and would be completed in approximately 18 months.

Construction Activities
Construction of the 300 Beach Avenue Site would include the following activities: demolition of the existing seven building on the Project Site, which includes approximately 11,942 square feet of building space; grading and excavation, removal of the existing parking lot and other hardscapes, trenching for site utilities and irrigation, building construction, architectural coatings, and driveway and walkway construction.

3.1.3 338 Beach Avenue Site
As described in Section 2.1, Project Location, the 338 Beach Avenue Site is located on the eastern portion of the Project Site, and encompass es approximately 1.54 acres within three parcels. The 338 Beach Avenue Site is currently vacant and previously disturbed, with trees and vegetation.

3.1.3.1 CONCEPTUAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
As described in Section 2.1, Project Location, the 338 Beach Avenue Site is on the eastern portion of the Project Site, and encompasses 1.54 acres in three parcels. The 338 Beach Avenue Site is currently vacant (see Figure 8, 338 Beach Avenue: Existing Site Plan), so no demolition or removal of structures would be necessary.

1 Multifamily parking facilities. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers.

PlaceWorks

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF INGLEWOOD
Source: Nearmap 2024; Aero Collective 2019.
0 Scale (Feet)
80 Figure 8 - 338 Beach Avenue – Existing Site Plan
E Beach AveE Beach AveWarren StWarren St
Edgewood StEdgewood St
E Florence AveE Florence Ave
N Hillcrest BlvdN Hillcrest Blvd
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Metrorail K-Line
La Colina DrLa Colina Dr
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Overall Project Site
300 Beach Avenue Project Site
338 Beach Avenue Project Site
Don Lee Farms
(Outside Map Extent)
No Development Proposed
No Development Proposed

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description
May 2025 Page 3-13
As shown in Table 5, Conceptual Development at 338 Beach Avenue Site, the Modified Project would result in 200,412 square feet of new development and would include 2 five-story buildings connected by a two-story community room and an outdoor courtyard with a pool. The residential development would include four roof decks and a two-story parking garage (see Figure 9, Conceptual Site Plan). A minimum of five percent of the residential units would provide affordable housing at the 3 38 Beach Avenue Site. The proposed building at the 338 Beach Avenue Site would be all-electric, and would not require natural gas use.

Residential Dwelling Units
The 338 Beach Avenue Project Site would have a total of 115 dwelling units, each with private outdoor space by way of exterior balconies. It would include 102 one -bed/one-bath units and 13 two -bed/two-bath units.

The proposed new building would have a total height of 57 feet and 9 inches from grade level (see Figure 11, Conceptual Building Heights). The 115 units would be distributed throughout the two buildings:
▪ 1st Floor: 16 units (see Figure 10b, Conceptual Floor Plans) ▪ 2nd Floor: 25 units (see Figure 10b)
▪ 3rd Floor: 25 units (see Figure 10c, Conceptual Floor Plans) ▪ 4th Floor: 26 units (see Figure 10c)
▪ 5th Floor: 23 units (see Figure 10c)
Community Areas and Open Space
The 338 Beach Avenue Site would include approximately 58,626 square feet of community areas and open space, including lobbies, interior corridors, one community room, one courtyard with a pool, and four roof decks; new sidewalks; exterior landscaping, and a semi-circular dedicated fire access driveway along La Colina Drive (see Table 5).

Table 5 Conceptual Development at 338 Beach Avenue Site Conceptual Development Element Quantity
Square Footage per
Unit/Area Total Square Footage
Parking Garage
Lower Basement Parking 44 spaces 22,276 22,276
Upper Basement Parking 86 spaces 30,010 30,010
Total 130 52,286 52,286
Residential Units
1 Bed + 1 Bath Dwelling Unit 102 750 76,500
2 Bed + 2 Bath Dwelling Unit 13 1,000 13,000
Total 115 -- 89,500
Community Areas and Open Space
Lobby 10 (2/floor) 521 5,210
Community Room 1 4,544 4,544
Corridors 10 (2/floor) 1,059 10,590

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

Table 5 Conceptual Development at 338 Beach Avenue Site Conceptual Development Element Quantity
Square Footage per
Unit/Area Total Square Footage
Courtyard 1 12,263 12,263
Balconies 115 (1/du) 80 9,200
Roof Deck 1 1 1,434 1,434
Roof Deck 2 1 1,126 1,126
Roof Deck 3 1 863 863
Roof Deck 4 1 823 823
Pool 1 2,400 2,400
Sidewalks 2 1,467 2,934
Semi-Circular Driveway 1 7,239 7,239
Total -- -- 58,626
Total Development Square Footage 200,412

3.1.3.2 ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
Vehicular access to the proposed residential development at the 338 Beach Avenue Site would be provided via a new driveway to an underground parking garage from Beach Avenue to the north. Additionally, emergency access to the site would be provided via La Colina Drive to the south, and the site would include a 96-foot diameter Fire Department turn around. The 338 Beach Avenue Site would have total of 130 parking spaces in a two-story subterranean parking garage. The entrance and exit to the parking garage would be located on the northeast corner of the site, along Beach Avenue. Pedestrian access to the site would be provided via La Colina Drive.

Parking Garage
The 338 Beach Avenue Site would include a two-story parking garage that would encompass 52,286 square feet and 130 parking spaces (see Figure 10a, Conceptual Parking Garage Floor Plans ). Additionally, the 338 Beach Avenue Site would include 13 EV chargers in compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen 2024)2.

2 Multifamily parking facilities. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. 338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

SIT E P L A N
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A0.00
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

C O M M U N I T Y R O O M

E L E V A T O R

R O O F D E C K

S T A I R S

P O O L
15'
13'
272'-1"
13'
40'
298'-1"
215'-5"
5"
14'-7"
245'-11"
35'50'
15'
21'-1"
25'-8"
15'
(E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) ALLEY
E. BEACH AVE.

LA COLINA DR.
(E) RIGHT OF
WAY

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

REAR YARD

SETBACK
(E) METRO

RAILWAY
335 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
321 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
351 E. BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)347 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
355 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
330 E. BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)
334 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
374 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
375 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
337 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
341 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
362 E.

BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)
367 LA
COLINA DR.
(2-STORY)
373 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
377 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STOR
Y)
381 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
375 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
366 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
POOL
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK

COMMUNITY
ROOM
(E) RIGHT OF
WAY

FRONT YARD

SETBACK
96' DIAMETER
FIRE DEPT. TURN
AROUND

COURTYARD
1 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00
2 A2.00
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0" 1SITE PLAN
N
Source: Nearmap 2024; Aero Collective 2019.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
55 Figure 9 - 338 Beach Avenue – Conceptual Site Plan
338 Beach Avenue Project Site

METRORAIL K-LINE
CITY

OF INGLEWOOD

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Source: Aero Collective 2019.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
90 Figure 10a - 338 Beach Avenue – Conceptual Garage Floor Plans 338 Beach Avenue Project Site
Lower Basement PlanUpper Basement Plan

METRORAIL K-LINEMETRORAIL K-LINE
Elevator
Garage
CITY

OF INGLEWOOD

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

F IR S T F L O O R P L A N
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A1.10
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

L O B B Y

E L E V A T O R

P O O L

S T A I R S

C O U R T Y A R D
13'
223'-9" 48'-5"
13'
40'
298'-1"
15' 75'-3" 46'-4" 93'-10" 15'
245'-11"
1 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00
2 A2.00
334 E.

BEACH A
VE.
(1-STORY)
POOL
LOBBY
(E) RIGHT OF
WAY

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

REAR YARD

SETBACK
LOBBY
1 5
2 3
4 7
8 9
10 11 15
14 13
12 16
E. BEACH AVE.

LA COLINA DR.
335 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
321 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
351 E. BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)347 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
355 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
330 E. BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)
375 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
374 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
366 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)

COMMUNITY
ROOM

COURTYARD
5 6
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0" 1FIRST FLOOR PLAN
N
338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A1.20
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

L O B B Y

E L E V A T O R

C O M M U N I T Y R O O M

S T A I R S
1 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00
2 A2.00
13'
223'-9" 48'-5"
13'
40'
298'-1"
15' 121'-7" 93'-10" 15'
245'-11"
35'50'
335 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
321 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
351 E. BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)347 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
355 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
330 E. BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)
334 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
374 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
375 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)
E. BEACH AVE.

LA COLINA DR.
17 LOBBY
(E) RIGHT OF
WAY

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

REAR YARD

SETBACK
LOBBY
337 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
341 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
362 E.

BEACH
AVE.
(1-STORY)
367 LA
COLINA DR.
(2-STORY)
373 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
377 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
381 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)

COMMUNITY
ROOM
24 18
19 20
21 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
38 40
41 37
36 35
39 96' DIAMETER
FIRE DEPT. TURN
AROUND
375 LA
COLINA DR.
(1-STORY)
366 E.

BEACH AVE.
(1-STORY)(E) METRO

RAILWAY
(E) RIGHT OF
WAY
22 23
25 SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0" 1SECOND FLOOR PLAN
N
Source: Aero Collective 2019.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
90 Figure 10b - 338 Beach Avenue – Conceptual Floor Plans 338 Beach Avenue Project Site
2nd Floor Plan1st Floor Plan

METRORAIL K-LINEMETRORAIL K-LINE
ElevatorLobby
Units Courtyard
Stairs
Pool
Community Room
CITY

OF INGLEWOOD

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Source: Aero Collective 2019.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
90 Figure 10c - 338 Beach Avenue – Conceptual Floor Plans 338 Beach Avenue Project Site
338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

F O UR T H F L O O R P L A N
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A1.40
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

L O B B Y

E L E V A T O R

R O O F D E C K

S T A I R S
1 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00
2 A2.00
13'
272'-1"
13'
298'-1"
121'-7" 93'-10" 15'
245'-11"
15'
68 LOBBY

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

REAR YARD

SETBACK
LOBBY
77 69
71 72
73 74
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 90
92 93
89 88
87 91
E. BEACH AVE.

LA COLINA DR.
70 75
76 SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0" 1FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
N

METRORAIL K-LINE
338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

T HIR D F L O O R P L A N
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A1.30
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

L O B B Y

E L E V A T O R

S T A I R S
1 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00
2 A2.00
13'
272'-1"
13'
298'-1"
121'-7" 93'-10" 15'
245'-11"
15'
42 LOBBY

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

REAR YARD

SETBACK
LOBBY
50 44
45 47
48 49
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 64
66 67
63 62
61 65
E. BEACH AVE.

LA COLINA DR.
43 51
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0" 1THIRD FLOOR PLAN
N

METRORAIL K-LINE
3rd Floor Plan 4th Floor Plan
5th Floor Plan
Stairs
Elevator
Lobby
Units
Roof Deck
338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

F IF T H F L O O R P L A N
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A1.50
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

L O B B Y

E L E V A T O R

R O O F D E C K

S T A I R S
1 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00
2 A2.00
13'
272'-1"
13'
298'-1"
245'-11"
121'-7" 93'-10" 15'
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK
99 93
95 96
97 98
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
112
114
115
111
110
109
113
94 108

LOBBYLOBBY
E. BEACH AVE.

LA COLINA DR.

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

SIDEYARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

REAR YARD

SETBACK
A: 1,434 sq ft
A: 863 sq ft
A: 1,126 sq ft
A: 823 sq ft
SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0" 1FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
N

METRORAIL K-LINE
0 Scale (Feet)
90 CITY

OF INGLEWOOD

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

S E C T I O N S
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A2.00
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

C O M M U N I T Y R O O M

G A R A G E

P O O L
+10'
1 Lower Basement
+10'
1 Lower Basement
+20'
2 Upper Basement
+20'
2 Upper Basement
+32'
3 1st Floor
+32'
3 1st Floor
+42'
4 2nd Floor
+42'
4 2nd Floor
+52'
5 3rd Floor
+52'
5 3rd Floor
+62'
6 4th Floor
+62'
6 4th Floor
+72'
7 5th Floor
+72'
7 5th Floor
+82'
8 Roof
+82'
8 Roof
+92'
9 Stair
+92'
9 Stair
15' 15'
30'
57'-9" BUILDING HEIGHT
PER ZONNING CODE SECTION 12-1.28
57'-9" BUILDING HEIGHT
PER ZONNING CODE SECTION 12-1.28

COMMUNITY
ROOM

PARKING
GARAGE
E. BEACH
AVE.

LA COLINA
DR.
+10'
1 Lower Basement
+10'
1 Lower Basement
+20'
2 Upper Basement
+20'
2 Upper Basement
+32'
3 1st Floor
+32'
3 1st Floor
+42'
4 2nd Floor
+42'
4 2nd Floor
+52'
5 3rd Floor
+52'
5 3rd Floor
+62'
6 4th Floor
+62'
6 4th Floor
+72'
7 5th Floor
+72'
7 5th Floor
+82'
8 Roof
+82'
8 Roof
+92'
9 Stair
+92'
9 Stair
57'-9" BUILDING HEIGHT
PER ZONNING CODE SECTION 12-1.28
30'
15' 15'
57'-9" BUILDING HEIGHT
PER ZONNING CODE SECTION 12-1.28
UNITS

PARKING
GARAGE
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK
E. BEACH
AVE.

LA COLINA
DR.

SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 1SECTION 1
SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 2SECTION 2
338 EAST BEACH
3 3 8 E A S T B E A C H A V E I N G L E W O O D C A 9 0 3 0 2

S E C T I O N S
3 5 % D E N S I T Y B O N U S
A2.00
DATE : 5.08.2019

L E G E N D

U N I T S

C O M M U N I T Y R O O M

G A R A G E

COMMUNITY
ROOM

PARKING
GARAGE
E. BEACH
AVE.

PARKING
GARAGE
ROOF
DECK
ROOF
DECK
E. BEACH
AVE.

LA COLINA
DR.

SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 1SECTION 1
SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 2SECTION 2
Source: Aero Collective 2019.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
30 Figure 11 - 338 Beach Avenue – Conceptual Building Heights Section 1
Section 2
Garage
Community Room
Units
Pool
CITY

OF INGLEWOOD

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description
May 2025 Page 3-25

CONSTRUCTION
Construction Schedule
Conceptual Residential Development
Construction at the 338 Beach Avenue Site would occur in one phase, which would last approximately 30 months, from June 2027 to December 2029, and would be concurrent with construction of the development at 300 Beach Avenue. The residential development would be operational by January 2030.

Construction Activities
Construction of the 338 Beach Avenue Site would not include any demolition since the existing site is currently vacant. The Modified Project would include the following construction activities: grading and excavation, removal of existing landscaping, trenching for site utilities and irrigation, building construction, architectural coatings, and driveway and walkway construction.

3.2 PROJECT APPROVALS
The EIR Addendum is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Modified Project (including both programmatic evaluation of the proposed rezoning and project-level evaluation of construction and operation impacts), thereby enabling City and other responsible agencies to make informed decisions with respect to the Modified Project. The anticipated approvals required for this project specifically include, in addition to all discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that may be deemed neces sary for the construction and operation of the Modified Project, grading permits, excavation permits, foundation permits, and building permits:

Lead Agency Action
City of Inglewood
▪ Final approval for rezoning of the Project Site.
▪ Future entitlements (i.e., parcel map, design review, site plan review) ▪ Adoption of the Addendum to the Certified EIR and adoption of the modified Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

3. Project Description

Page 3 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2025 Page 4-1

4. Environmental Checklist

4.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Inglewood
Development Services Department
One Manchester Boulevard
Inglewood, CA 90301

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Bernard McCrumby Jr., Planning Manager
(310) 412-5223

4. Project Location: The 6.92-acre Project Site encompasses 20 Assessor’s Parcel s in the Beach Avenue District of the Downtown Inglewood TOD Plan Area, in the City of Inglewood. The Project Site is bounded by Beach Avenue to the north, La Colina Drive and the Metro K -Line to the south, Don Lee Farms to the west, and an unnamed alley to the east. The Project Site is approximately 0.5 mile north of Inglewood City Hall. Regional access to the P roject Site is provided via I-405, approximately one mile to the west, and I-105, approximately 2.3 miles to the south.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

East Beach Inglewood, LLC,
2029 Century Park E, Suite 2070
Los Angeles, CA 90067

6. General Plan Designation: TOD Mixed-Use 1 (MU 1); Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2); and Light Manufacturing (M-1).

7. Zoning: TOD Mixed-Use 1 (MU 1); Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2); and Light Manufacturing (M-1).

