Inglewood City Council
July 8, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter

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

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.

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.
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

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.
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.

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.

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

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

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

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).

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.
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

West Coast and Central Groundwater Basins. The Plan identifies programs intended to enhance basin replenishment, increase the reliability of groundwater resources, improve and protect groundwater quality, and ensure that the groundwater supplies are suitab le for beneficial uses. The Plan also contains water quality standards and identifies beneficial uses (wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, fishing, etc.) for receiving waters along with water quality criteria and standards necessary to support these uses consistent with federal and state water quality laws.

Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the Groundwater Basins Master Plan . The Modified Project would comply with the County’s NPDES/MS4 Permit requirements, which would include the preparation of a SWPPP, as well as with the Inglewood Municipal Code Section 10 -208, which controls pollutants from new development projects. Compliance with these regulations and policies would ensure that the Modified Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, 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.

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

5.11.5 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.

5.12 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix G to this Addendum:
▪ Paleontological Resources Assessment, South Environmental, December 2024

5.12.1 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) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

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 5-75
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv. Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

5.12.2 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 geology and soils. As part of the Certified EIR, impacts regarding paleontological resources were evaluated and determined in the Cultural Resources section.

The Certified EIR determined that the TOD Plan area contains active and potentially active faults, is within a seismically active region, and is in an area susceptible to liquefaction. However, compliance with the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and California Building Code reduced impacts to less than significant. The TOD Plan area is flat and would not be subject to landslides.

The Certified EIR also determined that impacts due to potential topsoil loss or substantial erosion, on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse , and being located on expansive soil were less than significant. Specifically, the areas Approved Project has the potential to contribute to erosion and the loss of topsoil, but significant impacts would be avoided by developing and implementing a SWPPP. Potential significant impacts from on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse , and being located on expansive soil would be reduced with compliance with the CBC and Inglewood Municipal Code. Additionally, there are no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems used to the TOD Plan area. The Approved Project also concluded that paleontological resources or unique geological features could be impacted. However, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation

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

Measure 4.D-3, which requires an applicant/developer to show written proof that a qualified paleontologist has been retained and that all construction activities shall be halted or redirected if paleontological resources are encountered.

5.12.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Spe cial Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was located within an area containing active and potentially active faults. However, compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the CBC would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

According to the California Department of Conservation, the Alquist Priolo earthquake fault zones are regulatory zones surrounding the surface traces of active faults in California. An active fault, for the purposes of the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist Priolo Act) is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years. Wherever an active fault exists, if it has the potential for surface rupture, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the fault and must be a minimum distance f rom the fault (generally 50 feet) (DOC 2019).

According to the California Department of Conservation’s Fault Activity Map of California, the Modified Project Site is located near the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone, specifically the Inglewood fault (DOC 2024a) ; however, as shown in Figure 13, Earthquake Faults, the Modified Project Site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the CBC and the Alquist Priolo Act requirements. The Alquist Priolo Act requirements would include that a geologic investigation be prepared for the Modified Project Site to demonstrate that the site is not threatened by surface rupture from future faulting. Additionally, the Alquist Priolo Act requires that all structures for human occupancy must be set back at minimum of 50 feet from the fault. As such, compliance with the CBC and the Alquist Priolo Act requirements would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

USGS Quaternary Faults
Based on Time of Most Recent Surface Deformation
Historical (<150 years), well constrained location
Historical (<150 years), moderately constrained location Latest Quaternarny (<15,000 years), well constrained location Latest Quaternarny (<15,000 years), moderately constrained location Latest Quaternarny (<15,000 years), inferred location
Late Quaternarny (<130,000 years), well constrained location Late Quaternarny (<130,000 years), moderately constrained location Late Quaternarny (<130,000 years), inferred location
Undifferentiated Quaternary (<1.6 million years), inferred location Source: USGS.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Miles)
1 Figure 13 - Earthquake Faults

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF INGLEWOOD
USGS Quaternary Faults
Based on Time of Most Recent Surface Deformation
Historical (<150 years), well constrained location
Historical (<150 years), moderately constrained location Latest Quaternarny (<15,000 years), well constrained location Latest Quaternarny (<15,000 years), moderately constrained location Latest Quaternarny (<15,000 years), inferred location
Late Quaternarny (<130,000 years), well constrained location Late Quaternarny (<130,000 years), moderately constrained location Late Quaternarny (<130,000 years), inferred location
Undifferentiated Quaternary (<1.6 million years), inferred location Project SiteProject Site
City Boundary
Metro Rail Stations
Metro Rail Lines
Freeways
Roads
Parks and Open Space
City ofCity of
InglewoodInglewood

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

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 5-79
The Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map , 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project Site is located within a seismically active region and several faults traverse the Approved Project Site. However, compliance with the CBC and Inglewood Municipal Code for structural safety the potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

The Modified Project Site is not in an established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Fault Activity Map of California, the Modified Project Site is located near the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone, specifically the Inglewood fault (DOC 2024a) (see Figure 13). The degree of ground shaking, and earthquake -induced damage is dependent on multiple factors, such as distances to causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. The Project Site may experience ground shaking from an earthquake occurring along the Inglewood fault. However, compliance with the CBC and the Inglewood Municipal Code to ensure that structures are developed consistent with established earthquake standards, would reduce potential impacts.

The Inglewood Municipal Code would require that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California-licensed civil engineer prepare a site -specific engineering analysis that demonstrates the satisfactory performance of proposed structures and contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads and peak ground accelerations that could result from earthquakes. As such, potential impacts would be reduced to 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. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project Site is susceptible to liquefaction. However, compliance with the CBC and the Inglewood Municipal Code for structural safety would reduce potential impacts from liquefaction to less than significant.

According to the California Geological Survey (CGS) Liquefaction Zones map, the Modified Project is in an area susceptible to liquefaction (CGS 2019). However, adherence to the CBC and Inglewood Municipal Code requires that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California-licensed civil engineer prepare

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

a site -specific soil engineering report. The report would include appropriate subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis and provide specific foundation, floor slab, and grading recommendations to reduce potential impacts. Similar to the Approved Project, with the implementation of CBC and the Inglewood Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant related to liquefaction.

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.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project Site is located in an area that is relatively flat, developed, and not subject to landslides. The Approved Project Site is not located in any active landslide areas, the buildout of the Approved Project would not generate manufactured slopes, and no impacts would occur related to landslides.

The Modified Project Site is located in an area of the City that is flat. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Landslide Inventory map, the Modified Project Site is not near any active, historic, or dormant landslides (DOC 2024). Similar to the Approved Project, no impacts would occur related to landslides at the Modified Project Site.

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 substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that compliance with the Construction General Permit and the implementation of a SWPPP, impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earthen materials are loosened, worn away, decomposed, or dissolved and removed from one place and transported to another. The 300 Beach Avenue Site contains flat terrain, which decreases the project’s potential to accelerate erosion. However, the 338 Beach Avenue Site is located on a vacant lot that slopes downward. The Modified Project at the 338 Beach Avenue Site is undeveloped and contains exposed soil that could result in erosion , and the 300 Beach Avenue Site is developed. Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the Construction General Permit and implement a SWPPP . As such, 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.

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 5-81
Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project is not near any active landslide areas ; there is no historic evidence of subsidence in the City ; and that limited areas within the Approved Project Site could be susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and collapse. However, compliance with the CBC and Inglewood Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and collapse to less than significant.

As stated in Threshold 5.12(a)(iv), no impacts would occur from landslides because there are no active, historic, or dormant landslides (DOC 2024b). According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Areas of Land Subsidence in California map, the Mod ified Project is not within an area of subsidence (USGS 2024).

Additionally, the Modified Project is located in an area susceptible to liquefaction (CGS 2019) and, therefore, also located in an area susceptible to collapse and lateral spreading. Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the CBC and the Inglewood Municipal Code. The CBC require s that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California -licensed civil engineer prepare a site -specific soil engineering report based on appropriate subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis that would include site-specific foundation, floor slab, and grading recommendations. As such, compliance with the CBC and the Inglewood Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts to 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) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that compliance with the CBC and Inglewood Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the CBC has been adopted into the Inglewood Municipal Code and requires that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California -licensed engineer prepare a site-specific soil engineering report to make recommendations to reduce potential impacts related to potential soil expansion.

The Modified Project Site includes loam soil at depths of 0 to 16 inches, clay loam soil at depths of 18 to 31 inches, and clay soil at depths of 31 to 79 inches (USDA 2024). Clay soil can shrink or swell, depending on the moisture content, and can potentially shift, crack, or break structures. However, similar to the Approved Project, implementation of the CBC and the Inglewood Municipal Code would reduce impacts to 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

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.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would be connected to the municipal sewage systems and no septic tanks would be used.

Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not include the installation or use of any septic tanks and the Modified Project would connect to the City’s existing sewage system. As a result, 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.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

As part of the Certified EIR, impacts regarding paleontological resources were evaluated and determined in Section 4.D, Cultural Resources. The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project Site has the potential to contain paleontological resources because of the underlying Pleistocene alluvium soil deposits. However, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.D-3.

A paleontological resources assessment was conducted for the Modified Project Site (see Appendix G). The paleontological resources assessment examined the following sources:
▪ Published geologic maps of the Project Site and surrounding vicinity. ▪ A collections record search was performed by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA) to identify previously collected localities within one mile of the Project Site. ▪ Searches of the following on-line databases were performed to determine additional fossil sites recorded within one mile of the Project Site:
⚫ University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Collections ⚫ The Paleobiology Database
⚫ iDigBio
▪ Additional published and unpublished paleontological literature pertaining to the Project Site and the surrounding vicinity.

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 5-83
The paleontological resources assessment concluded that t he sediments underlying the Project Site are considered have high potential for yielding scientific fossils based on the records search and literature review performed by the NHMLA and other sources. The project w ould include excavation below current infrastructure, which w ould require the disturbance of new sediments. The proposed ground-disturbing activities would have the potential to result in significant impacts , including destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically significant paleontological resources. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.D-3, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4D-3, a paleontological mitigation plan would be implemented for the Modified Project, as described below.

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.

5.12.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR Mitigation Measure 4.D-3 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 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 Measure

4.D-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or action that would permit site disturbance in native ground (below soils that were disturbed by previous development activities), (whichever occurs first, the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated monitor all ground disturbing activities for paleontological discoveries, and the paleontological requirements shall b e incorporated into all development plans submitted and included as conditions of approval.

In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be halted or redirected to provide for a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming construction activities. Thus, a paleontological mitigation plan would be implemented for the Modified Project, as described below.

Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan
Pre-Construction Personnel Training
Prior to the beginning of any ground disturbing activities, a Society of Vertebrate Paleontology-qualified paleontologist shall conduct a Paleontological Awareness Training

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

Program for all personnel. The program shall include descriptions of potential fossil resources that may be encountered in the project site during earth -moving activities, a discussion of the pertinent laws and regulations relating to said paleontological resources in the area, and a review of the steps that should be taken if a fossil discovery is made.

The program should be developed by the qualified paleontologist and delivered simultaneously with any other sensitivity trainings, safety reviews and other matters of concern.

Paleontological Monitoring
Due to the high potential for the discovery of scientifically significant fossil materials during ground disturbance activities, full-time paleontological resource monitoring shall be performed by a paleontological monitor under the direction of the qualified paleontologist. Monitoring shall involve the visual inspection of all earth -moving activities, graded areas, trench sidewalls and spoils piles. If the project paleontologist determines that full -time monitoring is no longer required based on the geologic conditions of the site, the paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced or stopped entirely.

Paleontological monitors shall prepare daily logs describing the activities of the construction crew, the types of excavation work being done, the equipment being used, recordings of the geology observed during these activities, and records of any fossil discoveries made, whether they be determined to be significant or not. Paleontological monitors should also attempt to record the stratigraphy of the rock that is exposed by construction activities, whether or not fossils were discovered within the exposed sediments.

Fossil Discoveries
Should fossil materials be discovered, either by the paleontological monitor or the construction field crew, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction activities and equipment in a 50 -foot radius around the site to further assess the discovery. Should the fossils be determined to be of scientific significance, they should be collected as soon as possible. Standard field procedures should be used in the collection of the fossils to ensure that no scientific data is lost in the recovery process. Fossil specimens discovered during construction can typically be collected by a single qualified paleontologist within a single day, usually in less than one hour. Occasionally, more extensive efforts may be required to properly salvage a fossil specimen, particularly for larger skeletal elements, entire skeletons or large collections of smaller fossil remains. Should this be the case, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt, divert, or redirect construction activities to ensure that the fossil can be salvaged in a safe and timely manner. The paleontological monitor should work directly with the field crew to clearly communicate their intentions

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 5-85
and determine the best way to safely protect and recover the fossils, with minimal disruption to construction efforts.

Fossil Preparation and Curation
An accredited local repository (typically a museum) should be identified for the long - term storage and care of any fossil specimens discovered during paleontological monitoring. Upon completion of the project, collected fossil specimens should be prepared to the standards required by the repository that has agreed to take them and delivered as soon as is feasible upon completion of the preparatory work. Preparatory work should include the removal of excess sedimentary matrix, as well as any steps necessary for the repair and stabilization of the specimens. The specimens should be identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, and copies of all field notes and information related to the fossil should be kept and provided to the repository as well upon delivery of the specimen. The cost of curation will be determined by the repository, and the costs of preparation and curation will be the responsibility of the project owner.

Final Paleontological Mitigation Report
Upon completion of paleontological monitoring, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to all interested parties.

This report should detail the monitoring activities and methods used during construction, a description of the construction activities that took place, stratigraphic sections created during monitoring, a review of any fossils discovered (whether or not they were deemed significant and collected), a detailed description of the fossils that were collected including their scientific significance, and information relating to the repository where the fossils will be curated.

Projects that would not encounter previously undisturbed soils would not be required to retain a paleontologist. However, these projects shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth disturbing activities.

Implementation: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as-needed basis be onsite to monitor all ground-disturbing activities to address unanticipated paleontological discoveries. In addition, the paleontological requirements shall be incorporated into all development plans submitted and included as conditions of approval.

5.12.5 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.

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

5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES

5.13.1 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 substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant en vironmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
▪ Fire Protection
▪ Police Protection
▪ Schools
▪ Park
▪ Other public services

5.13.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determine that there would be no impact associated with the provision of police facilities.

Buildout of the Approved Project would require the police department to add staff and equipment on an as- needed basis in order to accommodate increasing demands. However, buildout of the Approved Project would not result or require development of new or expansion of existing police department facilities. Future development projects would also be reviewed by the Inglewood Public Works Division and th e Los Angeles County Fire Department and would implement existing City procedures to minimize potential impacts associated with fire protection services. Additionally, new students generated by the build out of the Approved Project would be mitigated by payment of development impacts fees. It was also determined that library facilities would accommodate the increased demand from the increase of residents as a result of the buildout of the Approved Project. Therefore, impacts to public services are less than significant.

5.13.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response ti mes, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

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 5-87
Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of Inglewood receives fire protection and paramedic services from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). Services provided by LACFD include fire suppression, hazardous materials protection, emergency medical treatment, earthquake and fire safety planning, fire inspections, and building plan reviews. The Project Site would be served by Station 171 and Station 172, both within a mile radius of the Project Site. Future development projects would also be reviewed by the Inglewood Public Works Division and the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and would implement existing City procedures to minimize potential impacts associated with fire protection services. Additionally, personnel and equipment from stations outside Inglewood respond to calls regularly, and emergency units are dispatched as needed to an incident anywhere within the LAFCD’s service area. The Modified Project would be developed in an urban area where the developed residences would be served by existing stations. As such, 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.

Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of Inglewood receives law enforcement services from the IPD. The IPD station is 0.5 mile south of the Project Site. The Modified Project would be developed in an urban area where the developed residences and existing industrial uses would continue to be served by existing protection services. The City does not utilize a standard personnel-to-population ratio to determine police service needs. The Certified EIR anticipated that the number of calls the IPD handles per year would increase, resulting in the need of additional officers to maintain a ratio of 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents. This was anticipated to occur over a 20-year time frame. As such, 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.

Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The project area is in the Inglewood Unified School District, which provides school services for grades kindergarten through 12. Schools that would serve the project are La Tijera Elementary School, Crozier Middle School, and Inglewood High School. As described in Section 5.2, Population and Housing, the Modified Project would not substantially induce population growth. Additionally, as with the Approved Project, payment of development fees to the Inglewood Unified School District would provide for any future school facilities construction, improvements, and expansion. As such, 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

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

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

Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of Inglewood is fully developed and urbanized community. The nearest park to the Project Site is Edward Vincent Junior Park 0.17 mile east of the Project Site. The Modified Project would not have an adverse physical impact on any parks or necessitate the construction of new parks since the Project Site are developed or have been previously developed with commercial and residential uses and do not operate as a park. The 338 Beach Avenue Site would include approximately 58,626 square feet of community areas and open space that would serve the residents. Thus, the Modified Project would not result in the need for new or expanded park facilities. Additionally, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to pay in-lieu fees and park development fees that would be used for development and improvement of public parks and recreation facilities. As such, 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.

Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modified Project would not result in impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities such as, libraries, childcare, teen, or senior centers. The Inglewood Parks, Recreation, and Library Services Department currently manages and operates two libraries, the Inglewood Main Library and the Crenshaw -Imperial Branch Library. The nearest library to the Project Site is the Inglewood Main Library located 0.5 mile south of the Project Site. New residential uses do not immediately equate to an increased need for library resources or services. The Modified Project would not substantially induce population growth; thus the existing public facilities would be able to accommodate residents of the Modified Project. As such, 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.

5.13.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for public services. and no new mitigation measures would be required for 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 5-89

5.13.5 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.