8. Description of Project: The Modified Project would include the rezoning of 17 of the 20 parcels in the Project Site; 12 parcels would be rezoned to TOD Mixed-Use 1(MU-1), five parcels would be rezoned for Light Manufacturing (M-1), and zoning for three parcels would not change. Additionally, for purposes of the CEQA analysis, conceptual plans have been analyzed in this EIR Addendum for improvements to an existing industrial facility to support Don Lee Farms and construction of a new mixed-use development in the 300 Beach Avenue Site, and construction of a new residential development in the 338 Beach Avenue Site.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

4. Environmental Checklist

Page 4 ends

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Properties surrounding the Project Site have a land use and zoning designation of TOD Mixed -Use 1 (MU 1) to the west, General Commercial (C -2) to the northwest, Residential Multiple Family (R -4) to the north, Heavy Commercial (C -3) to the northeast, Light Manufacturing (M-1) and Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2) to the east, and Transportation Corridor (T-C) to the south. Additionally, properties with a land use and zoning designation of TOD Mixed -Use 2 (M-2) are approximately 0.06 mile west of the Project Site, across N. La Brea Avenue; Residential Multiple Family (R-4) properties are approximately 0.05 mile south of the Project Site, across E. Florence Avenue.

The Metro K-Line Downtown Inglewood Station is directly south of the Project Site and is accessible via E. Florence Avenue.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

4. Environmental Checklist

Page 4 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2025 Page 5-1

5. Environmental Analysis
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of the Certified EIR, following the same order of environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR; and then discuss whether or not the Modified Project is consistent with the findings in the Certified EIR. Mitigation measures referenced are from the Certified EIR, and modified as needed.
▪ Condition 1. Whether or not the Modified Project represents a substantial change that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. ▪ Condition 2. Whether or not substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Modified Project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. ▪ Condition 3. If new information shows that the Modified Project would have one or more new significant effects; that significant effects would be substantially more severe than previously described; that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would be feasible and substantially reduce impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them; or that new or previously rejected mitigation measures or alternatives would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more project impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them.

If none of the above conditions are met, the analysis identifies where impacts of the Modified Project would not require major revisions to the Certified EIR or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Sections 15162(a) and 15163(a).

5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING

5.1.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Physically divide an established community.
(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

5.1.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would establish a more integrated community and transportation network centered around the Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights Metro Station areas.

The uses in the Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights planning areas exist in a urban setting , and the Approved Project would introduce infill development using established roadways and pedestrian and bicycle routes. Overall, the Approved Project would increase density and intensity of development in the area with various types of land uses, increasing connectivity between residential, commercial, and employment-generating uses.

The Approved Project would not introduce substantially different land uses or modify the exiting distribution of land uses in a way that might isolate existing or proposed residential neighborhoods from each other. Thus, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not physically divide an existing community ; therefore, no impact would occur.

Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that proposed development would be consistent with regional policies and the City’s General Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG’s) 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, and the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); therefore, no impact would occur.

5.1.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

Development of the Modified Project would not physically divide an existing residential neighborhood. The Modified Project includes rezoning 17 of the 20 parcels in the Project Site; 12 parcels would be rezoned to MU- 1, five parcels would be rezoned to M-1, and zoning for three parcels would not change; improvements to the existing industrial facility to support Don Lee Farms and construction of a new mixed-use development on 300 Beach Avenue Site; and construction of new residential development on the 3 38 Beach Avenue Site. The Project Site is in an urban setting , surrounded by existing residential and industrial uses , including Don Lee Farms. Construction on the 300 Beach Avenue Site would occur within the existing Don Lee Farms property and would expand the industrial use of the current warehouse and add new residential and commercial development to the property; and construction within the 338 Beach Avenue Site would construct a new residential multifamily building within an area that is currently vacant. The Modified Project uses are consistent with surrounding uses , and impacts would be less than significant . Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-3
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

Implementation of the Modified Project would continue to be consistent with the Downtown Inglewood/Fairview Heights TOD plan, and would be consistent with the goals and policies of City General Plan, including Policy 3.2, Policy 7.1, and Policy 7.1, as identified in the Certified EIR . Additionally, the Modified Project, given its location adjacent to high quality transit at the Metro K Line, would be consistent with the goals and policies of SCAG ’s 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, including LU-6.2, OSC-10, OSC- 11, EN-8, and EN-10S; as well as the following policies from SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Plan (2024-2050 RTP/SCS):

Transit and Multimodal Integration

07. Encourage and support the implementation of projects, both physical and digital, that facilitate multimodal connectivity, prioritize transit and shared mobility, and result in improved mobility, accessibility and safety

09. Encourage residential and employment development in areas surrounding existing and planned transit/rail stations
Priority Development Areas

33. Promote the growth of origins and destinations, in areas with a proclivity toward multimodal options like transit and active transportation, to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) dependency and vehicle miles traveled
Housing the Region

35. Encourage housing development in areas with access to important resources and amenities (economic, educational, health, social and similar) to further fair housing access and equity across the region

36. Encourage housing development in transit -supportive and walkable areas to create more interconnected and resilient communities

37. Support local, regional, state and federal efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing while meeting additional housing needs across the region
The Modified Project would include the rezoning of 17 of the 20 parcels within the project site; 1 2 parcels would be rezoned to MU-1, five parcels would be rezoned to M-1, and zoning for three parcels would not change. All zoning changes for the Modified Project would be compatible with surrounding land use as determined in the TOD Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review . Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

5.1.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for land use and planning , and n o new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

5.1.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Similar to the Approved Project, the level of significance would remain less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING

5.2.1 Thresholds of significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ex-ample, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

5.2.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would generate population growth of 6,415 persons (5,286 in Downtown Inglewood and 589 in Fairview Heights) , as the direct result of increase housing with a net total increase of approximately 2,693 residential units (2,479 in Downtown Inglewood and 214 in Fairview Heights), and employment within the planning areas and indirectly by creating a need for housing for new employees. SCAG estimates that by 2040, the City of Inglewood would have a total population of 129,000. The City of Inglewood is a built-out community, and it is anticipated that a large portion of the City’s future growth would be mostly of smaller infill, mixed -use, redevelopment, and transit oriented developments, and is anticipated to be concentrated within the Downtown area and adjacent to Metro stations throughout the City where intensification of existing development can be accommodated. This, since the housing and employment growth is consistent with regional growth projections and the Approved Project would result in a net increase in available housing, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in the demolition of existing dwelling units and displacement of existing residents through 2040 ; however, the Approved Project would result in the development of 2,693 new residential units, creating replacement housing and adequate residential units available to fill the needs of residents that would be displaced. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-5

5.2.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in a net increase of approximately 6,415 persons (5,286 in Downtown Inglewood and 589 in Fairview Heights) in the City of Inglewood, consistent with regional projections for population growth . The Modified Project would result in approximately 399 residents3 within 139 total units 4, all within the Beach Avenue and Fairview West District of the Downtown Inglewood Plan Area. The Modified Project would not result in the addition of new residents beyond what has already been analyzed in the Certified EIR and is consistent with growth projections for the City ; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would r equire the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Implementation of the Modified Project would not result in the displacement of a substantial number of residential units or persons .

The location of the mixed-use development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site is currently occupied by dry storage warehouse of Don Lee Farms, and the 338 Beach Avenue Site is currently vacant. The Modified Project would include the addition of new residential housing units that would serve the existing communi ty. Therefore, no impact would occur. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

5.2.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for population and housing , and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

3 330 residents within 115 units at the 338 Beach Avenue site, and 69 residents within 24 units at the 300 Beach Avenue site. 4 Resident count is estimated using 2.87 persons per household within 115 dwelling units (US Census Bureau 2023). Employee count is estimated using 2.24 employees per 1,000 square feet (Inglewood Unified School District 2022).

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

5.2.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Similar to the Approved Project, the level of significance would remain less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

5.3 AESTHETICS

5.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. (c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

5.3.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in no impact to scenic vistas due to the lack of topography, and there were no identified or designated scenic views or vistas within the City. No impacts would occur to state scenic highways because the Approved Project is not within or visible from any existing designated or eligible scenic highway. Impacts regarding the potential creation of substantial new sources of nighttime lighting were determined to be less than significant because the Approved Project would be required to comply with Chapter 12 of the Inglewood Municipal Code. Compliance with the Inglewood Municipal Code would include requiring light emanating from new uses within the TOD Plan area to be either low scaled lighting or shielded. Additionally, impacts regarding the potential creation of substantial new sources of glare were determined to be less than significant because the Approved Project would be required to comply with Chapter 12 of the Inglewood Municipal Code. Compliance with the Inglewood Municipal Code would include implementing non-reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, limiting the use of reflective glass, and shielding external light sources.

5.3.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Modified Project:

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-7
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on scenic vistas because of the topography and that there were no identified or designated scenic views or vistas within the City (Inglewood 2006). No scenic vistas have been identified since the Certified EIR.

Development of the Modified Project would be located within the same TOD plan area as the Approved Project and would include the improvements to the existing industrial facility to support Don Lee Farms and construction of a new mixed-use development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site and a new residential development at the 338 Beach Avenue Site. As such, similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not result in a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista because there are no scenic vistas within the City of Inglewood, and no impacts would occur. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on to state scenic highways because the Approved Project was not within or visible from any existing designated or eligible scenic highway.

According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the nearest eligible scenic highway is State Route 1 (CA-1), located approximately 6 miles northwest of the Modified Project Site (Caltrans 2025).

The nearest designated state scenic highway is CA-27 and is located approximately 14 miles northwest of the Project Site. There are new views of the Project Site from these locations due to distance, topography, and predominant urban development.

Thus, the Modified Project would result in no impacts to state scenic highways. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR did not analyze potential impacts to the existing visual character.

As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project Site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Inglewood. The Modified Project includes the improvements to the existing industrial facility and construction

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

of a new mixed-use developments within the Project Site, which would be consistent with the surrounding urbanized development.

The Modified Project would comply with the development standards of the MU -1 zoning , including development standards for maximum height, minimum lot size, public street setback, public alley setback, and parking requirements. The proposed new building at the 338 Beach Avenue Site would include a total of 5 stories, with a maximum height of 57 feet and 9 inches from grade level; and the 300 Beach Avenue Site would have maximum height of 44 feet above grade level, below the 80-foot maximum height allowed in the MU-1 zone. As such, the Modified Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review . Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. . d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that impacts regarding the potential creation of substantial new sources of nighttime lighting and glare were less than significant with compliance with Chapter 12 of the Inglewood Municipal Code.

The Modified Project would include improvements to the existing industrial facility and new residential developments within the Project Site that would introduce new sources of light and glare. New sources of light would include indoor light sources, outdoor security lighting, outdoor walkway and parking lighting, and additional vehicles traveling to and from the site. Additionally, the buildout of the Modified Project would result in more reflective surfaces compared to existing conditions on the Project Site, increasing sources of glare.

Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply the requirements of Chapter 12 of the Inglewood Municipal Code related to lighting and shielding of light sources limit the potential for increased lighting on sensitive uses. Light emanating from new uses within the Project Site would be required to be either low scaled lighting or shielded to focus lighting and prevent lighting from spilling onto adjacent sensitive uses, such as residential, or from stream ing directly into streets, which could impair views of drivers on streets at night. With compliance with the Inglewood Municipal Code, that is checked by the City through the plan check and project permitting process, impacts related to increased sources of light would be less than significant.

Additionally, similar to the Approved Project, implementation of features, such as non -reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, limiting of the use of reflective glass, and shielding external light sources as required by Chapter 12 of the Inglewood Municipal Code would reduce the potential to generate glare from the Modified Project. With compliance with the Inglewood Municipal Code that is checked by the City through the plan check and development permit process, impacts related to increased sou rces of glare would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-9
environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

5.3.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for aesthetics, and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

5.3.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Similar to the Approved Project, the level of significance would remain less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix A to this Addendum:
▪ Cultural Resources Technical Report, South Environmental, December 2024

5.4.1 Thresholds of Significances
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

5.4.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as the result of future site-specific development project, since the TOD Plan areas contain resources designated as California State Historic Landmarks and listed in the National Register of historic places, in addition to other structures that are eligible or potentially eligible for a historic designation.

Although no historically significant buildings were planned for demolition and the Approved Project aims to ensure preservation of historic resources, implementation of site -specific development projects pursuant to the Approved Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource by altering a historical resource’s physical characteristics, which convey its historical significance. Thus, Mitigation Measures 4.D-1 and 4.D -2 were included in the Certified EIR to address unidentified, potential historical resources (buildings, structures, and features aged 50 years and older) and to ensure preservation of known historic resources as new development within the TOD Plan areas occur. The Approved Project would require

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

future projects to follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995).

Impacts to archaeological resources were also determined to be potentially significant as a result of future site- specific development projects. Almost all of the TOD Plan area has been previously disturbed and developed; however, future site-specific development projects could involve grading and excavation on parcels that not have been previously exposed to ground-disturbing activities, which could result in the disturbance of unknown human remains. Impacts were determined to be potentially significant ; however, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of the included Mitigation Measures 4.D-1 and 4.D -2 would reduce the potential for archaeological resources to be impacted during earthmoving activities and provides for preservation of any identified resources.

Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project could result in the disturbance of unknown human remains. In the event of an inadvertent discovery or recognition of any human remains during ground disturbance activities, regulations pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be implemented, and impacts were less-than-significant.

5.4.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

Mitigation Measure 4.D -1 from the Certified EIR requires that, prior to issuance of building permits on properties that contain structures over 50 years in age, an assessment of the property must be conducted to determine whether there would be impacts to historic resources. The Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix A) that was prepared as part of this evaluation fulfills this requirement. The Cultural Resources Technical Report included a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) via the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), which included the Project Site and a one-quarter mile search radius.

The following four built environment resources over 45 years old were identified within the 300 Beach Avenue Site:
▪ APN 4015-018-004, built in 1958
▪ APN 4015-017-011, built in 1946
▪ APN 4015-017-010, built in 1946
▪ APN 4015-017-010, built in 1952
The four properties were recorded and evaluated for historical significance in consideration of California Register of Historical Resources designation criteria and integrity requirements. The properties were found not

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-11
eligible under all designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit (see Appendix A) . The 338 East Beach Avenue Project Site is currently vacant and has been previously disturbed, it contains no buildings or structures that are more than 45 years old. In addition, a review of the surrounding properties was conducted to assess the potential for a historic district. While the Project Site is located in an area that developed around the same time and was intende d for industrial development, there is not enough architectural cohesion present to indicate the potential for a historic district. There have also been significant alterations to many of the buildings in this area, which further inhibits its ability to co nvey significance as a potential historic district.

No historical resources were identified within the Project Site as a result of this study. Therefore, with respect to historic built environment resources, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact and the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.D-1 from the Certified EIR have been completed. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

No archaeological resources were identified within the Project Site as a result of the CHRIS records search or pedestrian survey by a qualified archaeologist. Further, most of the Project Site has been heavily disturbed by the previous construction of buildings and subsurface infrastructure, including some that are now demolished.

Therefore, the Project Site is unlikely to contain intact buried archaeological deposi ts; however, ground disturbance always presents a possibility of encountering resources.

Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.D-2 from the Certified EIR. Should archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) be exposed during construction activities for the Modified Project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.D -2, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact on archaeological resources. Thus, the Modified Project does n ot introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that infill development would occur on vacant parcels, some of which may not

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

have been previously exposed to ground disturbing activities, and therefore could result in the disturbance of unknown human remains. Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. These regulations require that if human remains are unearthed during construction, then no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Re source Code Section 5097.98, which outlines the NAHC notification process and the appropriate procedures if the Coroner determines the human remains to be Native American. Compliance with applicable regulations during implementation of the Modified Project would protect unknown and previously unidentified human remains, and impacts related to unknown human remains would be less than significant Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

5.4.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR Mitigation Measure 4.D-1 from the Certified EIR has been fulfilled and documents that historic resources would not be impacted by the Modified Project as detailed above. No further mitigation for historic resources is necessary. M itigation Measure 4.D-2 from the Certified EIR is applicable to the Modified Project and is shown below. Any modifications to these mitigation measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and double underline for new, inserted text. This mitigation measure has been included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Modified Project.

Mitigation Measures

4.D-1 Prior to issuance of any permits for projects or demolition activities that would physically affect any listed or potentially eligible historic buildings, structures, or features aged 50 years old or older or negatively affect their historic setting, a cu ltural resource professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History shall be retained to determine of the proposed activities would cause a substantial adverse change in the significan ce of a historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and City of Inglewood, the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, a record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and a pedestrian survey of the proposed project or activity area to determine if any significant historic period resou rces would Be adversely affected by the proposed action. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any historical resources within the project area and includes recommendations and methods for eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources. Methods would include, but are not limited to, written and photographic recordation of the resource in accordance with the level of Historical American Building Survey (HBAS) documentat ion that is appropriate to the significance (local, state, national) of the resource. Methods determined to reduce historic impacts, pursuant to the Secretary of the Interiors standards to a less than significant level

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-13
shall be incorporated into all development plans submitted and included as conditions of approval. In addition, a qualified cultural resource professional shall monitor development activities to ensure that recommended site -specific historic related design measures are followed during construction.

Implementation: A qualified cultural resource professional shall be retained to identify potential historic resources on any site-specific development project containing one or more buildings more than 50 years old. Designers and contractors shall comply with the recommended historic design standards and other measures identified by the historic evaluation. In addition, the qualified cultural resource professional shall monitor development activities to ensure that recommended site -specific historic related design measures are followed during construction. The historic recommendations shall be incorporated into all development plans submitted and included as conditions of approval. The City Planning Division shall review all historic assessment reports and t he design features of development projects prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or construction permit.

4.D-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or action that would permit site disturbance (whichever occurs first), the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any resulting archaeological requirements shall be incorporated into all development plans submitted and also included as conditions of approval. In the event that archaeological materials, including stone tools, shells, bones, glass shards, ceramics, or other materials older than 50 years in age, are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 100 feet of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined.

If archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(C) , if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall b e treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2.

Implementation: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries. In addition,

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

any archaeological requirements established by the archaeologist evaluating the discovery shall be incorporated into all development plans submitted and included as conditions of approval.

5.4.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Similar to the Approved Project, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.D-1 and 4.D-2, impacts to cultural resources would remain less than significant for the Modified Project, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.5 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix B to this Addendum:
▪ Transportation Impact Assessment, Iteris, February 2025

5.5.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (d) Result in inadequate emergency access.

5.5.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation. The Approved Project determined that level of service (LOS) performance at eight intersections would be unsatisfactory, resulting in significant traffic impacts. As a result, Mitigation Measures

4.E-1.2a, 4.E-1.2b, 4.E-1.2c, 4.E-1.2d, 4.E-1.2e, and 4.E-1.2f were implemented. Additionally, the Approved Project determined that impacts to traffic on freeway off -ramps, contributing to vehicle queueing , would be less than significant. The Approved Project also determined that impacts to the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) would be significant and unavoidable with no feasible mitigation measures available. The Certified EIR was prepared in 2016, prior to the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 743 in 2018, which shifted the transportation thresholds fr om a LOS analysis to a vehicle mile s traveled (VMT) analysis.

The Approved Project determined that there would be no impacts to changes in air traffic patterns and there would no substantial increase in hazards due to design features. Impacts to inadequate emergency access as a

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-15
result of the Approved Project were considered less than significant with no necessary mitigation measures.

Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that impacts from conflict with any adopted policies, plans, ordinances regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

5.5.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

Because the Certified EIR was completed in 2016, LOS transportation impacts were analyzed and encompass the majority of the transportation analysis found in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in unacceptable levels of service at eight intersections due to increased traffic resulting from the Approved Project that would increase levels of service beyond applicable thresholds .

Mitigation Measure 4.E -1.2a through 4.E -1.2f were included in the Certified EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts at Inglewood Avenue/E. Manchester Boulevard (4.E-1.2a), N. La Brea Avenue/E. Florence Avenue (4.E-1.2b), N. La Brea Avenue/Regent Street (4.E-1.2c), Prairie Avenue/E. Florence Avenue (4.E-1.2d), Prairie Avenue/E. Manchester Boulevard (4.E -1.2e), and West Boulevard/ E. Florence Avenue (4.E -1.2f).

However, only three of the intersections are located within 0.25 mile of the Project Site, including N. La Brea Avenue/E. Florence Avenue, N. La Brea Avenue/Regent Street, and Prairie Avenue/E. Florence Avenue.

Although no longer required by CEQA, the City’s adopted Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2022) requires the assessment of non -VMT local transportation impacts, including operation analysis and queuing.

Thus, a transportation analysis was prepared for the Modified Project (see Appendix B). The transportation analysis evaluated the potential impact of the Modi fied Project’s trips on existing traffic conditions and on future traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site. The following four intersections were selected and analyzed based on the expected distribution of project -generated trips, which typic ally utilize higher capacity roadways.
▪ La Brea Avenue/Beach Avenue;
▪ La Brea Avenue/Florence Avenue;
▪ Centinela Avenue/Beach Avenue; and
▪ Centinela Avenue/Florence Avenue.

Roadway Configurations
▪ La Brea Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway, with a center two-way left-turn lane, oriented in a north- south direction. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street and the roadway’s posted speed limit in the study area is 35 mph.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

▪ Centinela Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway, with a center two-way left-turn lane, oriented in a north- south direction. Centinela Avenue is classified as a major arterial in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and has a posted speed limit of 40 mph.
▪ Beach Avenue is a two -lane undivided roadway running in an east -west orientation. Beach Avenue provides access to the project site, on-street parking is provided on both sides, and the posted speed limit is 30 mph.
▪ Florence Avenue is a six-lane divided roadway running in a northeast-southwest orientation in the vicinity of the project. On-street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.

Traffic operations were evaluated during weekday a.m. (7:00 – 9:00) and p.m. (4:00 – 6:00) peak hours for four scenarios: existing conditions, existing plus Modified Project conditions; opening year 2029 with Modified Project conditions; and opening year 2029 without Modified Project conditions. The traffic impact analysis is based on the highest single hour of traffic during each time period at each of the four intersections.

The quality of traffic operations is characterized using LOS as defined by a range of grades from A (best) to F (worst). At intersections, LOS “A” represents relatively free flow operating conditions with little or no delay.

LOS “F” is characterized by ext remely unstable flow conditions, severe congestion and delays with traffic volumes at or near the intersection’s design capacity (see Appendix B).

As shown in Appendix B, the study intersections are all currently operating at existing conditions at LOS D or better; including Centinela Avenue/Beach Avenue intersection, which provides access to the Project Site, which is currently a stop -controlled intersection. Trip distribution assumptions shown in Appendix B were used to determine the origin and destination of new vehicle trips associated with the Modified Project. The Modified Project would generate 60 net new a.m. peak hour trips, 79 net new p.m. peak hour trips, and 811 net new daily trips. The new net trips generated by the Modified Project were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the distribution patterns to estimate the project-related peak-hour traffic at each of the study intersections.

Accounting for increases in background traffic, the La Brea Avenue/Florence Avenue intersection operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour during the 2029 opening year with and without the Modified Project, while the other locations are forecast to remain at LOS D or better. Implementation of the Modified Project would result in minimal increases in vehicle delay of less than 3 seconds per vehicle) at the study intersections.

Therefore, applying the same methodology to the Modified Project as was used in t he Certified EIR in order to provide an “apples to apples comparison”, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring furthe r environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the presentation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR for this separate and independently sufficient reason from the other analysis in this transportation section of the EIR Addendum.

Since LOS analysis is no longer required by CEQA to address congestion -related issues for new projects , implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR would no longer be necessary for the Modified Project. Additionally, the three proximate intersections (N. La Brea Avenue/E. Florence Avenue, N.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-17
La Brea Avenue/Regent Street, and Prairie Avenue/ E. Florence Avenue) would not exceed City standards.

Therefore, the identified mitigation measures are not applicable , nor required by CEQA to reduce environmental impacts.

Excluding LOS analysis, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact to adopted programs, policies, plans, or ordinances regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The Approved Project would include improvements to pedestrian and bicycle mobility within the Approved Project area and would improve the existing City’s General Plan requirements. Additionally, no mitigation measures were required.

The City has adopted programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system which include City’s General Plan Circulation Element, Downtown and Fairview Heights TOD Plan and Design Guidelines, Active Transportation Plan, and Inglewood First/Last Mile Plan 2019. These programs, plans, ordinances, and policies are intended as guiding documents and regulations that apply to the City’s circulation system. The Modified Project would consist of a mix of residential and commercial uses that would be constructed within immediate proximity to the Metro K -Line, providing transit options . This is consistent with City goals and policies promoting transit-oriented development at higher densities, as outlined in the TOD Plan. The Modified Project would include the construction of a driveway onto Beach Avenue; however, no changes to the public right‐of-way are being proposed. The design of the Modified Project incorporates emergency access, which would be reviewed and approved by the City and LACFD, ens uring full compliance with all applicable requirements, such as the California Fire Code. As such, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

As previously discussed, the Certified EIR was prepared prior to SB 743 and the City’s adoption of VMT thresholds. SB 743 was signed by the Governor in 2013 and directed the Office of Planning and Research (now the Office of Land Use and Climate Initiative) to consider different metrics for identifying transportation impacts under CEQA. The Final Technical Advisory was released in December 2018 and identified VMT as the preferred metric for transportation impact analysis for CEQA assessment. Additionally, the City of Inglewood adopted its own VMT thresholds in 2022 to align with state requirements and establish the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.

A transportation assessment prepared for the Modified Project (see Appendix B). The transportation assessment utilized the City’s VMT Calculator to determine if the Modified Project would require a VMT analysis. The City’s VMT Calculator estimates project‐specific daily vehicle trips, daily VMT, residential VMT per capita, and employment VMT per employee metrics for land use development projects in the City. As a

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

result of the initial screen, or screening analysis, using the City’s VMT Calculator, the Modified Project is forecast to generate more than 250 net daily trips, which requires a VMT analysis.

The VMT analysis specifically accounted for two impacts based on the City’s threshold—VMT per capita and VMT per employee. VMT per capita is defined as the total annual miles of vehicle travel divided by the total population of the Modified Project and has a threshold of 9.66 VMT per capita. VMT per employee is defined as the total miles driven by employees during their commutes, divided by the number of employees in that period for the Modified Project. The City’s VMT per employees threshold is 14.36.

The VMT analysis concluded that the Modified Project would not exceed the City’s thresholds for VMT per capita and VMT per employee. The Modified Project would produce a VMT per capita of 7.21, which is below the City’s established threshold of 9.66. The Modified Project would also produce a VMT per employee of

14.36 which is below the City’s established threshold of 14.46. As such, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact on VMT and would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

The Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. As such, the Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding VMT and would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new informa tion requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact because detailed designs for roadway, pedestrians, or bicycle features for development within the Approved Project area would be reviewed as part of the City’s development review process. Additionally, development within the Approved Project area would be required to meet all applicable design standards and no mitigation measures were required.

The Modified Project would include a new driveway along Beach Avenue serving the new 5 ‐story residential building at the currently vacant 338 Beach Avenue Site. This new driveway access would be designed to City standards to ensure no hazardous design features related to vehicle and pedestrian mobility (sharp curves, line of sight obstructions) are included. Furthermore, the Modified Project’s land uses (new residential, new commercial, and improvements to the existing industrial facilities) would not be considered incompatible with the project area, and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-19
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact.

Construction activities that would require the closure of public roads would be required to provide a traffic control plan to the City’s Public Works Department and to the Los Angeles County Fire Department and City’s police department to ensure adequate emergency access. Additionally, each site -specific development project within the Approved Project area would be reviewed by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access to and within the Project Site.

Emergency access to the Modified Project Site at 338 Beach Avenue would be provided via a new driveway from Beach Avenue, and additional emergency access would be provided via La Colina Drive and would include a 96-foot diameter Fire Department turnaround. Emergency access to the Modified Project Site at 300 Beach Avenue would be provided via La Colina Drive which would include a new driveway, and 20 -foot fire lane located behind the proposed building, and a 26-foot-wide truck aisle; in addition to a new driveway located at the front of the 300 Beach Avenue Project Site via Beach Avenue (as shown in Figure 7).

Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to provide a traffic control plan to the City’s Public Works Department and to the Los Angeles County Fire Department and City’s police department to ensure adequate emergency access. The Modified Project would also be subject to review by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access to and within the site.

As such, the Modified Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

5.5.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR Mitigation Measures 4.E-1.2a, 4.E-1.2b, 4.E-1.2c, 4.E-1.2d, 4.E-1.2e, and 4.E-1.2f from the Certified EIR are not applicable to the Modified Project for the reasons described above.

Mitigation Measure
MM-4.E-1.2a: Inglewood Avenue/Manchester Boulevard. The eastbound left -tum signal phase shall be modified from permitted to protected. Due to existing development and right - of-way constraints, no feasible physical improvements (e.g., roadway widening, additional lanes, etc.) could be implemented. Thus, the LOS at this intersection can be improved but not fully mitigated through implementation of this measure.

Implementation: Within five (5) years of approval of the TOD Plan, the Public Works Director will include this improvement in the Department's Capital Improvement Plan.

MM-4.E-1.2 b: La Brea Avenue/Florence Avenue. The northbound approach to this intersection shall be restriped to provide one left-tum lane, two through lanes, and one right-tum lane.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Due to existing development and right -of-way constraints, no feasible physical improvements (e.g., roadway widening, additional lanes, etc.) could be implemented.

Thus, the LOS at this intersection can be improved but not fully mitigated through implementation of this measure.

Implementation: Within five (5) years of approval of the TOD Plan, the Public Works Director will include this improvement in the Department's Capital Improvement Plan.

MM-4.E-1.2 c: La Brea Avenue/Regent Street. The northbound and westbound left turn signal phases shall be modified from permitted to protected. Due to existing development and right-of-way constraints, no feasible physical improvements (e.g., roadway widening, additional lanes, etc.) could be implem ented. Thus, the LOS at this intersection can be improved but not fully mitigated through implementation of this measure.

Implementation: Within five (5) years of approval of the TOD Plan, the Public Works Director will include this improvement in the Department's Capital Improvement Plan.

MM-4.E-1.2 d: Prairie Avenue/Florence Avenue. A second westbound left turn-lane shall be added, including a reduction in existing lane widths to accommodate the additional turning lane.

Implementation: Within five (5) years of approval of the TOD Plan, the Public Works Director will include this improvement in the Department's Capital Improvement Plan.

MM-4.E-1.2 e: Prairie Avenue/Manchester Boulevard. A westbound right-turn signal overlap phase shall be provided. Due to existing development and right-of-way constraints, no feasible physical improvements (e.g., roadway widening, additional lanes, etc.) could be implemented. Thus, the LOS at this intersection can be improved but not fully mitigated through implementation of this measure.

Implementation: Within five (5) years of approval of the TOD Plan, the Public Works Director will include this improvement in the Department's Capital Improvement Plan.

MM-4.E-1.2 f: West Boulevard/Florence Avenue. The north leg of the intersection shall be restriped to include a second southbound left-turn lane within the existing curb-to-curb right-of- way.

Implementation: Within five (5) years of approval of the TOD Plan, the Public Works Director will include this improvement in the Department's Capital Improvement Plan.

5.5.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Modified Project would not require the implementation of any mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR. T he level of significance for transportation impacts would be less than significant for the Modified Project, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-21

5.6 AIR QUALITY
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix C to this Addendum:
▪ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, PlaceWorks, January 2025

5.6.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

5.6.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would be within Southern California Association of Governments ’ growth projections in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would support the AQMP’s objectives to reduce trips and balance jobs-household ratio. The carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot screening analysis indicated that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in the violation of State 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentration standards. Thus, the Approved Project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Consequently, the Approved Project was found to not conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP, and no impacts would occur.

Regional Construction Impacts
The Certified EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.F -2a and 4.F -2b, construction-related emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds , and impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a requires U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 -Interim emissions for offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower and Mitigation Measure 4.F-2b requires fugitive dust control measures during grading, excavation, and other ground preparation activities.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Regional Operational Impacts
The Certified EIR concluded that the operational emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
The Certified EIR determined that emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Approved Project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.F- 2a and 4.F -2b. The Approved Project would also be consistent with SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) policies, meet the applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements, and the City’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECA P) standards to reduce energy demand. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Localized Impacts
The Certified EIR demonstrated that the Approved Project would not generate CO hotspots , and nearby sensitive receptors would not be affected by project -related local air quality impacts. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Odors
The Certified EIR identified that odors generated within the TOD Plan area would not affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

5.6.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the Modified Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would be within SCAG’s growth projections included in South Coast AQMD’s 2012 AQMP and would support AQMP’s objectives to reduce trips and balance jobs- household ratio. Therefore, no impacts were identified. Since the E IR was certified, South Coast AQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP in December 2022 (South Coast AQMD 2022).

The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by South Coast AQMD and SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based in part on cities’ general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled in the SCAG region (SCAG 2024). Because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans and SCAG’s regional growth forecasts, projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air-quality-related regional plan.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-23
As discussed in Section 5.2, Population and Housing, the envisioned buildout for the 300 Beach Avenue Site with improvements to the existing industrial facility would not increase the operational capacity of the existing uses, and the addition of new mixed-use or residential development could provide affordable housing in the project area. The conceptual residential development on the vacant site at 338 Beach Avenue would serve the existing community, and the Modified Project would not result in any new imp acts that were not previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. Thus, the Modified Project would not result in increasing unplanned growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2022 AQMP.

Additionally, as demonstrated below in Section 5.6(b), the Modified Project would not result in a substantial increase in operation -phase emissions , and impacts would be less than significant, compared to what was previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP. Impacts of the Modified Project would be less than significant, and its implementation would not result in new or increase the severity of impacts pertaining to consistency with the 20 22 AQMP when compared to the Certified EIR. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a and 4.F-2b, construction- related emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Regional Construction Impacts
As previously discussed, the Modified Project consists of a rezone of 17 of the 20 parcels within the Project Site; 12 parcels would be rezoned to MU-1, five parcels would be rezoned to M-1, and zoning for three parcels would not change. To analyze the reasonable buildout of the project site, the Modified Project is assumed to consist of mixed-use and industrial uses. Construction activities associated with the development of these uses would produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew.