5.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.14.1 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) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant envir onmental effects.
(b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infra-structure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (e) Be out of compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

5.14.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the build out of the Approved Project would result in additional residential, commercial, office, institutional, and industrial uses which would increase water demand above existing conditions. However, adequate water supplies in multiple dry years are available to meet this increase demand and would not result in inadequate water supplies. The Approved Project would not result in construction of new or expanded water facilities. Additionally, the Approved Project would increase sewage generation but would not result in inadequate capacity to serve projected demand . The Approved Project would increase intensity of land uses and future site -specific development projects would install on-site sewer infrastructure and new connections to the sewer system that could include improvements to aged sewer pipelines and other connecting infrastructure. Wastewater system improvements as part of future site-specific development projects would generally occur along existing pipeline alignments and within existing infrastructures and would be required to comply with all Inglewood Municipal Code standards and applicable mitigation measures. The Certified EIR also determined that the buildout of the Approved Project would increase generation of solid

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

waste but would not exceed the capacity of landfill facilities and would not conflict with federal, state, or local statues or regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Certified EIR determined that the approved project would result in a less than significant impact regarding utilities and service systems.

5.14.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The Certified EIR determined that there would be adequate water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure to serve the increase demand as a result of additional residential, commercial, office, institutional, and industrial uses. Development of the Modified Project would be located in the Approved Project area and would consist of the improvements to the existing industrial facility, and construction of new residential and mixed use developments at the 300 Beach Avenue Site and a new residential development at the 338 Beach Avenue Site.

The Modified Project would be consistent with the existing uses at the 300 Beach Avenue Site, and 338 Beach Avenue Site residential development would be consistent with the surrounding development. Wastewater systems for the construction of the Modified Project would occur along existing pipeline alignments and within existing infrastructures and would be required to comply with all Inglewood Municipal Code standards and applicable mitigation measures. Electricity is provided by SCE and natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. As electricity and natural gas infrastructure already exists in the area, the Modified Project would not require the construction of new or expanded facilities. Telephone services are provided by AT&T, and Time Warner provides cable services. As telecommunication infrastructure already exist in the area, the Modified Project does not require the construction of new or expanded facilities. The Modified Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project, 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.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that there would be an increase in water demand as a result of additional residential, commercial, office, institutional, and industrial uses, and determined that there would be sufficient water supplies in multiple dry years to serve the area from existing entitlements and resources. The City would provide potable water service to the Project Site. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) analyzed

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 5-91
water supply during normal, dry and multiple dry years through the year 2045. The UWMP determined that the City has sufficient supply to meet all reliably requirements including population projections.

The Modified Project would result in 139 new residences, 3,727 square feet of ground floor commercial, and 35,237 square feet of industrial uses to support existing operations at Don Lee Farms. Therefore, the Modified Project does not meet the thresholds required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment under the provisions of SB 610. The Modified Project would be developed in an urban area where the developed residences would be served by existing water purveyors. The Modified Project would not substantially induce population growth and is consistent with projections for the City . Therefore, the Modified Project would result in less than significant 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.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR concluded that while the Approved Project would increase wastewater generation in the TOD Plan Area, this increase can be accommodated by existing capacity at the Los Angeles County Sanitation District’s Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) which tr eats wastewater from the City . Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project’s wastewater generation would contribute a marginal increase to th e 400 mega gallons per day treatment capacity of the JWPCP (Inglewood 2019).

The Modified Project would therefore result in less than significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment provider capacity, and would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. 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 n ew information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not exceed existing landfill capacity.

Demolition and conduction activities generate solid waste, including cardboard, wood, metals, glass, plastics, concrete, asphalt, and other building materials. The Modified Project would be served by the Republic Services that provides exclusive waste, recycling, and organic services to the City of Inglewood. Trash generated at the Project Site would be hauled to the American Waste Transfer Station and then transported to the Sunshine Canyon Landfill for disposal. The Modified would not result in the need to expand landfill or construct a new

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

landfill. The Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts, and would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project.

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.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
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 federal, state, or local statues and regulations related to solid waste . Like the Approved Project, all solid -waste generated by the Modified Project is subject to the requirements set forth in AB 939 and Article 5 of the Inglewood Municipal Code , which is the adoption of the Solid Waste Ordinance that includes compliance with AB 341. AB 341 requires commercial businesses and multifamily dwellings to implement mandatory commercial recycling program. The Modified Project would also be required to comply with SB 1383, which sets regulations in order to reduce organic waste. Additionally, construction of the Modified Project would comply with CALGreen Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, which requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be consistent with all state regulations as well as the Inglewood Municipal Code. All projects undergo City development review, which includes analysis of project compliance. The Modified Project would result in less than significant impacts, and would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project.

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.

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

5.14.5 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.

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 5-93

5.15 RECREATION

5.15.1 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) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
(b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

5.15.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities or require the expansion of recreational facilities. Buildout of the Approved Project would result in an additional 19.82 acres of open space land use , meeting the City’s standards for the provision of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (Inglewood Municipal Code Section 12-105.5). Individual residential development projects would be required to dedicate land to be used for public parkland or pay the City’s Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fees and Park Development Fees. Therefore, impacts related to recreation facilities were determined to be less than significant.

5.15.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The City of Inglewood is fully developed and urbanized community. The Modified Project would not have an adverse physical impact on any parks or necessitate the construction of new parks since the Project Sites are developed or have been previously developed with commercial and residential uses and do not operate as a park. The 338 Beach Avenue Site would include approximately 58,626 square feet of community areas a nd open space that would serve the residents. The Modified Project would result in an estimated 399 residents, in addition to the population growth anticipated from the Approved Project, and is within growth projections identified by SCAG, and would therefore not substantially induce population growth. Thus the Modified Project would not result in the need for new or expanded park facilities. Additionally, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to pay in-lieu fees and park development fees that would be used for development and improvement of public parks and recreation facilities. As such 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

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) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

As discussed in Section 5.15(a), the Modified Project would not require the expansion of existing recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the environment. Additionally, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to pay in-lieu fees and park development fees that would be used for development and improvement of public parks and recreation facilities. As such, 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.

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

5.15.5 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.

5.16 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

5.16.1 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) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code

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 5-95
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

5.16.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that impacts to agricultural and forestry resources were found to not be significant and did not separately analyze the topic. The TOD Plan area is within a fully urban setting that has long been developed and does not provide any opportunity for agricultural or forestry use. Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights does not contain any lands planned, zoned, used, or suitable for commercial agriculture, does not contain any state -designated farmland, and does not contain any fore st resources.

Therefore, the Certified EIR determined that there would be no impact to agricultural forest resources.

5.16.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the Modified Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR did not identify any potential impacts to Farmland. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the Project Site is located within Urban and Built-Up Land and is not locat ed near or within any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2022. The Project Site is not used for agricultural purposes. Thus, similar to the Certified EIR, implementation of the Modified Project would not convert agricultural land to a non-agricultural use. As such , 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

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

requiring further environmental review. Therefore, no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Certified EIR did not identify any potential impacts to land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. Land uses within or near the Project Site are not zoned for agricultural uses and are not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Thus, implementation of the Modified Project would not conflict with agricultural zones or a Williamson Act contract. As such, 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. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that no impact would occur since no forest land or timberland product exist on-site in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site is currently developed and is located within an urbanized area. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Project Site does not contain forest lands or timberlands and no such uses exist near or within the Project Site (CDFW 2015. Thus, implementation of the Modified Project would not conflict with such zoning. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that no impact would occur from loss of forest land. As discussed in Question 5.16(c), the Project Site does not contain and forest lands or timberlands, and no such uses exist near or within the Project Site.

Thus, implementation of the Modified Project would not conflict with such zoning. As such, 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.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that no impact would occur related to the conversion of Farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use. No agricultural uses (including farmland and forestland) exist on-site nor within the vicinity Project Site. Development of the Modified Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to a non -

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 5-97
agricultural use and would not result in the conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. As such, 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.

5.16.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for Agriculture and Forestry Resources . No new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

5.16.5 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.

5.17 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This analysis in the section is based in part on the following study, included as Appendix H to this Addendum:
▪ Biological Resources Report- Downtown/ Fairview Heights TOD EIR Project, South Environmental, October 2024

5.17.1 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, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wild-life or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wild-life nursery sites.

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

(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

5.17.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that impacts to biological resources were found to not be significant and did not separately analyze the topic. The Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights planning areas are located in an urban setting that has long been developed and does not support sensitive biological resources, and the planning areas do not include lands identified in conservation or regional habitat conservation plans. The Certified EIR determined that there are no sensitive habitats such as wetlands, waters, marshes or riparian areas present.

Therefore, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not impact any sensitive biological resources.

5.17.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the TOD Plan area is urbanized and built out, and no species that are candidate, sensitive , or special status species are known to exist in the vicinity of the Project Site. Based on the Biological Resources Report (Appendix H), no special-status plants were observed on the Project Site, and it was determined that none of the 66 special-status plants known to occur in the region are expected to occur within the Project Site or study area due to a lack of suitable habitat . The non -native grassland and developed and ornamental landscaping regions in the study area are not suitable for special-status plants that are typically found in native habitats. Additionally, no special -status wildlife species were observed during the field visit, and none are expected to occur on the Project Site and through the study area due to the lack of high-quality native habitat, surrounding residential and commercial developme nts, human disturbances, and distance to high -quality habitat in the region (Appendix H). Implementation of the Modified Project would occur on areas that are already heavily degraded that lack high-quality native habitat, 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 5-99
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community exist on-site. There are no native plant communities or sensitive natural communities in the study area ( Appendix H). Therefore, the project would have no impact on sensitive natural plant communities on the site and would avoid impacts to native habitat.