Construction of future site-specific development facilitated by the Modified Project would generate criteria air pollutants associated with construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust from building demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. However, because site-specific development is provided only at a conceptual level at this time , several factors influencing potential construction-related impacts are unknown, such as the construction equipment mix, the intensity of daily equipment use, the duration of equipment use for varying activities, and whether those activities overlap.

While the Modified Project is limited to the rezone of the project site and site-specific construction parameters are not known at this time with certainty , a preliminary quantitative assessment of construction impacts has been prepared as part of this analysis to represent reasonably expected impact during construction of the land

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

use improvements envisioned under the Modified Project . For the purposes of this analysis, buildout of the Modified Project was assumed to be developed in three phases, including two phases of construction of the 300 Beach Avenue Site and one phase of construction for the 338 Beach Avenue Site.

Phase 1 of construction for the 300 Beach Avenue Site is assumed to consist of improvements to the existing industrial development at Don Lee Farms , conservatively assuming a duration of approximately 12 months, between June 2027 and June 2028 , and Phase 2 is assumed to include the development of the mixed-use development after completion of Don Lee Farms improvements, conservatively assuming a duration of approximately 18 months, between June 2028 and December 2029. Phase 1 of construction for the 338 Beach Avenue Site is assumed to include the construction of the multi-family residential development, conservatively assuming a duration of approximately 30 months, from June 2027 to December 2029.

Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on -site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Maximum daily construction emissions associated with the envisioned buildout under the Modified Project are provided in Table 6, Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions. Mitigation measures identified for the Approved Project and applicable to future construction facilitated by the Modified Project would include Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a and 4.F-2b, which require use of offroad engines certified by the EPA as rated Tier 4 interim for engines greater than 50 horsepower and fugitive dust control measures during grading, excavation, and other ground preparation activities.

Table 6 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Pollutants
(lb./day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Certified EIR Maximum Daily Emissions3 6.53 81.35 171.64 0.30 4.52 2.10 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2027
P1 Demolition and P3 Site Preparation 1 16 28 <1 4 1
P1 Site Preparation and P3 Site Preparation 1 15 28 <1 4 1 P1 Grading and P3 Site Preparation 1 15 28 <1 5 2
P1 Building Construction and P3 Site Preparation 1 16 27 <1 3 1 P1 Building Construction and P3 Grading 1 18 30 <1 3 1
P1 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2027 2 18 33 <1 2 1
Year 2028
P1 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2028 2 18 32 <1 2 1
P1 Building Construction, P1 Paving, P1 Architectural
Coating and P3 Building Construction 21 24 43 <1 2 1
P1 Building Construction, P1 Paving, P1 Architectural
Coating, P2 Site Preparation, and P3 Building
Construction
21 28 49 <1 3 1
P2 Site Preparation and P3 Building Construction 1 12 24 <1 2 1

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-25
Table 6 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Pollutants
(lb./day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
P2 Grading and P3 Building Construction 1 14 28 <1 4 1
P2 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2028 1 13 27 <1 2 1
Year 2029
P2 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2029 1 13 26 <1 2 1
P2 Building Construction, P3 Building Construction, P3
Paving, and P3 Architectural Coating 28 19 36 <1 2 1
P2 Building Construction, P2 Paving, P2 Architectural
Coating, P3 Building Construction, P3 Paving, and P3
Architectural Coating
34 24 43 <1 3 1
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions 34 28 49 <1 5 2
South Coast AQMD Regional Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. South Coast AQMD 2023. 1 Based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast AQMD of construction equipment. 2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. Includes Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a and 4.F-2b, which requires use of offroad engines certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as rated Tier 4 interim and fugitive dust control measures during grading, excavation, and other ground preparation activities. 3 Based on the maximum daily construction emissions in Table 4.F-6 in the Certified EIR.

The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 under the State standards and nonattainment for O 3, PM 2.5, and lead (Los Angeles County only) for federal standards (CARB 2024). According to South Coast AQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact (South Coast AQMD 1993). Future development facilitated by the Modified Project would go through the City’s design review process, which will include validation of the conclusions of this EIR Addendum. This may include preparation of a site -specific construction analysis to identify potential impacts to air quality and health risk, and identif ication and implementation of necessary mitigation to reduce impacts commensurate with those determined for the Approved Project. As shown in Table 6, the maximum daily construction emissions for all criteria air pollutants would be less than their respective South Coast AQMD regional significance threshold values with implementation of applicable mitigation measures from the Certified EIR.

Moreover, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable development standards and permitted uses identified in the Inglewood Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Building Regulations, and within the TOD Mixed-Use (MU-1) zoning district. Overall, the Modified Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of maximum daily air pollutant emissions such that impacts would be greater than what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. A less than significant impact would

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

occur with implementation of the previously identified Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a and 4F-2b, and preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required.

Localized Significance Thresholds
The Certified EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.F -2b, localized, on -site construction-related emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s local significance thresholds and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and welfare. They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise.

The screening-level construction LSTs are based on the size of the Project Site, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and Source Receptor Area (SRA). The nearest off -site sensitive receptors to the envisioned development footprint are the multifamily residences along E. Beach Avenue to the north, the single -family residences along La Colina Drive to the east and situated between the two sites, and St. John Chrysostom Catholic School to the east.

Air pollutant emissions generated by the assumed construction activities would cause temporary increases in air pollutant concentrations. Table 7, Localized Construction Emissions , shows the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) generated during on-site construction activities compared with the South Coast AQMD’s screening -level LSTs, for sensitive receptors within 82 feet for NO X, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5. As described previously, mitigation measures identified for the Approved Project and appli cable to future development under the Modified Project were included in the modeling, including Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a and 4.F-2b, which require use of offroad engines certified by the EPA as rated Tier 4 interim and fugitive dust control measures during grading, excavation, and other ground preparation activities.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-27
Table 7 Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Pollutants(lbs./day)1
NOX CO PM102 PM2.52
Certified EIR Total On-Site Construction Emissions3 81.35 171.64 4.52 2.10 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold (1-acre site) 91 664 5 3 Significant? No No No No
South Coast AQMD <1.00 Acre LST 91 664 5.00 3.00
P1 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2027 17 25 0.29 0.27
P1 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2028 17 25 0.25 0.23
South Coast AQMD 1.25 Acre LST 101 740 5.75 3.50
P1 Building Construction, P1 Paving, P1 Architectural
Coating and P3 Building Construction 23 35 0.37 0.33
South Coast AQMD 1.31 Acre LST 103 759 5.93 3.62
P2 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2028 12 20 0.14 0.13
P2 Building Construction and P3 Building Construction
2029 12 19 0.13 0.12
South Coast AQMD 1.38 Acre LST 106 778 6.12 3.75
P2 Site Preparation and P3 Building Construction 11 17 0.59 0.17 South Coast AQMD 1.56 Acre LST 114 834 6.68 4.12
P2 Grading and P3 Building Construction 13 21 1.89 0.85 South Coast AQMD 1.81 Acre LST 124 910 7.43 4.62
P1 Building Construction and P3 Site Preparation 15 26 2.26 1.00 South Coast AQMD 1.83 Acre LST 124 916 7.50 4.67
P2 Building Construction, P3 Building Construction, P3
Paving, and P3 Architectural Coating 17 27 0.19 0.18
South Coast AQMD 2.22 Acre LST 136 1,025 8.51 5.22
P1 Building Construction and P3 Grading 17 28 2.62 1.14 South Coast AQMD 2.25 Acre LST 137 1,034 8.58 5.25
P1 Building Construction, P1 Paving, P1 Architectural
Coating, P2 Site Preparation, and P3 Building Construction 27 41 0.84 0.39 South Coast AQMD 2.27 Acre LST 137 1,038 8.62 5.27
P2 Building Construction, P2 Paving, P2 Architectural
Coating, P3 Building Construction, P3 Paving, and P3
Architectural Coating
22 34 0.28 0.27
South Coast AQMD 3.34 Acre LST 161 1,326 11.13 6.34
P1 Site Preparation and P3 Site Preparation 14 27 3.16 1.01 P1 Grading and P3 Site Preparation 14 26 4.58 1.86
South Coast AQMD 3.44 Acre LST 163 1,351 11.35 6.44
P1 Demolition and P3 Site Preparation 15 27 3.15 1.04
Exceeds LST? No No No No

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Table 7 Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Pollutants(lbs./day)1
NOX CO PM102 PM2.52
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. South Coast AQMD 2008a and 2011.

Notes: In accordance with South Coast AQMD methodology, only on-site stationary sources and mobile equipment are included in the analysis. Screening level LSTs are based on an 82 ft receptor for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in SRA 3. 1 Where specific information for project-related construction activities or processes was not available modeling was based on CalEEMod defaults. These defaults are based on construction surveys conducted by the South Coast AQMD. 2 Includes fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, such as watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. Includes Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a and 4.F-2b, which requires use of offroad engines certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as rated Tier 4 interim and fugitive dust control measures during grading, excavation, and other ground preparation activities. 3 Based on the total on-site construction emissions in Table 4.F-8 in the Certified EIR.

As shown in Table 7, the construction of land uses improvements envisioned under the Modified Project are not expected to generate construction-related on-site emissions that would exceed the screening -level LSTs.

Thus, project -related construction activities would not have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Localized air quality impacts from construction act ivities would be less than significant.

Development under the Modified Project would not introduce new types of construction processes or activities compared to what was previously considered in the Certified EIR. Additionally, the Modified Project would not result in developing a new area because the Project Site was considered for TOD MU-1, Residential Limited Multi Family (R-2), and Light Manufacturing (M-1) usage under the Certified EIR. Thus, development of the land uses accommodated under the Modified Project would not result in new or increase the severity o f construction-related LST impacts compared to the land uses considered for the Project Site in the Certified EIR.

Long-Term Regional Operational Impacts
The Certified EIR concluded that operation -related emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Typical long-term air pollutant emissions are generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement), energy use (natural gas), and mobile sources (i.e., on -road vehicles). Implementation of the Modifie d Project would facilitate improvements to the existing industrial facility and allow mixed-use and residential developments within the 300 Beach Avenue Site , as well as new residential development within the 338 Beach Avenue Site. Therefore, as described in Chapter 3 , Project Description, for the purposes of this analysis, the Modified Project is assumed to enable mixed-use and industrial uses. The primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by most land use development projects, such as what would be facilitated by the Modified Project, would be mobile emissions from project- generated vehicle trips.

As shown in Table 8, Maximum Daily Regional Operational Phase Emissions, air pollutant emissions generated from operation-related activities associated with the envisioned buildout of the project site would be less than their respective South Coast AQMD regional significance threshold values. Projects that do not exceed the South

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-29
Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds would not result in an incremental increase in health impacts in the SoCAB from project-related increases in criteria air pollutants.

Table 8 Maximum Daily Regional Operational Phase Emissions Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Certified EIR Operational Emissions1 31.41 49.23 186.56 0.41 27.66 7.99 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No
Mobile2 2 1 21 <1 5 1
Area3 5 <1 12 <1 <1 <1
Energy3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Transport Refrigeration Units4 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Emissions 8 2 33 <1 5 1
South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Regional Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. South Coast AQMD 2023. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported.

Notes: Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. lbs. = pounds 1 Based on the total daily operational emissions in Table 4.F-9 in the Certified EIR. 2 Net increase in trips based on ITE Trip rates (11th edition) for multi-family housing midrise, strip retail plaza, and warehousing land uses (see Appendix B). 3 Conservative analysis due to total increase, rather than net increase, in area sources and energy usage. 4 Based on 6 trucks with TRUs per day and 60 mins of idling per TRU per day. Based on calendar year 2029 In state Trailer TRU emission rates for HHDT obtained from OFFROAD2021, Version 1.0.8.

It should be noted that the analysis conservatively modeled the total increase, rather than the net increase, in electricity and area sources. Vehicle emissions accounted for the net increase in vehicle trips beyond the existing trips associated with the warehouse on 300 Beach Avenue Site, as provided by Iteris (Appendix B). In addition, emissions from building energy use would be minimized because the new buildings would comply with the latest energy standards, which would be an improvement over the energy standards applied to the development pursuant under the Approved Project.

Therefore, the envisioned buildout of the Modified Project would not result in a substantial increase in operation-phase emissions compared to what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. The envisioned buildout of the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to cumulatively contribut ing to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Therefore, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required.

Operational LST s
The Certified EIR concluded that regional and localized, operational -related emission impacts would be less than significant.

The screening-level LSTs are the amount of project-related stationary and area sources of emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) would exceed the AAQS for the criteria air pollutants for which the

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

SoCAB is designated a nonattainment area. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial sources of emissions or would require a permit from South Coast AQMD include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing, and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur on-site. As previously stated, future development facilitated by the Modified Project is envisioned to involve development of a new dry and cold storage facility with a loading dock at the 300 Beach Avenue Site. Therefore, on-site emissions assume operation of six trucks equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) per day and TRU idling for approximately 1 hour per day.

Table 9, Localized On-Site Operational Emissions, shows that on-site project-related operational emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s operational screening -level LSTs. Therefore, localized criteria air pollutant emissions impacts from project-related operations would be less than significant.

Table 9 Localized On-Site Operational Emissions
Source
Pollutants (lbs./day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources <1 12 0.01 0.01
Energy <1 <1 0.00 0.00
Transport Refrigeration Units1 <1 <1 0.00 0.00
Maximum Daily Onsite Operation Emissions 1 12 0.01 0.01 South Coast AQMD Screening-Level LST 186 1,641 3.68 1.84 Exceeds Screening-Level LST? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; South Coast AQMD 2008.

Note: In accordance with South Coast AQMD methodology, LSTs are based on sensitive receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in SRA 3. 1 Based on 6 trucks with TRUs per day and 60 mins of idling per TRU per day. Based on calendar year 2029 In state Trailer TRU emission rates for HHDT obtained from OFFROAD2021, Version 1.0.8.

Thus, the type of land uses and truck idling envisioned under the Modified Project would not generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants emissions. As such, operational impacts associated with development envisioned under the Modified Project would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project would not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR demonstrated that the Approved Project would not generate CO hotspots and nearby sensitive receptors would not be affected by project-related local air quality impacts. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant. The following describes changes in localized impacts from short -term construction activities and long-term operation of the Modified Project.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-31
Localized Construction Impacts
Construction Health Risk
Future construction facilitated by t he Modified Project, similar to the Approved Project, would elevate concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TAC) (i.e., diesel particulate matter [DPM]) in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during temporary construction activities that would use offroad equipment operating on-site, and at different levels depending on the type of activity. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are the multifamily residences along E. Beach Avenue to the north, the single-family residences along La Colina Drive to the east and situated between the two sites, and St. John Chrysostom Catholic School to the east.

As previously discussed, the Modified Project involves a zone change of the project site that would allow for redevelopment consistent with applicable zoning designations . While a conceptual development scenario is proposed and assessed in this EIR Addendum, final site-specific details are not known and would undergo appropriate design review and approval by the City . As previously mentioned, several detailed factors influencing construction-related health risk impacts are unknown, such as the construction equipment mix, the intensity of daily equipment use, the duration of equipment use for varying activities, and whether those activities overlap.

Because the Modified Project is primarily related to the rezone of the project site and site-specific construction parameters are unknown, a detailed quantitative assessment of construction health risk impacts would be speculative. Nonetheless, future development of the project site that is facilitated by the Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.F-2a from the Certified EIR. The use of Tier 4 construction equipment under Mitigation Measure 4.F -2a would help reduce DPM concentr ations at nearby sensitive receptors and thereby reduce potential health risk impacts . In addition, with inclusion of the Certified EIR Mitigation Measures 4.F -2a and 4.F -b, construction of the land use improvements envisioned under the Modified Project would not exceed the construction-related localized significance thresholds, as shown in Table 7, which were developed in part to protect nearby sensitive receptors from being impacted by construction activities. Moreover, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would go through the City’s design review process, which will include validation of the conclusions of this EIR Addendum. This may include preparation of a site-specific construction analysis to identify potential impacts to air quality and health risk, and identification and implementation of necessary mitigation to reduce impacts commensurate with those determined for the Approved Project . Therefore, with implementation of Certified EIR Mitigation Measure

4.F-2a, construction-related health risk impacts associated with the Modified Project would be less than significant. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Localized Operational Impacts
Operational Health Risk
The South Coast AQMD requires an analysis of toxic air contaminants when the project generates emissions proximate to sensitive receptors in order to ensure that the project does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating TRUs per day, or where TRU unit operation s exceed 300 hours per

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

week) based on the combination of risk from on-site TRU use and exposure to DPM concentrations predicted with the South Coast AQMD modeling (CARB 2005). Because buildout under the Modified Project envisions six trucks accessing the site daily, a cumulative 42 hours per week of TRU idling on-site would be allowed by the Modified Project, which is not anticipated to result in exposing nearby sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project Site to substantial pollutant concentrations during operation.