The developed areas and ruderal vegetation found in the non-native grasslands would not be considered habitat for special-status species due to the developments and lack of native plant cover. This is an urban area devoid of native habitats, and impacts to habitat for special-status species or sensitive natural communities would not occur because they are not present, 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. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Biological Resources Report determined that there are no water resources on the Project Site. According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), there are no state or federally protected wetlands near or within the Project Site (USFWS 2021), 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) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR .

The Project Site is not within any designated critical habitat for threatened and endangered species or California Protected Areas. The surrounding study area is also heavily disturbed by developments, roadways, and human disturbance that lacks native habitat and movement corridors for wildlife. Wildlife movement is not expected to occur during construction and operation of the Modified Project. Because the project impacts will occur on areas that are already heavily degraded movement areas, no impacts would occur to wildlife movement in the region.

However, development on the Project Site may require the removal of shrubs or trees that could provide potential nesting habitat for common urban birds, and migratory Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Migratory Bird Protect Act (MBPA), an d the Fish and Wildlife Code. If present at the time of vegetation removal, there could be direct impacts on active nests, eggs,

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

or young. These could be destroyed or otherwise disturbed to a point at which the young do not survive, which would be a violation of the MBTA, MBPA, and the Fish and Wildlife Code. In addition, indirect impacts from noise or vibration have the potential t o disturb an active bird nest to the point of failure if the nest is within immediate proximity to project activities, and this would also be a violation of the MBTA and Fish and Wildlife Code. To avoid direct and indirect impacts to active bird nests, egg s, or young, preconstruction nesting bird surveys and monitoring is required as described in Regulatory Compliance Recommendation #1.

Regulatory Compliance Recommendation #1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey ▪ If possible, ground disturbing activities and vegetation removal (including tree trimming) should be timed to occur outside the bird nesting season (September 1–January 31). ▪ If ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal (including tree trimming) are scheduled during the bird nesting season (February 1 –August 31) , a preconstruction survey for nesting birds should be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction activities. The survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist with prior experience conducting nesting bird surveys for construction projects. The s tudy area should include the Project Site and suitable habitat within a 300-foot buffer, or a buffer size determined by the qualified biologist based on level of proposed disturbance and access. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.
▪ If active nests are found the biologist will map the location and document the species and nesting stage. A no-work buffer will be established around the active nest as determined by the qualified biologist and based on the species sensitivity to disturban ce and the type and duration of the disturbance. No construction activities shall occur within the no -work buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active.

Implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure #1 would avoid impacts to nesting birds. 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.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . There are several species of trees protected under the City of Inglewood Protected Tree Ordinance (City of Inglewood 2024), including coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia). One coast live oak was observed on the Project Site ; however, the diameter and height of this tree do not meet the requirements for protection (Appendix H). Therefore, there are no protected trees on the Project Site , and no impact to protected trees 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 5-101
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modified Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, 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.

5.17.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for Biological Resources, and n o new mitigation measures would be required for the Modified Project.

5.17.5 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.

5.18 MINERAL RESOURCES

5.18.1 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 the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state.
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

5.18.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR determined that impacts to mineral resources were found to not be significant and did not separately analyze the topic. The Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights planning areas have been fully developed with urban uses for serval decade s, and contain no known existing mineral resources. The TOD Plan areas have been mapped by the California Department of Mines and Geology primarily as MRZ-1, an area where adequate information indicates a low likelihood of significant mineral resources. So me areas are also zoned MRZ-3, indicating that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. There are no lands designated MRZ-2, areas where adequate information indicated that significant mineral deposits are present, or there is a likelihood of their presence. The Certified EIR determined that the Approved

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

Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, the Certified EIR determined that that there would be no impact on mineral resources.

5.18.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the Project Site does not contain known mineral resources of regional or state value. According to the DOC Mineral Land Classification maps, the Project Site is located within an area classified as MRZ -1, which is an area where adequate information indicates a low likelihood of significant mineral resources (DOC 1994). The Project Site is currently developed and disturbed from prior residential development and is not used for mineral extraction, 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. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan, because the Project Site contains no known mineral resources. Since the Modified Project would occur on the same Project Site as the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not result in the loss of availa bility of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, 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.

5.18.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for Mineral Resources, and no new mitigation measures would be required for 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 5-103

5.18.5 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.

5.19 TRIBAL 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

5.19.1 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) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacre d place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native American tribe.

5.19.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR Section 4D, Cultural Resources, of the Certified EIR, determined that the Approved Project Site does not occur in a probability area for archaeological resources and determined that the Approved Project would have no impact to archaeological resources with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.D-2.

AB 52 applies to projects that require a mitigated negative declaration , negative declaration, or EIR, and establishes a formal notice and consultation process between lead agencies and California Native American tribes that have requested to be notified. AB 52 went into effect in July 2015 and the tribal cultural resources section was added to the CEQA th resholds in 2016 ; however, it was not required by CEQA during the preparation of the Certified EIR, thus, Tribal Cultural Resources were not previously evaluated.

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

5.19.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the Modified Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modified Project is not subject to SB 18 or AB 52. SB 18 applies to the preparation or amendment of General Plans or Specific Plans. Because the Modified Project does not require a General Plan amendment, the Modified Project would not be subject to SB 18. AB 52 applies to the preparation of negative declarations, MNDs, or EIRs. Therefore, the preparation of an addendum does not require AB 52 noticing.

The Certified EIR did not identify any impacts to archaeological resources and did not analyze tribal cultural resources. As discussed under Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, no known historic or archaeological resources exist on -site. The Modified Project would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.D-2 to reduce any potential impacts to archaeological resources. 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 qualifi ed archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the s ignificance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted.

Additionally, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, and the California Health and Safety Code, which generally require that any ground disturbance must cease in the event of accidental discovery of resources or disturbance to human remains during construction activities.

In the event of accidental discovery of human remains, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) require that there be no further excavation or disturbance of the Project Site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains. These regulations require the County Coroner to be contacted and to make a determination as to whether an investigation into the cause of death is required and whether the remai ns are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC.

The NAHC shall identify the person(s) it believes to be the most likely descendent, and the most likely

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 5-105
descendent may make recommendations regarding proper treatment and burial, which would be implemented, in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.D-2, and compliance with state and federal regulations, a less than significant 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.

5.19.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR Mitigation Measure 4.D-2 related to tribal cultural resources is applicable to the Modified Project is incorporated under Sections 5.4, Cultural Resources. No additional mitigation measures related to tribal cultural resources are applicable to the Modified Project.

5.19.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The level of significance would be less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

5.20 WILDFIRE

5.20.1 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) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
(c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

5.20.2 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Certified EIR The wildfire environmental topic was added to the CEQA checklist in 2019, as such, the Certified EIR did not separately analyze the topic of wildfire. However, the potential of the Approved Project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires was analyzed in Section 4J, Hazards

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

and Hazardous Materials, of the Certified EIR. 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 determined that there would be no impacts related to wildland fires.

5.20.3 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project

5.20.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the local government, state, or the federal government. SRA are the areas in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and supp ression of wildland fires. The SRA forms one large a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services.

Local responsibility areas ( LRA) include incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) under contract to local government.

CAL FIRE uses an extension of the SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evaluating fire hazard in LRAs. The local responsibility area hazard rating reflects fla me and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegetation in the urban area. The Los Angeles County Fire Department currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City.

FHSZs are identified by Moderate, High and Very High in an SRA, and Very High in an LRA. The nearest FHSZ in the SRA is a Very High FHSZ approximately 15 miles northwest of the Project Site (CALFIRE 2024).

The nearest FHSZ in the LRA is a Very High FHSZ approximately 2 miles north of the Project Site (CALFIRE 2024).

Would the Modified Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Adequate emergency vehicle access throughout the TOD Planning area would be maintained at all times as required by the Inglewood Police Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department. All construction projects within the TOD Plan area would comply with the California Fire Code, which includes requirements to provide for access for firefighting and providing an approved temporary means of egress.

The City of Inglewood adopted a Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan and an Emergency Response Plan that was developed to reduce or elite long-term risks to human life and property from a variety of potential hazards. The Emergency Response Plan designates evacuat ion routes that include E. Florence Avenue and N. La Brea Avenue.

Additionally, construction and operation of the Modified P roject would follow the appropriate local and regional procedures and policies regarding emergency response, and would not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan , 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

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 5-107
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) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of Inglewood is an entirely built-out urban community. The Project Site is largely developed and is in an urban area. There is no wildland susceptible to wildfire on or near the Project Site. Furthermore, CAL FIRE does not classify any adjacent areas as a Very High FHSZ, 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. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . As demonstrated above, the Project Site is not in or near an SRA or LRA or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones.

The Modified Project is located within an urbanized area and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of a Supplemental EIR. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR . The Project Site has been historically developed and is located within an urbanized area. The Project Site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. There are no slopes susceptible to wildfire in the surrounding area. Thus, the Modified Project woul d not result in runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes , 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.

5.20.4 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR did not include mitigation measures for wildfire, and no new mitigation measures would be required for 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

5.20.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The level of significance would be less than significant for the Modified Project and would not include any additional mitigation measures.

May 2025 Page 6-1

6. List of Preparers

6.1 CITY OF INGLEWOOD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Bernard McCrumby Jr., Planning Manager
Christine Rivera, Senior Planner

6.2 PLACEWORKS
Addie Farrell, Principal
Alen Estrada-Rodas, Senior Associate
Jared Bradford, Associate
Itzeel Padilla, Planner
Natalie Phan, Planner
Lance Park, Senior Associate, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emily Parks, Associate, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Chris Shields, Senior Associate, Noise
Cary Nakama, Graphic Artist
Gina Froelich, Senior Editor
Laura Muñoz, Document Specialist

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

6. List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2025 Page 7-1

7. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental -quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA). 2022, April. CalEEMod, California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide, Version 2022.1. Prepared by: ICF in collaboration with Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air -resources-board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf. ———. 2022, December. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf. ———. 2024, December 3 (accessed). Area Designations Maps/State and National. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2024a, October 3 (accessed). Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.
———. 2024b, October 3 (accessed). Landslide Inventory. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/. ———.2024c, October 3 (accessed) California Tsunami Maps. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps#how-to-cite California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/ documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.
———. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/-/ media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. ———. 2025. California State Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Forests and Timberlands. .https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109917&inline

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

7. References

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2024. April 1. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness -and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2025, February 24. SGMA Data Viewer. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#boundaries.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2022, February 11. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program-liquefaction-zones-1/ explore?location=33.967975%2C-118.348423%2C16.16.

California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). 2024, July 1. https://calgreenenergyservices.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/EV-Charging-Parking.pdf EDI Consultants (EDI). 2023, September 14. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Appendix E Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018, December. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=city%20of%20inglewood Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006, January. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise -and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

Inglewood, City of. 2006. General Plan Technical Background Report. ———.2015, December. Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP). https://cdn.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/EECAP_Inglewood_Final_20151218.pdf. ———. 2019, December. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center (State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021056). https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2018021056/3
———. 2021, July. Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
https://www.cityofinglewood.org/DocumentCenter/View/16221/20210616-Public-Review-Draft- 2020-UWMP
———. 2022, October 25. Draft Inglewood General Plan Safety Element. https://www.cityofinglewood.org/DocumentCenter/View/18497/Draft-Safety-Element-2022. ———. 2024, March 12. Article 1 Fire Code and Amendments. https://ecode360.com/43778034.

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

7. References

May 2025 Page 7-3
Inglewood Unified School District. 2022, May 12. Residential and Industrial/Commercial Development Fee Justification Study.

Iteris. 2025 300 Beach Ave and 338 Beach Ave Traffic Impact Assessment. 2024. Appendix B.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, 1991. December 19. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan.

Pinnacle Environmental Inc. (PEI). 2024, January 26. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Appendix F.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024, April 14. Connect SoCal Plan: The 2024– 2050 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook.
———. 2008a, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/ final-lst-methodology-document.pdf.
———. 2008b, October. Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg) -ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf.
———. 2010, September 28. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg) -ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf. ———. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/ caleemod-guidance.pdf.
———. 2022, December. Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/ final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
———. 2023, March (revised). South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality -significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.

United States Census Bureau. 2023. QuickFacts, Inglewood city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/inglewoodcitycalifornia/PST040223.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2024, October 3 (accessed). Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

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

7. References

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2024, October 3 (accessed). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html.

York Packaged Equipment (York). 2006. Heating and Cooling Outdoor Units. https://www.york.com/residential-equipmenUheating-and-cooling/residential-packaged-equipment.

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
Appendix
May 2025
Appendix A Cultural Resources Technical Report

Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project,
City of Inglewood , California

Prepared For:

PlaceWorks
700 South Flower Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, California 90017

and

City of Inglewood
1 Manchester Blvd, Suite 602
Inglewood, California 90301

Prepared By:

2061 N. Los Robles Avenue, Ste. 205
Pasadena, California 91104

Authors: Sarah Corder, MFA, Kevin Hunt, BA, and Samantha Murray, MA, RPA

December 2024
A-1
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood i December 2024
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Summarized Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Project Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 9 2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

2.1 State ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Local ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................................ 16 4 Cultural Setting .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

4.1 Prehistoric Context ............................................................................................................................................. 17

4.2 Ethnographic Context ........................................................................................................................................ 18

4.3 Historic Context ................................................................................................................................................... 22

4.4 History of the Project Site ................................................................................................................................ 27 5 Background Research.................................................................................................................................................. 34

5.1 CHRIS Records Search ....................................................................................................................................... 34

5.2 Related Documents ............................................................................................................................................ 36

5.3 Archival Research ................................................................................................................................................ 36 6 Cultural Resources Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 39

6.1 Built Environment Survey ................................................................................................................................. 39

6.2 Archaeological Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 42 7 Property Significance Evaluations .......................................................................................................................... 44

7.1 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1) ............................................................................................................ 44

7.2 300 East Beach Avenue (Property 2) ............................................................................................................ 46

7.3 308-312 East Beach Avenue (Property 3) .................................................................................................. 48

7.4 316 East Beach Avenue (Property 4) ............................................................................................................ 50 8 Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 52

8.1 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................... 52

8.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 53 A-2
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

ii December 2024
9 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Figures
Figure 1. Project Location Map ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. Project Site Detail ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. Built Environment Study Area Map .............................................................................................................. 10 Tables
Table 1. Parcels within the Project Site ............................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Owner and Occupancy Timeline for 300 East Beach Avenue ............................................................... 29 Table 3. Owner and Occupancy Timeline for 316 East Beach Avenue ............................................................... 32 Table 4. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site ........................ 34 Table 5. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site .............................. 35 Exhibits
Exhibit 1. The Kirkman-Harriman pictorial and historical map of Los Angeles County, 1860-1937 (Tessa LAPL). ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 2. The Gabrielino Indians at the Time of the Portola Expedition (Southwest Museum 1962, reprinted in Johnston 1962) ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 3. Village Size (Greene and Curwen 2019) ..................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 4. Primary north facing elevation, 2008, view southeast (LoopNet.com 2024) ............................... 30 Exhibit 5. Primary and south elevations, 2008, view east (LoopNet.com 2024) ............................................. 30 Exhibit 6. Overview of 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1), facing southeast. ............................................. 40 Exhibit 7. Overview of 300 East Beach Avenue (Property 2), facing southeast. ............................................. 40 Exhibit 8. Overview of 308-312 East Beach Avenue (Property 3), facing southeast. .................................... 41 Exhibit 9. Overview of 316 East Beach Avenue (Property 4), facing southeast. ............................................. 41 Exhibit 10. Overview of 338 East Beach Avenue Site, facing northeast. ............................................................ 42

Appendices
Appendix A: Records Search Results
Appendix B: DPR Form Sets
Appendix C: Preparers’ Qualifications

A-3
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

1 December 2024
Executive Summary
South Environmental was retained to complete a cultural resources technical report for the Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project (project) in the City of Inglewood, Los Angeles County, California. This study includes the results of a California Historical Resources Information Center (CHRIS) records search of the project site and a one-quarter (0.25)-mile radius; an intensive -level pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and architectural historian; and evaluation of built environment resources over 45 years old for historical significance by a qualified architectural historian in consideration of California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR ) designation criteria and integrity requirements . This study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all applicable City of Inglewood codes, ordinances, and plans.

All historic-age properties (Properties 1-4) were recorded and evaluated for historical significance in consideration of California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) designation criteria and integrity requirements. All properties were found not eligible under all designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. In addition, there is not enough architectural cohesion or integrity present in the surrounding properties to indicate the potential for a historic district.

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 deposits; however, ground disturbance always presents a possibility of encountering resources. Standard unanticipated discovery measures for archaeological resources and human remains are provided in Section 8.2 . With implementation of these regulatory requirements, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on historical resources.

In conclusion, no historical or archaeological resources were identified within the project site as a result of this study. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on historical resources under CEQA.

A-4
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

2 December 2024
1 Introduction
South Environmental was retained to complete a cultural resources technical report for the Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project (project) in the City of Inglewood, Los Angeles County, California. This study includes the results of a California Historical Resources Information Center (CHRIS) records search of the project site and a one-quarter (0.25)-mile radius; an intensive -level pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and architectural historian; and evaluation of built environment resources over 45 years old for historical significance by a qualified architectural historian in consideration of California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR ) designation criteria and integrity requirements . This study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all applicable City of Inglewood codes, ordinances, and plans.