Operation of the envisioned buildout of the Modified Project would generate DPM emissions from six trucks equipped with TRUs , each idling for approximately an hour per day , so future industrial or warehouse development facilitated by the Modified Project would not be considered a distribution center that would generate substantial TACs. In addition, CARB adopted two airborne toxic control measures to help reduce DPM emissions associated with distribution centers and warehouses. In accordance with Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, the first statewide measure will limit nonessential idling of diesel - fueled commercial vehicles, including those entering from othe r states or countries. The second measure requires that TRUs operating in California become cleaner over time by establishing in -use performance standards for existing TRU engines that operate in California (CARB 2005). Therefore, the Modified Project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions and TACs during project operation, and impacts would be less than significant . Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

CO Hotspot
Vehicle congestion has the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles are backed up and idle for long periods and subject to reduced speeds. Thes e pockets could exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight -hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AA QS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations.

The Certified EIR demonstrated that the Approved Project would not generate CO hotspots , and nearby sensitive receptors would not be affected by project-related local air quality impacts. Currently, the SoCAB is designated attainment under both the National and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per h our—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2023).

The envisioned buildout under the Modified Project would result in a net increase of 59 AM and 78 PM peak- hour vehicle trips at buildout, which would not generate a CO hotspot (see Appendix C). Therefore, buildout of the Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts, and would not result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity pertaining to CO hotspots. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-33
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g., autobody shops), composti ng facility, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant.

The Certified EIR identified that odors generated within the TOD Plan area would not affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Project would rezone 17 of the 20 parcels within the Project Site; 12 parcels would be rezoned to MU-1, five parcels would be rezoned toM-1, and zoning for three parcels would not change . To analyze the reasonable buildout of the project site, the Modified Project is assumed to consist of mixed-use and industrial uses. These land uses would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, operation after buildout of the Modified Project would not generate potentially significant odor impacts affecting a substantial number of people compared with what was previously considered in the Certified EIR.

Emissions from construction equipment used for future development of the project site, such as diesel exhaust and from volatile organic compounds associated with architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary and intermittent and are not expected to affect a substantial number of p eople. Compared to the land uses considered for the Project Site in the Certified EIR, future development accommodated by the Modified Project would result in similar construction odors. The Modified Project would not introduce or require any new construction processes that would generate substantial odors compared with what was previously considered in the Certified EIR.

Therefore, buildout of the Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts, and would not result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity pertaining to objectionable odors compared to the Certified EIR. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the pre paration of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

5.6.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR Mitigation Measures 4.F-2a and 4.F-2b from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Modified Project and is shown below. These mitigation measures have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Modified P roject. Any modifications to these mitigation measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and double underline for new, inserted text.

Mitigation Measures

4.F-2a All on-site vehicles and equipment used in construction within the TOD Plan areas that has horsepower greater than 50 shall meet, at a minimum, USEPA Tier IV interim engine certification requirements. If Tier IV interim equipment is not available, the contractor may apply other available technologies available for construction equipment such that it would achieve a comparable reduction in NO X and PM emissions comparable to that of Tier IV construction equipment. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier IV are utilized, the contractor shall be required to show evidence to the City that these alternative technologies would achieve comparable emissions r eductions. Certifications or alternative reduction strategies shall be required prior to receiving a construction permit.

Implementation: Conditions of approval for site -specific development shall include the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.F -2a to be incorporated into construction contract documents. These contract documents shall be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and construction contracts.

4.F-2b All active construction areas shall be watered at least four times daily to reduce fugitive dust emissions from grading, excavation, and other ground preparation. Watering shall be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever it is available.

Implementation: Conditions of approval for site -specific development shall include the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.F -2b to be incorporated into construction contract documents. These contract documents shall be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and construction contracts.

5.6.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.F -2a and Mitigation Measure 4.F -2b, similar to the Approved Project, the level of significance would remain less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-35

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix C to this Addendum:
▪ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, PlaceWorks, January 2025

5.7.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

5.7.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR identified construction and operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the Approved Project would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s efficiency level threshold of 4.6 metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, and impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project would result in less than significant GHG emissions (proposed efficiency threshold recommended at the time by South Coast AQMD was consistent with CARB’s 2013 Scoping Plan), provide enhanced access to transit and improved pedestrian/bicycle facilities, and would implement provisions within the City’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would be consistent with goals and objectives of federal, state, and local plans and policies; impacts were found to be less than significant.

5.7.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Buildout of the Approved Project would not generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is by definition a cumulative environmental impact.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

The Modified Project includes a zoning change of the project site that is envisioned to result in improvements to the existing industrial facility, a new mixed-use development within the 300 Beach Avenue Site, and a new residential development within the 338 Beach Avenue Site. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be all-electric and not include any wood burning hearth devices. Operation-phase GHG emissions of land use improvements e nvisioned under the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project are shown in Table 10, Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions. The annual average construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for one-time GHG emissions from the construction phases of potential construction facilitated by the Modified Project. The service population associated with the Modified Project was assumed to be 399 residents (330 residents at the 338 Beach Avenue Site and 69 at the 300 Beach Avenue Site) and 8 employees.5 Table 10 Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions
Source
GHG
(MTCO2e/Year)
Certified EIR GHG Emissions1 55,829.32
Certified EIR MTCO2e/SP 3.77
South Coast AQMD Efficiency Threshold 4.6
Significant? No
Mobile2 753
Area3 4
Energy3 175
Water3 23
Solid Waste3 44
Refrigerants3 55
Transport Refrigeration Units4 17
30-Year Amortized Construction Emissions5 57
Modified Project Total GHG Emissions 1,127
Modified Project MTCO2e/SP6 2.77
South Coast AQMD Efficiency Threshold 4.6
Significant? No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. South Coast AQMD 2010.

Notes: MTons = metric tons; MTCO2e = metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. SP = service population. 1 Based on the total GHG emissions and MTCO2e/SP in Table 4.G-2 9 in the Certified EIR. 2 Net increase in trips based on ITE Trip rates (11th edition) for multi-family housing midrise, strip retail plaza, and warehousing land uses (see Appendix B). 3 Conservative analysis due to total increase, rather than net increase, in area sources, energy usage, water use, solid waste generation, and refrigerant usage. 4 Based on 6 trucks with TRUs per day and 60 mins of idling per TRU per day. Based on calendar year 2029 In state Trailer TRU emission rates for HHDT obtained from OFFROAD2021, Version 1.0.8.
5 Total construction emission are amortized over 30 years per South Coast AQMD methodology (South Coast AQMD 2008b). 6 Modified Project’s service population was estimated as 399 residents and 8 employees.

As with the development allowed under the Approved Project, operation of the Modified Project would result in an increase in water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation, and energy demand for the

5 Resident count is estimated using 2.87 persons per household within 115 dwelling units (US Census Bureau 2023). Employee count is estimated using 2.24 employees per 1,000 square feet (Inglewood Unified School District 2022).

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-37
Project Site. However, as shown in Table 10, envisioned construction and operation of the Modified Project would not generate an increase of annual emissions that exceeds the South Coast AQMD’s efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT/yr CO 2e that was utilized in the Certified EIR . Therefore, the Modified Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Operational GHG emissions from building energy use would also be minimized because new buildings under the Modified Project are expected to be designed all-electric and meet the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The Inglewood Municipal Code also encourages the use of electric vehicles (EV) and rooftop solar energy systems for small residential development with an expedited streamlined permitting process. Lastly, the State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program requirements, which is expanded by regulations such as SB 100. SB 100 established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales by 2045. The statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects but to utilities and energy providers such as Southern California Edison (SCE), which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the Modified Project. SCE’s compliance with the RPS goals would support the State in meeting its objective in transitioning to renewable energy. These features and progress toward achieving RPS goals would help to reduce operational GHG emissions.

Due to these reasons, impacts of future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be less than significant. The Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to generating greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review . Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with CARB’s Scoping Plan and the City’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP). The following evaluates consistency of the Modified Project to the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and the City’s EECAP.

CARB Scoping Plan
The Certified EIR did not identify any conflicts with the Approved Project to CARB’s 2013 Scoping Plan since the Approved Project would be below South Coast AQMD’s efficiency threshold. The latest 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategies to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the targets established under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 (CARB 2022). The Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. However, new regulations adopted by the state agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program).

GHG emissions generated by future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be reduced through compliance with the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.

Thus, the Modified Project would not conflict with the above statewide strategies identified to implement the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and there would be no changes or new significant information which would require preparation of an EIR.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Certified EIR did not specifically analyze consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS; however, the Approved Project would emphasize land uses in areas proximate to new Metro stations and includes enhanced access to those stations to minimize vehicle trip generation and enhance multi-modal relationships. Since the certification of the EIR, SCAG adopted the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, in April 2024. Connect SoCal is a long- term plan for the Southern California region that details the development, integrated m anagement, and operation of transportation systems and facilities that will function as an intermodal transportation network for the SCAG metropolitan planning area (SCAG 2024). This plan outlines a forecast development pattern that demonstrates how the region can sustainably accommodate needed housing and job centers with multimodal mobility options. The overarching vision is to expand alternatives to driving, advance the transition to clean transportation technologies, promote integrated and safe transit networks, and foster transit -oriented development in compact and mixed-use developments (SCAG 2024).

In addition, Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California’s GHG-emission-reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements.

The projected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network in Connect SoCal, would reduce per -capita GHG emissions related to vehicular travel and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region. The Connect SoCal Plan does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency to governments and developers.

Based on the traffic study and 2021 ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th edition), future development facilitated by the Modified Project would generate a net increase of 811 daily vehicle trips (see Appendix B). However, as described in Section 5.2, Population and Housing, the Modified Project would be within the development capacity considered under the Certified EIR and serve the existing community. Future mixed-use development on the 300 Beach Avenue Site could also provide affordable housing near the existing warehouse is likely to include improved pedestrian access. Similarly, future residential development at the 338 Beach Avenue Site would likely include features would promote use of on -site facilities, which reduces the need for vehicular transport and reduces VMT.

Therefore, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR, and the Modified Project does not identify

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-39
or require adoption of any additional mitigation measures. With regard to California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to generating greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required.

City of Inglewood Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan The City, in concert with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), adopted the EECAP in 2015 as an update to the City’s 2013 EECAP with an updated community-wide emissions inventory and revised forecast based on updated growth projections (Inglewood 2015). The EECAP identifies strategies that will increase the jurisdiction’s energy efficiency and lower GHG emissions to meet the City’s GHG reduction target of 15 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020 (aligned with AB 32) and 32.5 percent below 2005 levels by 2035.

The EECAP summarizes the potential GHG reductions from implementation of local reduction measures categorized by six goals . As demonstrated in Table 11, City of Inglewood’s EECAP Consistency Checklist, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be consistent with the applicable Community Energy Efficiency Strategies and would not interfere with implementation of the City’s EECAP . Impacts would be less than significant . Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new infor mation requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

Table 11 City of Inglewood’s EECAP Consistency Checklist Applicable Community Energy
Efficiency Strategies Consistency with EECAP
Goal 2: Increase Energy Efficiency in New Residential Development Measure 2.1: Encourage or
require EE standards exceeding
Title 24.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. The incorporation of building efficiency standards required by the Building Energy Efficie ncy Standards and CALGreen, which improve every 3 years, would reduce unnecessary energy consumption. Additionally, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would include an all-electric design for the proposed buildings, which would exceed the current Title 24 standards for energy efficiency.

Additionally, Article 17, Residential Rooftop Solar System Expedited Permitting, in the Inglewood Municipal Code provides a streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. The Inglewood Municipal Code Article 18, Electric Vehicle Charging Station Expedited Permitting, also promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Goal 4: Increase Energy Efficiency in New Commercial Development Measure 4.1: Encourage or
require EE standards exceeding
Title 24.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. The incorporation of building efficiency standards required by the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which improve every 3 years, would serve to reduce unnecessary energy consumption. Additionally, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would include an all-electric design for the proposed buildings, which would exceed the current Title 24 standards for energy efficiency.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Table 11 City of Inglewood’s EECAP Consistency Checklist Additionally, the Inglewood Municipal Code Article 18, Electric Vehicle Charging Station Expedited Permitting, promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Goal 5: Increase Energy Efficiency through Water Efficiency (WE) Measure 5.1: Promote or
require WE through SBX7-7.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time, which include requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation aligned with SBX7-7.

This also includes California Water Code, California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance standards, and the Inglewood Municipal Code Article 19, Water Conservation and Water Supply Program , in which the City has established a water conservation and water supply shortage program to help reduce the City’s water consumption through conservation, effective water supply planning, and efficient use of water. Article 7, Water Conservation, in the Inglewood Municipal Code outlines the installation and operation requirements for recycled water irrigation systems. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Goal 6: Decrease Energy Demand through Reducing Urban Heat Island Effect Measure 6.1: Promote tree
planting for shading and EE.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. This includes the Inglewood Municipal Code Article 32 , Tree Preservation Regulations , which provides regulation on removal and preservation of trees within the City. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Measure 6.2: Incentivize or
require light-reflecting surfaces.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. Future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be required to comply with material reflectiveness standards, particularly for roofs, required by CALGreen, which improves every 3 years. Future development on the Project Site would also not preclude the use of additional light -reflecting materials (i.e., cool roofs or cool pavement) beyond that required by CALGreen. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Source: Inglewood 2015.

5.7.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for GHG Emissions, and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

5.7.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Similar to the Approved Project, the level of significance would remain less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

5.8 ENERGY
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix C to this Addendum:
▪ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, PlaceWorks, January 2025

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-41

5.8.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. (b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

5.8.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR evaluated energy impacts consistent with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.

Construction activities related to the Approved Project would comply with all federal, state, and/or local energy standards. Overall energy usage after buildout o f the Approved Project would increase, however future development would comply with CALGreen/Title 24 standards and the City’s EECAP . Therefore, the energy demand from the Approved Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary impacts, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Natural Resources Agency revised Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to include checklist items relating to evaluating the project’s energy use during project construction or operation and relating to consistency with state or local plans for renewable e nergy or energy efficiency in January 2019 to capture the requirements in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. The Certified EIR was completed before these checklist topics were added to the CEQA Guidelines and therefore does not include a discussion related to consistency with state or local plans. Because the environmental and regulatory settings for the Modified Project have changed since the certification of the EIR, the following discussion is provided for informational purposes to update the analysis relative to development of the Modified Project.

5.8.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The following discusses the potential energy demands from short-term construction and long-term operational energy consumption associated with the Modified Project.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
As with the development pursuant to the Certified EIR, future construction of land uses allowed under the Modified Project would consume energy in the short term through electricity use, construction vehicles and equipment fuel consumption, and bound energy in construction materials (e.g., asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, lumber, glass).

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Electrical Energy
The majority of construction equipment used for land use development projects are gas or diesel powered, and electricity is not expected to be used to power most of the construction equipment. Electricity use during construction can vary during different phases of construction. Later construction phases could result in the use of electricity -powered equipment for interior construction and architectural coatings. The majority of electric-powered construction equipment are expected to be hand tools (e.g., pow er drills, table saws) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities. Therefore, project-related construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands, and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, future development under the Modified Project would not introduce new types of construction processes or activities compared to what was previously considered in the Certified EIR because the project site does not contain conditions that would require highly unique or atypical construction equipment use. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact related to electricity use during the construction phase.

Natural Gas Energy
It is not anticipated that construction equipment used for future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be powered by natural gas. Furthermore, future development under the Modified Project would not introduce new types of construction processes or activities compared to what was previously considered in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact related to natural gas usage during the construction phase.

Transportation Energy
Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. It is anticipated that the majority of off -road construction equipment, such as those used during grading, would be gas or diesel powered.

The use of energy resources by vehicles and equipment would fluctuate according to the phase of construction.

In addition, all construction equipment would cease operating upon completion of project construction. Thus, impacts related to transportation ene rgy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure.

Furthermore, to limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, the construction contractors shall minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction, in accordance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. Construction trips would also not result in unnecessary use of energy sinc e the Project Site is centrally located and is served by numerous regional freeway systems (e.g., I-405 and CA-42) that provide the most direct routes from various areas of the region.

Energy resources consumed during construction of the land uses envisioned under the Modified Project were estimated and are provided in Table 12, Estimated Annual Construction-Related Fuel Usage.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-43
Table 12 Estimated Annual Construction-Related Fuel Usage Parameter
Quantity
Gasoline (gallons) Diesel (gallons) Electricity (kWh)
Construction Worker Transportation Fuel Consumption 131,413 150 112,801 Construction Vendor Truck Fuel Consumption 3,293 18,946 0 Construction Haul Truck Fuel Consumption 0 413 0
Construction Off-Road Equipment Fuel Construction 11,400 107,379 0 Total Fuel Consumption 146,106 126,475 112,801
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; EMFAC2021 Version 1.0.2; OFFROAD2021 Version 1.0.7. Refer to Appendix C.