The historic built environment components of this report and the property significance evaluation s were prepared by South Environmental Principal Architectural Historian Sarah Corder, MFA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for architectural history and history. All archaeological components of the report were prepared by South Environmental Principal Archaeologist, Kevin H unt, BA and Archaeological Principal Investigator Samantha Murray, MA, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), who meets the PQS for archaeology and history. Resumes for all report authors are provided in Appendix C.

1.1 Project Location
The project site is bounded by East 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 0.10-mile west of Centinela Avenue to the east. It is located approximately 0.5-mile north of Inglewood City Hall. Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 405, approximately one mile to the west, and I nterstate 105, approximately 2.3-miles to the south.

The project site is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Inglewood, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, and within Section 28 of Township 02 South, Range 14 West , San Bernardino base and meridian (Figure 1).

A-5
Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024 Beach Avenue / La Colina Drive Development Project Figure 1. Project Location Map
¯ 0 2,0001,000 Feet
Project Site is within the City of Inglewood, California, in Los Angeles County on the USGS Inglewood 7.5-minute quadrangle map
in Section 28 of Township 02 South and Range 14 West
Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):

Latitude: 33.9691664N Longitude: -118.3502531W
Scale: 1:24,000Project Site
A-6
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

4 December 2024

1.1.1 Project Site
The 6.92-acre project site encompasses 20 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), as shown in Table 1, Parcels within the Project Site, in the Beach Avenue District of the Downtown Inglewood Transit Oriented Development ( TOD) Plan Area, in the City of Inglewood ( project site). The Beach Avenue District contains manufacturing uses and packinghouses in close proximity to low -density residential development. As described in the TOD Plan, the Beach Avenue District is intended to be a unique neighborhood that stimulates small-scale creative production that complements TechTown to the west and the Historic Downtown to the south (City of Inglewood 2016).

Development on the project site would be located on two separate sites, as shown in Figure 2, Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Project Site Boundaries, which would include the 300 East Beach Avenue site and the 338 East Beach Avenue site. Seven parcels containing single-family residential uses are situated between the two sites, and the easternmost part of the project site would not undergo physical changes as a result of the project.
300 East Beach Avenue Site
The 300 East Beach Avenue Site is located on the western portion of the project site and encompasses approximately 3.99 acres within six parcels (see Table 1). The 300 Beach Avenue Site is bounded by Beach Avenue and multifamily residential development to the north, the Metro right-of-way for the K- line right of way to the south, commercial p roperties to the west, and residential and light manufacturing properties to the east. The 300 East Beach Avenue Site currently includes Don Lee Farms, which has been operating in Inglewood since 1982 and other light manufacturing uses associated with Don Lee Farms. Don Lee Farms is a family -owned food company that produces and distributes a variety of products, including burgers, tacos, bowls, veggie burgers, and more. The 300 East Beach Avenue Site contains a 42,886 square foot warehouse, and seven additional structures used for storage, associated with Don Lee Farms.
338 East Beach Avenue Site
The 338 East Beach Avenue Site is located on the eastern portion of the project site and encompasses approximately 1.54 acres within three parcels (see Table 1). The 338 East Beach Avenue Site is bounded by East Beach Avenue and industrial uses to the north, La Colina Drive and the Metro K -line right of way to the south, residential and light manufacturing properties to the west, and an unnamed alley approximately 0.10 mile west of Centinela Avenue to the east. T he 338 East Beach Avenue Site is currently vacant and previously disturbed and contains some vegetation and trees that slopes down towards East Beach Avenue. Additionally, the Beach Avenue Sulfide Control Station that is operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 5 is adjacent to the northwestern corner of the 338 East Beach Avenue site.

A-7
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

5 December 2024
As shown in Table 1, additional parcels located within the project site encompass approximately 1.39 acres within 11 parcels. No development would occur on these parcels.

Table 1. Parcels within the Project Site
APN Address Acreage
300 East Beach Avenue Site Parcels
4015-018-004 200 E Beach Avenue 1.52
4015-018-005 200 E Beach Avenue 0.73
4015-017-010 308 E Beach Avenue 1.12
4015-017-011 300 E Beach Avenue 0.31
4015-017-012 308 E Beach Avenue 0.18
4015-017-013 308 E Beach Avenue 0.13
Total Acreage of 300 East Beach Avenue Site 3.99
338 East Beach Avenue Site Parcels
4015-017-017 338 E Beach Avenue 0.13
4015-017-025 338 E Beach Avenue 1.28
4015-017-003 358 E Beach Avenue 0.13
Total Acreage of 300 East Beach Avenue Site 1.54
Additional Parcels within the Project Site where No Development is Proposed 4015-017-007 334 E Beach Avenue 0.12
4015-017-008 330 E Beach Avenue 0.13
4015-017-009 326 E Beach Avenue 0.12
4015-017-014 333 La Colina Drive 0.11
4015-017-015 337 La Colina Drive 0.12
4015-017-016 341 La Colina Drive 0.14
4015-017-018 367 La Colina Drive 0.13
4015-017-019 373 La Colina Drive 0.13
4015-017-020 375 La Colina Drive 0.13
4015-017-900 366 E Beach Avenue 0.13
4015-017-901 362 E Beach Avenue 0.13
Total Acreage of Additional Parcels within the Project Site 1.39 Total Acreage of Project Site 6.92

A-8
Source: BING Aerial Map 2024 Beach Avenue / La Colina Drive Development Project Figure 2. Project Site Detail
¯ 0 250125 Feet
Scale: 1:2,500Project Site
300 Beach Avenue Project Site
338 Beach Avenue Project Site
A-9
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

7 December 2024

1.2 Summarized Project Description
The Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights TOD Plan (TOD Plan) was approved on October 18, 2016 (Approved Project). The TOD Plan provides concept plans, zoning, development standards, and design guidelines to be considered by applicants for new constructi on or rehabilitation within the Downtown Inglewood TOD Plan Area and the Fairview Heights TOD Plan Area.

An Addendum to the Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights TOD Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for the approval of the rezoning of 20 parcels within the project site, construction of a new residential development , improvements to existing industrial buildings at 300 East Beach Avenue, and construction of a new residential development at 338 East Beach Avenue (Modified Project). The Modified Project is located within the Beach Avenue District of the Downtown Inglewood Plan and consists of the following three components:

1.2.1 Proposed Rezoning
The Modified Project would rezone 18 of the 20 parcels within the project site from Light Manufacturing (M-1) and Residential Limited Multiple Family (R-2) to TOD Mixed Use 1 (MU-1).

1.2.2 300 East Beach Avenue Site
The 300 East Beach Avenue Site currently includes Don Lee Farms and light manufacturing properties.

Proposed development at the 300 East 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 the existing operations at Don Lee Farms, and Parcel 2 would be developed with a mixed-use development within two separate buildings.

Implementation of the Modified Project within the 300 East Beach Avenue Site would require approximately 11,942 square feet of demolition, for the removal of six existing buildings on the site that are currently owned and operated by Don Lee Farms.

The proposed industrial development at the 300 East 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 within the existing APNs 4015-017-004, and -005.

The proposed residential development at the 300 East Beach Avenue Site would include the construction of one new mixed -use building and one residential building within the existing APNs 4015-017-010, -011, -012, and -013. Overall, the proposed residential development at the 300 East Beach Avenue Site would include 24 townhomes, one ground -level commercial establishment, and two roof decks. The proposed residential development would provide affordable housing, near the existing warehouse, for employees of Don Lee Farms.

A-10
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

8 December 2024
A portion of the 300 East 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.

Vehicular access to the proposed residential development at the 300 East 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 one 20-foot-wide fire lane and a 26-foot truck aisle that connects to Don Lee Farms. This portion of the 300 East 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 port ion of the site would be provided via Beach Avenue only.

1.2.3 338 East Beach Avenue Site
The 338 East Beach Avenue Site is located on the eastern portion of the project site and would encompass approximately 1.54 acres within three parcels. The 338 East Beach Avenue Site is currently vacant; thus, no demolition or removal of structures would be necessary.

Proposed development at 338 East Beach Avenue Site, the Modified Project, would result in approximately 200,412 square feet of new development, and would include two five -story buildings, connected by a two-story community room and an outdoor courtyard with a pool. The residential development would include multiple roof decks and a two-story parking garage.

The 338 East Beach Avenue Site would include 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 5 7 feet and 9 inches from grade level.

The 338 East 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; as well as new sidewalks and a semi-circular dedicated fire access driveway along La Colina Drive.

Vehicular access to the proposed residential development at the 338 East Beach Avenue Site would be provided via a new driveway to the 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 East Beach Avenue Site would include 130 total parking spaces withing a two -story 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.

A-11
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

9 December 2024

1.3 Project Study Area
The project cultural resources Study Area include s the entirety of the project site . However, only properties within the 300 and 338 East Beach Avenue Site were intensively surveyed and studied, as the remaining properties are not proposed for development as part of the current project. The four properties included in the built environment component of this report are described below and depicted in Figure 3.