Note: kWh=kilowatt-hour

Overall, there would be no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared to development activities pursuant under the Certified EIR. Therefore, short-term construction activities that occur as a result of implementation of the Modified Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption during construction activities.

A less than significant impact would occur, and the Modified Project would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to what was evaluated in the Certified EIR.

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of the envisioned buildout under the Modified Project would generate new demand for building electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy associated with on-road vehicles on the Project Site similar to the energy use associated with the development allowed under the Approved Project. Operational use of energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of future buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and lighting at 300 Beach Avenue and 338 Beach Avenue Sites.

Electrical Energy
Future development envisioned under the Modified Project is expected to include improvements to the existing industrial facility, and development of new mixed-use and residential land uses. As shown in Table 13, Estimated Operation-Related Electricity Consumption , the new electricity demand from the Modified Project would be an estimated 1,109,356 kilowatt-hours per year. Estimated consumption accounts for the increase in electricity consumption since the envisioned future buildings are expected to be all-electric design.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Table 13 Estimated Operation-Related Electricity Consumption Land Use Electricity (kWh/year)1
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 107,146
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 239,341
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 36,794
Commercial Space2 66,444
Parking Lot 44,676
Apartments Mid-Rise 421,945
Enclosed Parking Garage with Elevator 193,010
Total Electricity Consumption 1,109,356
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1, Appendix C
Note: kWh=kilowatt-hour
1 The electricity use per year is based on the anticipated square footage of the envisioned buildout, parking lot, and enclosed parking garage with elevator. Accounts for the increase in electricity consumption assuming new buildings would be all-electric. 2 Commercial space is represented by General Office Building land use.

While future development envisioned under the Modified Project would generate additional energy demand at the Project Site, similar to the Approved Project, future development on the Project Site would be required to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which are currently more stringent than they were when the Certified EIR was prepared . New buildings in compliance with the latest standards would have greater energy efficiency than the buildings proposed under the Certified EIR. Encouraging energy- efficient building practices and using more renewable energy strategies would further reduce building-related per capita energy consumption after buildout of the Modified Project.

In addition, SCE is required to comply with the state’s RPS, which mandates utilities to procure a certain proportion of electricity from eligible renewable and carbon -free sources and increasing the proportion through the coming years with an ultimate procurement requirement of 100 percent by 2045. The RPS requirements would support use of electricity by the Modified Project that is generated from renewable or carbon-free sources. Overall, the Modified Project would generally be consistent with the goals outlined in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines regarding increasing energy efficiency, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing renewable energy sources. Therefore, the Modified Project, similar to development pursuant to the Certified EIR, would not result in a significant impact related to energy during the operational phase.

Natural Gas Energy
Because the envisioned buildings facilitated by the Modified Project are expected to be all-electric, natural gas would not be required during operation. However, should future development facilitated by the Modified Project include natural gas, that would not constitute unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient consumption of energy resources because that consumption would be necessary for space and water heating purposes.

Therefore, operation of the Modified Project , similar to development pursuant to the Cer tified EIR, would result in less than significant impacts with respect to natural gas usage.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-45
Transportation Energy
Both the Approved Project and Modified Project would consume fuel and other forms of transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles. The efficiency of these motor vehicles is unknown, such as the average miles per gallon. Estimates of transportation energy use are based on the overall estimated VMT and its associated transportation energy use. Buildout of the Modified Project would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles and TRU idling associated with the residents, employees, and visitors to the Project Site, as shown in Table 14, Estimated Annual Operation-Related Fuel Usage.

Table 14 Estimated Annual Operation-Related Fuel Usage
Use Type Annual Energy Consumption1 Unit2
Transportation – Electricity 69,357 kWh
Transportation – Natural Gas 38 Gallons
Transportation – Diesel 1,508 Gallons
Transportation – Gasoline 82,456 Gallons
Transport Refrigeration Units – Diesel3 1,624 Gallons
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1., EMFAC2021 Version 1.0.2, OFFROAD2021, Version 1.0.8, refer to Appendix C Notes: kWh=kilowatt-hour
1 Annual VMT based on average daily traffic trips provided by Iteris(Appendix B). 2 Diesel, compressed natural gas, and gasoline fuels are expressed in gallons. Electric vehicles are expressed in kWh. 3 Based on OFFROAD2021, Version 1.0.8, fuel consumption and total activity (hrs./year) for Transport Refrigeration Unit: Instate Trailer to estimate fuel consumption associated with 6 trucks equipped with TRUs cumulatively idling for 6 hours per day.

Fuel efficiency of vehicles after buildout would , on average, improve compared to vehicle fuel efficiencies experienced under existing conditions, thereby resulting in a lower per capita fuel consumption assuming travel distances, travel modes, and trip rates remain the same. The improvement in fuel efficiency would be attributable to the statewide fuel reduction strategies and regulatory compliances (e.g., Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards), resulting in new cars that are more fuel efficient and the attrition of older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, the residents, employees, and visitors do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency of vehicles manufactured and that are made available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the Project Site’s region more fuel-efficient vehicle options. Lastly, as electricity consumed in California is required to meet the increasing renewable energy mix requirements under the State’s RPS and accelerated by SB 1020, greater and greater proportions of electrici ty consumed for transportation energy demand envisioned under the Modified Project would be generated from renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels through 2045.

While the Modified Project would generate an increase in vehicle trips to the Project Site, common project features such as pedestrian improvements would help decrease transportation-related energy use and promote active transportation modes. Furthermore, since vehicle fuel efficiencies would improve year over year through buildout, future development facilitated by the Modified Project is expected to result in a decrease in overall per-capita transportation energy consumption when compared to that of the Approved Project. As such, the

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Modified Project, similar to development pursuant to the Certified EIR, would be consistent with the requirements of these energy-related regulations and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary fuel demands.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact related to transportation energy during the operational phase.

Conclusion
As substantiated above, the Modified Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. As such, impacts of the Modified Project would be considered less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further envir onmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR was certified before the California Natural Resources Agency revised Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in 2019 to include checklist items relating to evaluating the project’s energy use during project construction or operation and relating to consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, the Certified EIR does not include a discussion related to consistency with state or local plans. However, Impact 4.G-2 in the Certified EIR did determine that the Approved Project would not conflict with CARB’s Scoping Plan and the City’s EECAP. The following evaluates consistency of the Modified Project to the California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program and the City’s EECAP.

California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Eligible renewable sources under the RPS include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The RPS goals have been updated since adoption of SB 1078 in 2002. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), 90 percent by 2035 (SB 1020), and 100 percent carbon free by 2045 (SB 100 and SB 1020). The statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the Modified Project. SCE’s compliance with the RPS goals would support the State in meeting its objective in transitioning to renewable energy.

As shown in Section 4.F, Air Quality, of the Certified EIR, the Approved Project would comply with applicable design standards such as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Similarly, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be subject to the standards mentioned in the Approved Project, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Because future development facilitated by the Modified Project would comply with the latest energy standards, it would offer an improvement over the energy standards applied to the development pursuant under the Approved Project. Therefore, implementation of the Modified Project would not conflict or obstruct plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency and a less than

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-47
significant impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the Certified EIR.

City of Inglewood Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan The City, in concert with SBCCOG, adopted the EECAP in 2015 as an update to the City’s 2013 EECAP with an updated community -wide emissions inventory and revised forecast based on updated growth projections (Inglewood 2015). The EECAP identified strategies to increase the jurisdiction’s energy efficiency and lower GHG emissions from energy to meet the City’s GHG reduction target of 15 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020 (aligned with AB 32) and 32.5 percent below 2005 levels by 2035.

The EECAP summarizes the potential GHG and energy-related emission reductions from implementation of local reduction measures categorized by six goals. As demonstrated in Table 15, City of Inglewood’s EECAP Consistency Checklist, the Modified Project would be consistent with the applicable Community Energy Efficiency Strategies and would not interfere with implementation of the City’s EECAP. Impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyon d those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

Table 15 City of Inglewood’s EECAP Consistency Checklist Applicable Community
Energy Efficiency
Strategies Consistency with EECAP
Goal 2: Increase Energy Efficiency in New Residential Development Measure 2.1: Encourage or
require EE standards
exceeding Title 24.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. The incorporation of building efficiency standards required by the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which improve every 3 years, would serve to reduce unnecessary energy consumption. Additionally, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would include an all-electric design for the proposed buildings, which would exceed the current Title 24 standards for energy efficiency.

Additionally, Article 17, Residential Rooftop Solar System Expedited Permitting, in the Inglewood Municipal Code provides a streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy system s. The Inglewood Municipal Code Article 18, Electric Vehicle Charging Station Expedited Permitting , also promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations .

Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Goal 4: Increase Energy Efficiency in New Commercial Development Measure 4.1: Encourage or
require EE standards
exceeding Title 24.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. The incorporation of building efficiency standards required by the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which improve every 3 years, would serve to reduce unnecessary energy consumption. Additionally, future development facilitated by the Modified Project would include an all-electric design for the proposed buildings, which would exceed the current Title 24 standards for energy efficiency.

Additionally, the Inglewood Municipal Code Article 18, Electric Vehicle Charging Station Expedited Permitting , promotes the use of electric vehicles by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Goal 5: Increase Energy Efficiency through Water Efficiency

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Table 15 City of Inglewood’s EECAP Consistency Checklist Measure 5.1: Promote or
require WE through SBX7-

7. Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time, which include requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation aligned with SBX7-7.

This also includes California Water Code, California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance standards, and the Inglewood Municipal Code Article 19, Water Conservation and Water Supply Program, in which the City has established a water conservation and water supply shortage program to help reduce the City’s water consumption through conservation, effective water supply planning, and efficient use of water. Article 7, Water Conservation, in the Inglewood Municipal Code outlines the installation and operation requirements for recycled water irrigation systems. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Goal 6: Decrease Energy Demand through Reducing Urban Heat Island Effect Measure 6.1: Promote tree
planting for shading and
EE.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. This includes the Inglewood Municipal Code Article 32, Tree Preservation Regulations, which provides regulation on removal and preservation of trees within the City. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Measure 6.2: Incentivize or
require light-reflecting
surfaces.

Consistent. Future development under the Modified Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with current State and City building codes in existence at the time. Future development facilitated by the Modified Project would be required to comply with material reflectiveness standards, particularly for roofs, required by CALGreen, which improves every 3 years. Future development on the Project Site would also not preclude the use of additional light-reflecting materials (i.e., cool roofs or cool pavement) beyond that required by CALGreen.

Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with this measure.

Source: Inglewood 2015.

5.8.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for energy, and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

5.8.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Similar to the Approved Project, the level of significance would remain less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

5.9 NOISE
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix D to this Addendum:
▪ Noise Modeling Data, PlaceWorks, November 2024.

5.9.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-49
a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards. b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

5.9.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR considered impacts from a temporary increase in ambient noise levels to be less than significant with mitigation. Under the Approved Project, there would be two types of short -term noise: (1) mobile-source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul, and (2) stationary- source noise from construction equipment. Construction was assumed to include equipment such as graders, excavators, tractors, loaders, backhoes, forklifts, air compressors, dozers, and trucks.

Noise levels from Approved Project construction activities were estimated to reach up to 98 dBA Leq. The Certified EIR determined that compliance with Inglewood Municipal Code Section 5-41 and implementation of Mitigation Measure s 4.I-4a through 4.I -1g would reduce impacts of substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to construction to less than significant. Mitigation Measures 4.I-4a through

4.I-1g require the use of noise reduction devices and techniques during project construction and include the use of noise barriers that obstruct the direct line of sight between a construction area and a receptor.

Additionally, vibration impacts due to construction of the Approved Project and Metro train pass-by trips were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.I-2a through 4.I-1c.

Mitigation Measures 4.I-2a through 4.I-1c prohibit the use of heavy construction equipment within 45 feet of a residential use and prohibit the use of jackhammers within 25 feet of a residential use.

Regarding noise impacts from a permanent increase in ambient noise levels, the Approved Project resulted in less than significant impacts. Noise related to the Approved Project’s stationary sources, including mechanical equipment for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment and exhaust fans, would be in compliance with the Inglewood Municipal Code Section 5-39, which requires that all equipment be installed so that it would not cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the City's noise limit by 5 dBA. Thresholds of significance for permanent traffic noise increase include: 1.5 dBA for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher; 3 dBA for ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 CNEL; and 5 dBA for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL. Under the Approved Project , road segments modeled would increase by a maximum of 1.5 dBA CNEL, which would not exceed the noise limits in the Inglewood Municipal Code or the significance thresholds.

Regarding impacts from a private airstrip or an airport, the nearest airports to the Approved Project are Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), approximately 1.8 miles southwest, and Hawthorne Municipal Airport, approximately 2.6 miles south . The Approved Project Site is not within the 65 dBA or 70 dBA CNEL Hawthorne Municipal Airport noise contours, however, the southerly portion of the Approved Project Site is

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

within the 65 dBA CNEL LAX airport noise contour. This would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Cumulative operational noise impacts from the Approved Project were less than significant. Operational traffic noise and cumulative construction noise was less than significant.

5.9.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Generate of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Construction Noise Impacts
Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise -generating activities. Typically, each phase of construction involves different types of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest three pieces of equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable.

The expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Average noise levels from project-related construction activities are calculate d by modeling the three loudest pieces of equipment per activity phase. Equipment for grading and site preparation is modeled at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the acoustical center of the general construction site to the property line of the nearest receptors) because the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average construction-related noise levels at the various sensitive receptors for mobile equipment. Similarly, construction noise from demolition is modeled from the center of the Modified Project Site. Building construction and architectural coating are measured from the edge of the proposed buildings to the nearest sensitive receptors. Paving is measured from the edge of the nearest paving areas to the nearest sensitive receptors. Results are summarized in Table 16, 300 Beach Project-Related Construction Noise Levels (dBA), and Table 17, 338 Beach Project-Related Construction Noise Levels (dBA), at the nearest receptors. Construction noise levels at a reference distance of 50 feet would range between 74 dBA and 85 dBA Leq throughout the construction period.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-51

The nearest sensitive receptors under the Modified Project are residential uses adjacent to the east of 300 Beach Avenue Site and residential uses adjacent to the west and east of 3 38 Beach Avenue Site. Construction equipment mix is anticipated to be similar to that of the Approved Project and include concrete saws, dozers, excavators, tractors, loaders, backhoes, excavators, graders, air compressors, paving equipment, and rollers.

These items were modeled using RCNM. Noise levels during construction of the Modified Project would range between 82 dBA to 90 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors of 300 Beach Avenue and between 76 dBA to 82 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors of 338 Beach Avenue. Although Modified Project construction noise levels are lower than Approved Project construction noise levels , construction noise levels would still Table 16 300 Beach Project-Related Construction Noise Levels Construction Activity
Phase
Noise Levels in dBA Leq
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
Residential
Receptors to North
Residential
Receptors to East
Commercial
Receptors to South
Commercial
Receptors to West
Distance in feet 50 160 25 325 425
Demolition 84 74 90 68 65
Site Preparation 82 72 88 66 63
Grading 83 73 89 67 64
Distance in feet 50 100 20 300 400
Building Construction 79 73 87 63 61
Architectural Coating 74 68 82 58 56
Distance in feet 50 100 30 300 400
Paving 78 72 82 62 60
Maximum dBA Leq 74 90 68 65
Source: FHWA’s RCNM software. See Appendix D for construction noise calculations.

Notes: dBA Leq = Energy-Average (Leq) Sound Levels
Distances were measured using Google Earth (2024).

Table 17 338 Beach Project-Related Construction Noise Levels Construction Activity
Phase
Noise Levels in dBA Leq
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
Residential
Receptors to North
Residential
Receptors to East
Commercial
Receptors to South
Commercial
Receptors to West
Distance in feet 50 230 95 400 115
Site Preparation 82 69 76 64 75
Grading 83 70 77 65 76
Distance in feet 50 175 20 300 30
Building Construction 79 68 87 63 83
Architectural Coating 74 63 82 58 78
Distance in feet 50 155 35 275 35
Paving 78 68 81 63 81
Maximum dBA Leq 70 82 65 83
Source: FHWA’s RCNM software. See Appendix D for construction noise calculations.

Notes: dBA Leq = Energy-Average (Leq) Sound Levels
Distances were measured using Google Earth (2024).

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

result in more than a 5 dBA increase over ambient noise levels for all adjacent land uses and exceed the Federal Transit Administration detailed construction noise assessment threshold of 80 dBA L eq at residential uses adjacent to the Modified Project Site.

Construction of the Modified Project would be exempted from noise level thresholds within the Inglewood Municipal Code Section 5 -41 because no construction activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am. However, the magnitude of construction noise levels generated by the Modified Project would be expected to be similar to the Approved Project, and would require the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.I-4a through 4.I -1g, similar to the Approve d Project. Therefore, no new impac ts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Certified EIR, and there would be no changes or new information associated with development of the Modified Project that would require the preparation of an EIR.

Mobile-Source Noise Impacts
The conceptual development on the 300 Beach Avenue Site and the 338 Beach Avenue Site analyzed in this EIR Addendum includes residential uses within 500 feet of the Metro line and is required to design residential units to meet the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL, as well as meet exterior standards for the applicable zoning designation in outdoor areas, as provided by Inglewood Municipal Code, Section 5-30.

The Modified Project would generate a similar increase in total daily trips compared to Approved Project, specifically along Beach Avenue, Centinela Avenue, and N. La Brea Avenue. Traffic volume data for the new trips associated with the Modified Project are provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix B). The Modified Project is expected to generate 811 new daily trips. A project would have a significant effect on the environment related to traffic noise if it substantially increases the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas.

Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible.

A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an outdoor environment. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the traffic noise increases of 5 dBA occur relative to the existing noise environment.

Traffic noise increases are calculated using a version of the FHWA RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model.

The traffic noise prediction model takes into account the following inputs: average daily traffic volumes; vehicle mix; vehicle speeds; number of traffic lanes; and day, evening, and night traffic splits. Model inputs associated with transportation noise were provided by Iteris (Appendix B). Each roadway segment analyzed assumes the addition of all 811 new trips under the Modified Project. Table 18, Estimated Operational Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet, shows that the addition of Modified Project trips to each roadway segment would result in a traffic noise increase of up to 1 dBA. With the addition of 811 new trips, impacts would be consistent with the Approved Project; thus, traffic noise impacts for the Modified Project would be less than significant similar to the Approved Project. Therefore, no new impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Certified EIR; and there would be no changes or new information associated with development of the Modified Project that would require the preparation of an EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-53
Table 18 Estimated Operational Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet Roadway
Segment Traffic Noise Increase in dBA CNEL
From To Existing
Cumulative
2050 With
Project Increase
Exceed
Threshold
N. La Brea Ave Centinela Ave E. Manchester Blvd 67 67 >1 No Centinela Ave E. Florence Ave E. Hyde Park Blvd 68 68 >1 No Beach Ave N. La Brea Ave Centinela Ave 55 56 1.0 No
Source: Iteris 2025.

See Appendix D for modeling inputs and results.

Stationary Noise
The Modified Project would include surface parking at the 300 Beach Avenue Site and subterranean parking at the 338 Beach Avenue Site; interior courtyard with a pool at the 338 Beach Avenue Site; and HVAC equipment, either in a mechanical room or on rooftops of proposed buildings. The subterranean parking and interior courtyard at the 338 Beach Avenue Site would be completely enclosed within proposed buildings. HVAC equipment and exhaust fans associated with new buildings could be installed on rooftops of n ew buildings, approximately 45 feet to the nearest noise sensitive receptor, or in a mechanical room. Rooftop HVAC units would generate noise levels of up to 74 dBA at 3 feet (York 2006). The nearest residential receptors would be approximately 45 feet to the west and east of the nearest buildings. Not accounting for rooftop parapets, HVAC noise levels at residential receptors to the west and east would be approximately 51 dBA for a single unit and approximately 54 dBA for multiple units. Accounting for roo ftop parapets, HVAC noise levels at residential receptors to the west and east would be approximately 46 dBA for a single unit and approximately 49 dBA for multiple units. These noise levels would not exceed daytime and nighttime maximum noise level thresholds at residential uses of 45 dBA and 55 dBA, respectively, and would not cause existing noise levels to exceed the City’s noise limit by 5 dBA at the property line.

Stationary equipment located on rooftops would comply with the Inglewood Municipal Code Section 5 -39, requiring that all equipment be installed so that it would not cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the City's noise limit by 5 dBA. Therefore, no new impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Certified EIR; and impacts of the Modified Project would be less than significant . Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Construction Vibration Impacts
Modified Project construction vibration impacts are related to the use of heavy construction equipment during the demolition or grading phases of construction. Construction can generate varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the construction proc edures and equipment. Construction equipment generates

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

vibration that spreads through the ground and diminishes with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor -building construction. The effects from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels.

For reference, a peak particle velocity of 0.20 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) is used as the limit for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (which would apply to the off -site surrounding residential structures) (FTA 2018). Table 19, 300 Beach Avenue Vibration Impact Levels for Typical Construction Equipment, and Table 20, 338 Beach Avenue Vibration Impact Levels for Typical Construction Equipment, show typical construction equipment vibration levels and reference vibration levels at a distance o f 25 feet. The nearest construction activity associated with project construction could occur 20 feet from the residential structures to the west of 300 Beach Avenue and 20 feet from residential structures to the east and west of 338 Beach Avenue. At 20 feet, as shown in Tables 19 and 20, construction vibration levels would be 0.293 in/sec PPV and 96.9 VdB or less.

Table 19 300 Beach Avenue Vibration Impact Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment
in/sec PPV
Reference Levels at 25 Feet
Commercial Receptor
to North at 55 feet
Commercial Receptor
to East at 285 feet
Commercial Receptor
to South at 320 feet
Residential Receptor
to West at 20 feet
PPV (in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94.0 0.064 83.7 0.005 62.3 0.005 60.8 0.293 96.9 Hoe Ram 0.089 87.0 0.027 76.7 0.002 55.3 0.002 53.8 0.124 89.9 Large Bulldozer 0.089 87.0 0.027 76.7 0.002 55.3 0.002 53.8 0.124 89.9 Caisson Drilling 0.089 87.0 0.027 76.7 0.002 55.3 0.002 53.8 0.124 89.9 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86.0 0.023 75.7 0.002 54.3 0.002 52.8 0.106 88.9 Jackhammer 0.035 79.0 0.011 68.7 0.001 47.3 0.001 45.8 0.049 81.9 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58.0 0.001 47.7 0.000 26.3 0.000 24.8 0.004 60.9 Source: FTA 2018. See Appendix D for modeling inputs and results.

As measured from the edge of construction site using Google Earth Pro.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-55
Table 20 338 Beach Avenue Vibration Impact Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment
in/sec PPV
Reference Levels at 25 Feet
Commercial Receptor
to North at 60 feet
Residential Receptor
to East at 20 feet
Church Receptor to
South at 290 feet
Residential Receptor
to West at 20 feet
PPV (in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94.0 0.056 82.6 0.293 96.9 0.005 62.1 0.293 96.9 Hoe Ram 0.089 87.0 0.024 75.6 0.124 89.9 0.002 55.1 0.124 89.9 Large Bulldozer 0.089 87.0 0.024 75.6 0.124 89.9 0.002 55.1 0.124 89.9 Caisson Drilling 0.089 87.0 0.024 75.6 0.124 89.9 0.002 55.1 0.124 89.9 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86.0 0.020 74.6 0.106 88.9 0.002 54.1 0.106 88.9 Jackhammer 0.035 79.0 0.009 67.6 0.049 81.9 0.001 47.1 0.049 81.9 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58.0 0.001 46.6 0.004 60.9 0.000 26.1 0.004 60.9 Source: FTA 2018. See Appendix D for modeling inputs and results.

As measured from the edge of construction site using Google Earth Pro.

As shown in Tables 19 and 20, construction vibration levels for the Modified Project could exceed

0.293 in/sec PPV throughout construction phases. The City of Inglewood does not have an established threshold for assessing construction vibration impacts. The FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard of

0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings and a vibration standard of 80 VdB for infrequent events at residential uses are applied for assessing vibration impacts from project construction - related activities. Construction vibration levels would exceed the FTA thresholds of 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings and 80 VdB at adjacent at residential uses to the Project Site.

The magnitude of construction vibration levels generated by the Modified Project would be similar to the Approved Project, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would require the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.I-2a and 4.I-2b, similar to the Approved Project. Therefore, no new impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Certified EIR ; and there would be no changes or new information associated with development of the Modified Project that would require the preparation of an EIR. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The nearest airports to the Modified Project are LAX, approximately 2.4 miles southwest, and Hawthorne Municipal Airport, approximately 3 miles south (as shown in Figure 12, Areas of Influence of Nearby Airports ).

The Modified Project, similar to the Approved Project, is not within the 65 dBA or 70 dBA CNEL airport noise for LAX or Hawthorne Municipal Airport (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, 1991).

The Modified Project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels related to aircraft. Mitigation Measure 4.I-1 is not applicable to the Modified Project. Therefore, no new impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Certified EIR ; and there would be no changes or new information associated with development of the Modified Project that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

5.9.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR Mitigation Measure 4.I-1 through 4.I-4 from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Modified Project, excluding Mitigation Measure 4 .I-2c, as shown below. Any modifications to these mitigation measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and double underline for new, inserted text. This mitigation measures has been incorporated into the Modified Project’s MMRP and have been modified as applicable to clarify the language and to reflect minor changes caused by the Modified Project..

Mitigation Measures

4.I-1 Each site-specific development project that includes residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour of LAX or within 500 feet of the Metro line shall be designed to meet the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL, as well as meet exterior standards for the applicable zoning designation in outdoor areas, as provided by Inglewood Municipal Code, Section 5-30.

Measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, glass noise barriers, double pane windows, insulated doors, roofing, and siding, and landscaping.

4.I-2a Use of construction vibratory rollers, hoe rams, large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills on construction sites shall be prohibited within 45 feet of existing residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures. Instead, small rubber -tired bulldozers shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects.

4.I-2b The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures.

4.I-2c Any site-specific development project within 50 feet of an historic building shall engage a qualified structural engineer to conduct a preconstruction assessment of the structural integrity of the nearby historic structure(s) and submit evidence that the operation of vibration-generating equipment associated with the new development would not result in structural damage to the adjacent historic building(s). If recommended by the pre - construction assessment, ground borne vibration monitoring of nearb y historic structures shall be required.

Figure 9-11

INGLEWOOD AIRPORT

NOISE CONTOURS
Source: LA County Airport Land Use Commission.

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Miles)

0.5 Figure 12 - Areas of Influence of Nearby Airports
CITY

OF INGLEWOOD
Figure 9-11

INGLEWOOD AIRPORT

NOISE CONTOURS
Figure 9-11

INGLEWOOD AIRPORT

NOISE CONTOURS
Freeways
City of Inglewood
Project Site
Metro Rail Stations
Roads
Parks and Open Space
65 dBA
Noise Contour Level
70 dBA
75 dBACity of InglewoodCity of Inglewood
Los Angeles Los Angeles
International AirportInternational Airport
HawthorneHawthorne
MunicipalMunicipal
AirportAirport
SoFi Stadium
Inglewood
Cemetery
Kia
Forum
Intuit
Dome
Project Site

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-59

4.I-4a All noise-producing construction and demolition activities shall be restricted to the hours from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. In order to reduce potential annoyance to persons using the nearby church and cemetery facilities, no noise -producing construction and demolition activities shall take place on Sundays and holidays.

4.I-4b Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

4.I-4c Internal combustion engine -driven equipment shall be equipped with appropriate sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation.

4.I-4d Quiet models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources shall be employed where such technology is commercially available.

4.I-4e On-site equipment staging areas shall be located so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during construction.

4.I-4f Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.

4.I-4g During demolition and site preparation phases of construction, the temporary sound barriers a minimum of 8 feet in height shall be placed around the property boundary project property lines to block the and line of sight between on-site stationary construction equipment and any adjacent residential or school uses. These temporary sound barriers shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 32 STC.

5.9.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.I -1, 4.I-2a and 4.I-2b, and 4.I-4a through 4.I-4g and adherence to Inglewood Municipal Code, Section 5-41 associated performance standards would reduce noise and vibration impact of the Modified Project, similar to t he Approved Project, to less -than-significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.I-2a, 4.I-2b, and 4.I -4a through 4.I-4g would limit construction activities to daytime hours, require use of alternative construction techniques, impose distance restrictions between heavy-duty construction equipment and sensitive receptors, and require temporary barriers during the most intense phases of construction to reduce potential noise vibration impacts below the pertinent thresholds. Given the proximity to the Metro Rail Line, Mitigation Measure 4.I-1 is required to ensure Modified Project residential buildings meet the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL and meet exterior standards for the applicable zoning designation in outdoor areas, as provided by Inglewood Municipal Code, Section 5-30.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

5.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following stud ies, included as Appendices E and F to this Addendum:
▪ Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment, Commercial Office/Warehouse Buildings 300 E. Beach Avenue , EDI Consultants, September 2023
▪ Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment of an Undeveloped Property – 355 La Colina Drive and 338-358 E. Beach Avenue, Pinnacle Environmental, Inc., January 2024

5.10.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within ¼ - mile of an existing or proposed school.
(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

5.10.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Approved Project determined that a less than significant impact would occur due to the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials because the Approved Project would

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-61
comply with existing laws and regulations. Similarly, impacts creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and potentially emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant because the Approved Project would comply with existing laws and regulations.

The Certified EIR determined that there were two leaking underground storage tanks (UST) in the TOD Plan areas that were undergoing site assessment and remediation and that no other areas in the TOD Plan were located on hazardous sites. Though development of the TOD Plan areas could result in soil contamination , those areas would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup activities, resulting in a less than significant impact. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not be within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and the TOD Plan area would not be located in an area consisting of wildland fire risk.

5.10.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as overseen by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Health and Hazardous Materials Division and that impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Project would require small amounts of hazardous materials during construction, such as vehicle fuels, lubricants, grease and transmission fluids, and paints and coatings. The handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase of the Modified Project would comply with existing regulations of several agencies—the EPA, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and US Department of Transportation.

Operation of the Modified Project would transport, use, store, and dispose of small amounts of hazardous materials typical of residential facilities, such as cleaning and maintenance supplies (cleaners, gasoline, paint and pesticides). The Modified Project includes residential uses and amenities that would use cleaners and other chemicals in relatively small quantities, which are not typically considered hazardous materials that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Addition ally, the Modified Project would use similar hazardous materials for the proposed improvements to the existing industrial development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site. This would include the development of a new dry storage facility, a loading dock, and a freezer as an accessory to existing operations on -site. The operation of these facilities is already ongoing at an offsite location and would support existing operation of Don Lee Farms. These relocated structures would not store,

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

generate, or use any significant amounts of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts, consistent with the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create substantial hazards to the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. The Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that hazardous materials could be stored within the Approved Project Site but would generally consist of routinely used common chemicals or hazardous materials. Any and all hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations and would be required to comply with federal and state laws and regulations. This would include implementing best management practices (BMP) as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). As a result, impacts would be considered less than significant.

Two Phase I Environmental Site Assessments were conducted to assess potential for hazardous materials at the Project Site : one for the 300 Beach Avenue Site and one for the 338 Beach Avenue Site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the 300 Beach Avenue Site concluded that hazardous substances have been stored on-site by various tenants since at least 1947 to 2012. Tenants included various industrial tenants, print shops, and machine shops. These substances included various solvents, parts washing fluids, oils, and paints.

Although the 300 Beach Avenue Site does not have any reported releases or outstanding violations, based on the industrial usage of the site for over 76 years, it is considered a recognized environmental condition (REC).

Vapor encroachment conditions were not observed Additionally, there was no evidence for controlled RECs, historical RECs, other environmental considerations, de minimis conditions, significant data gaps, or oil and gas exploration (Appendix E).

The 300 Beach Avenue Site includes aboveground storage tanks (AST) containing liquid propane that do not include any significant environmental concerns. All ASTs and other vessels observed on -site appeared to be properly labeled and in good condition. Additionally, the assessment concluded that no asbestos -containing materials and lead-based paint were found on-site, and lead in drinking water was not a concern (Appendix E).

The Phase I Environmental Assessment for the undeveloped 338 Beach Avenue Site concluded that the site does not contain any hazardous materials and/or hazardous materials storage activities. There was no observed presence of ASTs; underground storage tanks ( UST), waste-stream generation, storage, or disposal; or solid waste disposal. Additionally, asbestos-containing materials, water intrusion/mold, lead-based paint, and lead in drinking water were not observed, and radon is considered to have a low potential to occur (Appendix F).

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-63
As stated in Threshold 5.10.2(a), operation of the Modified Project would transport, use, store, and dispose of small amounts of hazardous materials typical of residential /mixed use facilities such as cleaning and maintenance supplies (cleaners, gasoline, paint and pesticides). The Modified Project includes residential and commercial uses and amenities that would use cleaners and other chemicals in relatively small quantities, which is not typically considered hazardous materials that could result in a sign ificant hazard to the public or the environment. Additionally, the Modified Project would use similar hazardous materials for the improvements to the existing industrial development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site. This would include the development of a new dry storage facility, a loading dock, and a freezer as an accessory to existing operations on-site and would not create any significant amounts of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable federal and sta te laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur, consistent with the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create substantial hazards to the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. The Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would create a less than significant impact with adherence to existing regulations that would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of hazardous materials to sensitive receptors, including schools.