The 300 East Beach Avenue Site contains the following properties with buildings and structures that are more than 45 years old:
• Property 1, 200 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-018-004), 1958 • Property 2, 300 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-011), 1946 • Property 3, 308-312 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-010), 1946 • Property 4, 316 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-010), circa 1952 The 338 East Beach Avenue Site contains no buildings or structures that are more than 45 years old , however this portion of the project site was subject to intensive -level archaeological survey (see Section 6.2).

A-12
1 2
3 4
Source: BING Aerial Map 2024 Beach Avenue / La Colina Drive Development Project Figure 3. Built Environment Study Area Map
¯ 0 250125 Feet
Scale: 1:2,500Project Site
Buildings
Property 1, 200 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-018-004), 1958 Property 2, 300 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-011), 1946 Property 3, 308-312 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-010), 1946 Property 4, 316 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-010), circa 1952 #
A-13
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

11 December 2024
2 Regulatory Setting

2.1 State

2.1.1 California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineeri ng, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code [ PRC] Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse chan ge” (California PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), enumerated be low.

According to California PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

A-14
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

12 December 2024

2.1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:
• California PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” • California PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” It also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of an historical resource. • California PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” • California PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.
• California PRC Sections 21083.2(b) -(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; preservation-in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).

More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (California PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b).) If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California PRC Section 5024.1(q)), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (California PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)).

A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significa nce of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1); California PRC Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(2) states the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:

A-15
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

13 December 2024

1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or

2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources surv ey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such th at the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (California PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

California PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Impacts to non -unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (California PRC section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).

However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as tribal cultural resource (California PRC Section 21074(c), 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used A-16
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

14 December 2024
when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in California PRC Section 5097.98.

2.1.3 California State Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) AB 52 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. Section 4 of AB 52 adds Sections 21074(a) and (b) to the PRC, which address tribal cultural resources and cultural landscapes. Section 21074(a) defines tribal cultural resources as one of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Section 1(a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on tribal cultural resources should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080. 3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.”

2.1.4 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains can occur until the county coroner has examined the remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b)). PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner mu st contact the NAHC within 24 hours (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c)). The NAHC will notify the “most likely descendant.” With the permission of the landowner, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be co mpleted within 48 hours of notification of the most likely descendant by the A-17
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

15 December 2024
NAHC. The most likely descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.

2.2 Local

2.2.1 City of Inglewood Municipal Code
§ 10-181 - Definitions
"Historic structure" shall mean any structure that is:
(a) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
(b) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
(c) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or (d) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states with approved programs.

A-18
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

16 December 2024
3 Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the Los Angeles Basin, approximately 5.5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and eight miles southwest of the Los Angeles River. Historically, the project site is along the route of Centinela Creek, which formerly originated at the now-dry Centinela Springs, less than 0.5- mile northeast of the project site in Edwin Vincent Jr. Park and is California Historical Landmark Number 363 (California Office of Historic Preservation 2024). The project vicinity is highly urbanized with residential, industrial, and commercial development since the early twentieth century. The project site generally slopes from the southeast down towards the northwest, with an elevation range between approximately 150 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the southeast corner of the project site to 120 feet amsl in the northwest corner (USGS 2024).

The project site is located within the Los Angeles Basin physiographic province , an area that is approximately 20 miles wide and 50 miles long (Yerkes et al. 1965) . It is bound in the north by the Santa Monica Mountains, in the east by the Elysian, Puente and Repetto Hills, to the southeast by the San Joaquin Hills and Santa Ana Mountains, to the northeast by the Coyote Hills, and to the southwest by the Palos Verde s Peninsula. The basin is broken into four major blocks, the central, northwest, southwest and northeast blocks (Yerkes et al. 1965). The project is located on the border between the southwestern and central blocks, sitting almost directly on the Newport-Inglewood Fault System that separates the two blocks. The geologic unit underlying the project site is Holocene alluvium and late Pleistocene older alluvium (Dibblee and Minch 2007).

Soils within the project site are identified as Urban land-Windfetch-Centinela complex of 0 to 5 percent slope and Urban land -Ballona-Typic Xerorthents, fine substratum complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes (National Resources Conservation Service 2024). These complexes contain well drained loam from fan remnants.

The Los Angeles region possesses a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The annual average high temperature for the City of Los Angeles is 75 degrees Fahrenheit, with the annual average low temperature of 57 degrees Fahrenhei t. The average seasonal rainfall is

14.77 inches (Bruno et al. 2000).

A-19
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

17 December 2024
4 Cultural Setting

4.1 Prehistoric Context
While many chronological sequences have been developed to describe cultural changes in Southern California, the following builds on Wallace (1955, 1978), who developed a prehistoric chronology for the Southern California coastal region that is still widely used today. Four periods are presented in this sequence: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. The summary of prehistoric chronological sequences for Southern California coastal and near-coastal areas presented below is a combination of Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968) as well as more recent studies.

4.1.1 Early Man Horizon (ca. 10,000 – 6,000 B.C.)
Numerous pre-8,000 B.C. sites have been identified along the mainland coast and Channel Islands of Southern California (Moratto 1984; Erlandson 1991; Rick et al. 2001; Johnson et al. 2002; Jones and Klar 2007). The Arlington Springs site on Santa Rosa Island produced human femurs dated to approximately 13,000 years ago (Johnson et al. 2002). The most widely accepted dates for archaeological sites on the southern California coast are from two of the northern Channel Islands, located off the coast of Santa Barbara. On San Miguel Island, Daisy Cave clearly establishes the presence of people in this area about 10,000 years ago (Erlandson 1991:105).

Early Man Horizon sites are generally associated with a greater emphasis on hunting than later horizons. Recent data indicate that the Early Man economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering, including a significant focus on aquatic resources in coastal areas and on inland Pleistocene lakeshores (Moratto 1984).

4.1.2 Milling Stone Horizon (6,000 – 3,000 B.C.)
Set during the Altithermal, which began around 6,000 B.C., the Milling Stone Horizon is characterized by changing subsistence strategies in response to drier climate. This included a greater emphasis on plant foods and small game. Extensive seed processing is evident in the dominance of stone grinding implements in contemporary archaeological assemblages; namely, milling stones (metates) and handstones (manos). The mortar and pestle, associated with acorns or other foods processed through pounding, were first used during the Milling Stone Horizon and increased dramatically in later periods (Wallace 1955, 1978; Warren 1968). Other food resources including small and large terrestrial mammals, sea mammals, birds, shellfish and other littoral and estuarine speci es, near-shore fishes, yucca, agave, and seeds and other plant products (Kowta 1969). Depending on the environment al setting (coastal or inland), food procurement strategies are found to be highly variable (Byrd and Raab 2007:220).

A-20
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

18 December 2024

4.1.3 Intermediate Horizon (3,000 B.C. – A.D. 500)
The Intermediate Horizon is characterized by a shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy, as well as greater use of plant foods. During the Intermediate Horizon, a noticeable trend occurred towards a greater adaptation to local resources includ ing a broad variety of fish, land mammals, and sea mammals along the coast. This diversity was reflected in t ool kits for hunting, fishing, and processing food and materials, with flake scrapers, drills, various projectile points, and shell fishhooks be ing manufactured. Mortars and pestles became more common during this period, gradually replacing manos and metates as the dominant milling tool. This change in milling stone technology indicates a transition from the processing and consumption of hard seed resources to the increased reliance on acorns (Glassow et al. 1988; True 1993).

4.1.4 Late Prehistoric Horizon (A.D. 500 – Historic Contact) The Late Prehistoric Horizon is characterized by an increased diversity of plant food resources and land and sea mammal hunting. Material culture became more complex as demonstrated through more diverse classes of artifacts. During this period, the northern Channel Islands populations further developed craft specializations, including shell bead manufacturing, that sustained trade with mainland settlements and with further trading partners to the east, creating a regional economy. Steatite quarried on Santa Catalina Island was used to make stone bowls, pipes, comals, sucking tubes, pendants, beads, and effigie s. The lack of pottery in coastal and near -coastal sites within the Los Angeles Basin implies that ceramic technology was not widely used, or that ceramics were obtained by trade with neighboring groups to the south and east. The lack of widespread pottery manufacture may also be due to the utility of tightly woven and watertight basketry t hat functioned in much the same way as ceramic vessels.

In areas of inland settlement, by the end of the Intermediate Period, mobility and long -distance migration towards the coast from seasonal camps was replaced by the development of permanent settlements. The period between A.D. 500 and historic contact is divided into three regional patterns:

Chumash (Santa Barbara and Ventura counties), Takic/Numic (Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside counties), and Yuman (San Diego County). Modern Gabrielino/Tongva, Juaneño, and Luiseño people in this r egion are con sidered to be the descendants of the Uto -Aztecan, Takic -speaking populations that settled along the California coast during this period (Warren 1968).

4.2 Ethnographic Context

4.2.1 Gabrielino (Gabrieleño)/Tongva
The project area is in the heart of Gabrielino/Tongva territory (Bean and Smith 1978:538; Kroeber 1925:

Plate 57), who arrived in the Los Angeles Basin around 500 B.C. Gabrielino/Tongva lands encompass the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands: San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa A-21
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

19 December 2024
Catalina. Their mainland territory is bound on the west by the Chumash at Topanga Creek, the Tatavium to the north, the Serrano at the San Gabriel Mountains in the east, the Cahuilla to the east, and the Juaneño on the south at Aliso Creek (Bean and Smith 1978:538; Kroeber 1925:636).