The nearest school to the Modified Project Site is the St. John Chrysostom Catholic school which is approximately 0.13 miles southwest of the Modified Project Site. As discussed in Section 5.9.2(a), the construction and operation of the Modified Project would handle small amounts of commercially available hazardous materials typical of construction activities and residential /mixed uses (during operation).

Additionally, the proposed improvements to the existing industrial facilities would utilize the same hazardous materials as the daily operations of Don Lee Farms, and would not generate a significant amounts of hazardous materials. The use, transportation, and storage of hazardous materials would be required to comply to all applicable state and federal regulations that would ensure the proper handling of such materials. The proposed land uses are consistent with the existing area and uses and would not emit hazardous waste within 0.25 mile of a school. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that impacts related to the Approved Project being located on a site that is included on list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 was less than significant.

As stated in Threshold 5.9.2(b), two Phase I Site Assessments were completed for the Project Site. The Phase I Site Assessment for the 300 Beach Avenue Site concluded that the site was not identified in any federal or state hazardous waste databases. Though 312 E. Beach Avenue and 316 E. Beach Avenue, both a part of the 300 Beach Avenue Site, were identified in the Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET) and Facility Index System/Facility Registry Service (FINDS/FRS) databases, listing on these databases does not necessarily constitute a contamination condition. More importantly, the facility is not listed in other regulatory databases, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), which would signify a contamination condition. Moreover, the Project S ite does not include violations or infractions. As such, it is not suspected that the identified HAZNET and FINDS/FRS listings have had a negative environmental impact on the 300 Beach Avenue Site.

Additionally, the Project Site was not listed in any local hazardous waste database (Appendix E).

The Phase I Site Assessment for the 338 Beach Avenue Site concluded that the Project Site was identified in one federal, three states, and one local database. These databases included National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), FINDS, Enforcement and Compliance History Online ( ECHO), HAZNET, and Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS). However, as a result of the nature of each of the databases and the lack of a reported release, it was concluded that no significant environmental impact would occur on- site (Appendix F). Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a hazard to the public because of a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not be within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airports to the Modified Project are LAX, approximately 2.4 miles southwest,

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-65
and Hawthorne Municipal Airport, approximately 3 miles south (as shown in Figure 12). As described in Section

5.9, Noise, the Modified Project, similar to the Approved Project, is not within the 65 dBA or 70 dBA CNEL airport noise for LAX or Hawthorne Municipal Airport , and would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels related to aircraft.

The Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, and the Modified Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts. Thus, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project’s potential impact to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant. Specifically, during instances of construction of the Approved Project, adequate emergency access would be maintained at all times as required by the Inglewood Police Department (IPD) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), and compliance with the California Fire Code (Chapter 33, Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition, Sections 3310 and 3311) would be required. Development plans would be reviewed by the IPD and the LA County Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access. Additionally, during operations of development within the Approved Project, compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) and Uniform Fire Code and adherence to the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan would be required.

The Modified Project would not conflict with the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. According to the City’s Safety Element, the City coordinates its evacuation plans and information for emergency response with the LA County Office of Emergency Management and LA County Sheriff's Department to facilitate emergency operations during a disaster. Additionally, the City’s Safety Element provides a map with the evacuation routes for the City. The Modified Project Site would not impede any designated City evacuation routes. The nearest evacuation route is located at East Florence Avenue, just south of the Modified Project Site (Inglewood 2022), and it would not be altered or otherwise affected by the Modified Project . Therefore, the Modified Project would not interfere with any City evacuation routes.

The Modified Project would consist of the improvements to the existing industrial facility and construction of a new mixed-use development at the 300 Beach Avenue Site and a new residential development at the 338 Beach Avenue Site. Construction-related vehicles and materials would be properly stored on -site so as not to block vehicle circulation or access onto the Project Site, and no vehicles or materials would be stored on public rights-of-way. Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would b e designed to have adequate emergency access and developed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles 2000 Fire Code (Inglewood 2024). The Modified Project would be subject to the review the IPD and the LACFD to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, adherence to local and state policies and review processes would ensure impacts are less than significant.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not be located in an area consisting of wildland fire risk. Both the Approved Project and the Modified Project are located in a in an urbanized area. The nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) in the State Responsibility Area is a Very High FHSZ approximately 13 miles northwest of the Modified Project Site (CalFire 2024). As such, the Modified Project Site is not in or adjacent to an State Responsibility Area or lands classified as FHSZs. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, no impact would occur.

5.10.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials, and n o new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

5.10.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Similar to the Approved Project, the level of significance would remain less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any mitigation measures.

5.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

5.11.1 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially de-grade surface or groundwater quality.
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-67
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drain -age systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows.
(d) In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

5.11.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements. Each future site -specific development project occurring under the approved project would require compliance with applicable regulations and permits. Each development project wo uld be in compliance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to implement BMPs and prepare a SWPPP. The Certified EIR also determined that the Approved Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplie s or interfere substantially wit h groundwater recharge. The Approved Project is made up of primarily impervious surfaces and would generate little or no increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant . The Certified EIR also determined that the Approved Project would not substantially degrade water quality. The City of Inglewood has no land designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas and is not in a dam inundation area or within a tsunami zone. No impacts related to flooding would occur from implementation of the Approved Project.

5.11.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the TOD Plan would not violate any water quality standards, water discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

As discussed under Section 3.2, Project Description, the Modified Project assumes construction of one mixed-use building, one residential building, and 35,237 square feet of industrial uses on the 300 Beach Avenue Site along with two 5-story residential buildings on the 338 Beach Avenue Site resulting in 200,412 square feet of new development. Under existing conditions, the 300 Beach Avenue Site is completely developed with light manufacturing uses and Don Lee Farms while the 338 Beach Avenue Site is currently vacant. However, under the Approved Project, the Project Site would be developed with mixed use, light manufacturing, and residential uses. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in similar impacts to surface water and groundwater quality when compared to the Approved Project.

Like the Approved Project, demolition, c learing, grading, excavation, and other construction activities associated with the Modified Project may impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. Additionally, the use of construction materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. Finally, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment on-site during construction may result in oil, greas e, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable regulations and permits governing water quality. Areas that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit (CGP) (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB). Preparation of a SWPPP is required for compliance with the CGP . Compliance with the permit would involve filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and preparing and submitting a SWPPP prior to construction activities. The CGP requirements would need to be satisfied prior to beginning construction on any project that would disturb more than one acre. The City of Inglewood Municipal Code Title 10, Article 16, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, also establishes prohibitions for discharges into the stormwater drainage system, including the prohibition of any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff.

Should dewatering be required during excavation activities, the Modified Project would comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R4-2018-0215—Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Additionally, the County’s Construction Site BMP Manual requires that any discharge of groundwater during dewatering activities to the L os Angeles County Sanita ry District sanitary sewer system, street/gutter, ground, or any other location would not be permitted until approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) Engineer.

Operational activities of the Modified Project (e.g., runoff from parking areas, solid waste storage areas, and landscaped areas) could also generate pollutants that adversely affect the water quality of downstream receiving waters if effective measures are not used to keep pollutants out of and remove pollutants from urban runoff.

Standards governing discharges to stormwater from projects in all cities in Los Angeles County and the County itself are set forth in the County’s Municipal Stormwater (MS4) Permit (Order No. R4-2021-0105, NPDES No.

CAS004004) issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2021. Section 10-208, Low Impact Development Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment, in the City’s Municipal Code, outlines how projects should comply with the measures in the County MS4 Permit. The Modified Project would be considered a New Developm ent and Redevelopment Project under the County MS4 Permit and would therefore be required to prepare a Low Impact Development (LID) Report (also referred to as a “Stormwater

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-69
Mitigation Plan” in Section 10-208) that delineates project-specific stormwater pollution control measures, in compliance with the County’s LID Standards Manual.

Overall, by complying with federal and local regulations, the Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop/redevelop the entirety of the Project Site, resulting in largely the same impacts with respect to groundwater supplies and recharge.

The City of Inglewood is a member of the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) which purchases potable water supplies from the Colorado River and the State Water Project for sale to local retail water agencies including the City. In 2020, the City pu rchased approximately 67 percent of its potable water supply from WBMWD and produced approximately 33 percent of its potable water supply from the local West Coast Groundwater Basin (WCGB) through four groundwater pumps within the City. The WCGB is adjudic ated, which limits the allowable annual extraction of groundwater per water rights holder, including the City of Inglewood. The City of Inglewood has water rights of 4,732 acre -feet per year (AFY), in addition to any carryover or unused water rights from t he previous years. The WCGB is not a critically over -drafted basin (Inglewood 2021). The City currently has sufficient pumping capacity to utilize its entire annual allocation of water rights with an anticipation of an additional 2,200 AFY through 2045 (Inglewood 2021).

Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop the Project Site with mostly impervious surfaces and runoff from the Project Site would be conveyed to existing stormwater drainage infrastructure maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) on Beach Avenue. While 338 Beach Avenue under existing conditions is largely comprised of pervious surfaces, the development of the Project Site with impervious surfaces under the Modified Project would be similar to the development o f the Project Site under the Approved Project. The Project Site is not used for groundwater recharge activities or extraction, and would therefore not interfere with groundwater recharge.

Overall, the Modified Project would not significantly decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit, and no impact would occur. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to erosion and siltation since individual projects would prepare and comply with SWPPPs to reduce sediment runoff during construction activities. Operational impacts regarding erosion would also be minimized through the use of landscaping and other biorientation treatments that would be integrated across the TOD Plan Area. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the applicable regulatory requirements to minimize erosion during construction and operational activities.

The 300 Beach Avenue Site is in a developed urban area that is primarily covered with impervious surfaces.

No surface streams or rivers pass through the general area. Construction activities for both the 300 Beach Avenue Site and the 338 Beach Avenue Site would involve grading of the Project Site, resulting in disturbance of subsurface soils. As with the Approved Project, development of the Modified Project would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction . The SWPPP would specify BMPs for reducing or eliminating soil erosion from the site during project construction and operation. Erosion control measures implemented as part of BMPs may include the placement of sandbags around basins; use of proper grading techniques; appropriate sloping, shoring, and bracing of the construction site; using mulch, geotextiles, hydroseeding, swales, and earth dikes; and covering topsoil stockpiles . The Modified Project would also comply with the erosion control requirements listed in Title 10, Article 16 of the Inglewood Municipal Code.

Post-construction, the Project Site would be developed with largely impervious surfaces, similar to development that would occur under the Approved Project. Under existing conditions, the 300 Beach Avenue Site is occupied by industrial uses and Don Lee Farms and is nearly entirely paved and covered with impervious surfaces. The redevelopment of this Site proposed under the Modified Project would therefore result in similar site coverage conditions and simil ar impacts with respect to erosion during operation. The 338 Beach Avenue Site is currently undeveloped and consists of nonnative ruderal species and pervious surfaces and steeply slopes down. While the Modified Project would increase impervious surfaces on this Site when compared to existing conditions, all areas of the Site would be developed with land cover which would minimize erosion and sedimentation onsite during operation.

Implementation of required permits would ensure that drainage patterns are not substantially altered and substantial erosion and siltation would not occur, and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review .

Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-71
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that impacts with respect to surface runoff would be less than significant since, per the County MS4 Permit, applicable individual projects under the TOD Plan would be required to retain and infiltrate stormwater onsite to ens ure no net increase in runoff. Like the Approved Project, both portions of the Project Site would be developed with mostly impervious surfaces under the Modified Project. Under existing conditions, the 300 Beach Avenue Site is already developed with largely impervious surfaces and would be redeveloped with a similar level of impervious surfaces under the Modified Project. The 338 Beach Avenue Site is currently undeveloped and development of the Site under the Modified Project could result in an increase in stormwater runoff and higher peak discharges to drainage channels and LACFCD stormwater drainage facilities.

The Project Site is served by LACFCD-maintained stormwater drainage infrastructure along Beach Avenue.

Development that connects to Los Angeles County Flood Control systems is required to prepare hydrology and LID reports which would be reviewed and approved by LACDPW . As directed by the County MS4 Permit requirements, Section 10-208 of the Inglewood Municipal Code requires that all new development and redevelopment projects be designed to control runoff volume to the maximum extent feasible through the implementation of infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest technologies as set forth in the County’s LID Standards Manual. Therefore, the Modified Project’s LID report would be required to demonstrate that the Project can retain the stormwater quality design volume defined as either the volume from the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event6 or from a three -fourths-inch, 24-hour rain event, whichever is greater. Section 10-208 provides additional criteria for projects that cannot retain 100 percent of their stormwater quality design volume onsite, pursuant to the County MS4 Permit. The Modified Project’s hydrology report would also be prepared in accordance with the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual and the Los Angeles County Hydraulic Design Manual which would determine the capacity of the existing storm drain systems that serve the Project Site and the Project’s impacts on such systems. The hydrology report would be required to demonstrate the Modified Project’s compliance with site-specific “allowable discharge rates,” as identified by the LACDPW, that limit post -project peak flow discharges compared to existing conditions, thus minimizing the potential for flooding on- or off-site and exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems . In addition to approval from LACDPW , the City would also review the Modified Project’s LID and hydrology reports prior to the issuance of any permits.

As demonstrated above, similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would cause flooding on- or off-site, and no impact would occur. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new

6 This refers to the average amount of runoff that occurs 85 percent of the time from a continuous rain event lasting 24 hours. This amount is based on the County’s precipitation isohyetal maps that have been developed for all regions in the County.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . A significant impact would occur if the Modified Project would increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flows. The Certified EIR determined that development under the Approved Project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in additional sources of polluted runoff. Projects under the Approved Project, including the Modified Project , would be required to comply with City and County requirements that restrict discharges into the municipal stormwater drainage system to protect water quality and ensure that projects do not result in a net increase in peak stormwater flows.

As discussed in Section 5.11(a), the Modified Project would be required to comply with the CGP requirements which include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to ensure that project construction activities do not result in pollutant runoff. Additi onally, as stated in Section 5.11(c)(ii), the Modified Project would be required to implement site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures to ensure that the Project Site can retain 100 percent of its stormwater quality design volume and would not exceed its site-specific allowable discharge rate (as identified in the Project’s hydrology report), per the City’s Municipal Code requirements, the County’s MS4 Permit, and the Los Angeles County ’s Hydrology Manual and Hydraulic Design Manual.

Due to the developed conditions of the 300 Beach Avenue Site, the amount of runoff resulting from development of this Site under the Modified Project would be similar to existing conditions. The 338 Beach Avenue Site is undeveloped under existing condition s and would result in a net increase in impervious surfaces under the Modified Project. However, runoff from the 338 Beach Avenue Site would be retained onsite through infiltration or bioretention LID BMPs. These measures would be developed according to project and site -specific conditions and listed the Project’s LID report. Excess runoff from both sites would be conveyed toward LACFCD-maintained storm drains in Beach Avenue.

Overall, compliance with these regulations and policies would ensure that construction and operation of the Modified Project would have no impacts related to the capacity of existing storm drain systems or the generation of polluted runoff. No substantial changes in the existing drainage pattern would occur, and no impact would occur. Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis
May 2025 Page 5-73
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . As discussed in Section 5.11(c)(iii), the Modified Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations that protect water quality and reduce site runoff. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not contribute to the impediment or redirection of flood flows.

The Project Site is not in a Federal Emergency Management Agency flood hazard zone (FEMA 2018).

Additionally, the Project Site is not within the dam inundation area, a tsunami inundation zone, or at risk of flooding from seiches due to its distance from nearby large bodies of water. Furthermore, the Modified Project would be required to comply the County MS4 Permit/Inglewood Municipal Code requirement to retain stormwater on-site via the use of bioretention facilities or other stormwater treatment measures. It would also be required to comply with its site-specific allowable discharge rate to limit post-project peak- flow discharges compared to existing conditions thus minimizing the potential for flooding on- or off-site and exceedance of the capacity of the existing LACFCD stormwater drainage system. Therefore, any flood flows would also be detained temporarily on-site, which would minimize the potential for flooding impacts.

Thus, the Modified Project does not introduce new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor does it present any changes or new information requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

A significant impact would occur if the Modified Project was located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and therefore at risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or sem i-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, or lake. A tsunami is a sea wave produced by a significant undersea disturbance. The Project Site is located 5.5 mile s east of the Pacific Ocean and is not in the coastal zone or a tsunami hazard area (DOC 2024c). The City of Inglewood is not in an identified 50-year or 100-year floodplain and the Project Site is not within a flood hazard zone or a flood prone area (FEMA 2018).

Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project’s water demand would be served by the City which produces 33 percent of its supply from the WCGB (Inglewood 2021). The WCGB is governed by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California which administers a Groundwater Basins Master Plan for the

D O W N T O W N I N G L E W O O D A N D F A I R V I E W H E I G H T S E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D

5. Environmental Analysis

Page 5 ends

Inglewood City CouncilJuly 8, 2025

Inglewood City Council
July 8, 2025