The name “Gabrieliño” or “Gabrieleño” takes its name from Mission San Gabriel, where it was the dominate language spoken by Native Americans who forced to convert (Golla 2011 ). Many modern Gabrieleño identify themselves and their language as the Tongva (King 1994; Golla 2011). Though the names “Tongva” or “Gabrieleño” are the most common names used by Native American groups today, other groups identify themselves differently, such as the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation.

The Gabrielino/Tongva established large, permanent villages in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams, and in sheltered areas along the coast, stretching from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. As the population expanded, the larger permanent villages established satellite communities that stayed connected via economic, religious, and social ties. Structures within the village were typically large, circular, domed structures made of willow poles thatched with tule, fern, or carrizo. Other structures found in Gabrielino villages included sweathouses, menstrual huts, and a ceremonial enclosure (Bean and Smith 1978).

The Gabrielino/Tongva subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The location of known Gabrielino/Tongva villages suggests three principal settlement and subsistence strategies in their mainland territory (McCawley 1996:35–74). In the valley zones located closest to the transverse ranges, including the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys, acorn exploitation was the basis of subsistence, but foothill resources such as chia and yucca were also seasonally important. Pinyon nuts and juniper ber ries were also an important resource for communities located near the transverse ranges, either gathered or exchanged from further inland. A second subsistence strategy involved villages on the high ground along the middle or lower (coastward) reaches of m ajor river courses.

These communities had access to acorn stands, while downriver ones had closer access to marine resources (McCawley 1996). The third strategy included both bluff and estuary coastal villages. These appear to have clustered in the Palos V erdes Peninsula and San Pedro shore and estuary areas.

Offshore fishing from plank canoes was carried out, along with inshore fishing and shellfish gathering.

Both shell hooks and nets were used in obtaining fish which were dried for storage (McCawley 1996:62– 71, 122–127). Hunting of sea mammals was also practiced with harpoons, spear throwers, and clubs (Bean and Smith 1978).

A wide variety of tools and implements were employed by the Gabrielino/Tongva to gather and collect food resources. Fishing involved the use of line and hooks, nets, basketry traps, spears, and bow and arrows. Mammal hunting was accomplished using bow and arrows, deadfalls, snares, traps, throwing sticks (Bean and Smith 1978). Food was processed with a variety of tools, including portable and bedrock mortars, pestles, basket hopper mortars, manos and metates, hammerstones and anvils, woven strainers and winnowers, leaching baskets and bowls, woven parching trays, knives, bone saws, A-22
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

20 December 2024
and wooden drying racks. Food was stored in large, finely woven baskets, and the unprocessed acorns were stored in large granaries woven of willow branches and raised off the ground on platforms. Food was consumed from various woven and carved wood vessels (McCawley 1996).

Registers from Missions San Gabriel and San Juan Capistrano refer to Puvunga (located on the campus of Cal State University Long Beach) as a native rancheria. Many (but not all) Gabrielino identified Puvunga to the Spanish as the “birthplace of the prophet Chinigchinich and a religious movement led by him” (Byrd and Raab 2007:45). The basis of Gabrielino religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and also taught the people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws (Kroeber 1925:637–638). The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built and may represent a mixture of Native and Christian belief and practices (McCawley 1996:143–144).

Deceased Gabrielino were either buried or cremated, with inhumation more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast, and cremation predominating on the remainder of the coast and in the interior (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996:157).

South Environmental reviewed ethnographic maps covering the project site (Exhibits 1-3). It should be noted that these maps represent generalized/approximate locations of Native American villages, placenames, ethnographic boundaries, and other markers, and should not be considered exact.

A-23
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

21 December 2024

Exhibit 1. The Kirkman-Harriman pictorial and historical map of Los Angeles County, 1860- 1937 (Tessa LAPL).

The vicinity of the project site is circled in black. This map provides a representation of the approximate locations of Native American villages, battle sites, mines, and other historical markers.

Exhibit 2. The Gabrielino Indians at the Time of the Portola Expedition (Southwest Museum 1962, reprinted in Johnston 1962)
The vicinity of the project site is circled in red. This map provides a representation of the approximate locations of Native American villages and other features in the Los Angeles area.

A-24
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

22 December 2024

Exhibit 3. Village Size (Greene and Curwen 2019)
The vicinity of the project site is circled in red. Map from the LA Times Mapping the Tongva Villages of L.A.’s Past showing the comparative/approximate size of villages

4.3 Historic Context
Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present).

4.3.1 Spanish Period (1769–1822)
In search of the legendary Northwest Passage, Spanish explorer Juan Rodríquez Cabríllo stopped in 1542 at present-day San Diego Bay. Cabríllo explored the shorelines of present-day Catalina Island as well as San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays. Much of the present California and Oregon coastline was mapped and recorded in the next half-century by Spanish naval officer Sebastián Vizcaíno. Spain laid claim to California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885:96 –99; Gumprecht 1999:35).

The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspar de Portolá marks the start of California’s Historic period. With a band of 64 soldiers, missionaries, Baja (lower) California Native Americans, and Mexican civilians, Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego, a fortified military outpost, as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California. In July of 1769, while Portolá was exploring southern California, Franciscan Fr. Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá at Presidio Hill, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823.

A-25
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

23 December 2024
The Portolá expedition first reached the present -day boundaries of Los Angeles in August 1769, thereby becoming the first Europeans to visit the area. Father Juan Crespí, a member of the expedition, named “the campsite by the river Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de la Porciúncula” or “Our Lady the Queen of the Angeles of the Porciúncula.” Two years later, Friar Junípero Serra returned to the valley to establish a Catholic mission, the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, on September 8, 1771 (Kyle 2002:151).

A major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California was the construction of missions and associated presidios to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns, but just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles).

4.3.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848)
After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Dallas 1955:14).

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the m issions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities.

4.3.3 American Period (1848–Present)
The Mexican–American War ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ushering California into its American Period. California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as United States (U.S.) territories.

The Gold Rush began in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to nor thern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom. The cattle boom ended for southern California as neighbor A-26
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

24 December 2024
states and territories drove herds to northern California at reduced prices. Operation of the huge ranchos became increasingly difficult, and droughts severely reduced their productivity (Cleland 2005:102–103).

In 1781, a group of 11 Mexican families traveled from Mission San Gabriel Arcángel to establish a new pueblo called El Pueblo de la Reyna de Los Angeles (The Pueblo of the Queen of the Angels). This settlement consisted of a small group of adobe -brick houses and streets and would eventually be known as the Ciudad de Los Angeles (City of Angels), which incorporated on April 4, 1850.

The County of Los Angeles was established on February 18, 1850, one of 27 counties established in the months prior to California acquiring official statehood in the United States. Many of the ranchos in the area now known as Los Angeles County remained intact after the United States took possession of California; however, a severe drought in the 1860s resulted in many of the ranchos being sold or otherwise acquired by Americans. Most of these ranchos were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns (Dumke 1944).

Los Angeles maintained its role as a regional business center, and the development of citriculture in the late 1800s and early 1900s further strengthened this status (Caughey and Caughey 1977). These factors, combined with the expansion of port facilities and railroads throughout the region, contributed to the impact of the real estate boom of the 1880s on Los Angeles (Caughey and Caughey 1977; Dumke 1944).

By the late 1800s, government leaders recognized the need for water to sustain the growing population in the Los Angeles area. Irish immigrant William Mulholland personified the city’s efforts for a stable water supply (Dumke 1944). By 1913, the City of Los Angeles had purchased large tracts of land in the Owens Valley and Mulholland planned and completed the construction of the 240 -mile aqueduct that brought the valley’s water to the city. Los Angeles continued to grow in the twentieth century, in part due to the discovery of oil in the area and its strategic location as a wartime port. The county’s mild climate and successful economy continued to draw new residents in the late 1900s, with much of the county transformed from ranches and farms into residenti al subdivisions surrounding commercial and industrial centers. Hollywood’s development into the entertainment capital of the world and southern California’s booming aerospace industry were key factors in the county’s growth in the twentieth century.

City of Inglewood
The origins of the City of Inglewood (City) began in 1934 with the construction of the Centinela Adobe, situated on the Rancho Aguaje de la Centinela. The adobe was built by Ignacio Machado, the son of a Mexican solider who traveled from Mexico to the Los Angeles area. In the following decades, the Rancho Aguaje de la Centinela and neighboring Rancho Sausal Redondo land grants were bought purchased by Sir Robert Burnett of Scotland. Burnett then leased the land and later sold it to Daniel A-27
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

25 December 2024
Freeman, who was from Canada. Freeman built a business on the land centered around dry farming and barley production, shipping out of his wharf at Playa del Rey (City of Inglewood n.d.).

The City was the first settlement to be subdivided out of the 25,000-acre Centinela Ranch in 1887. The Centinela-Inglewood Land Company (Company) was formed by Freeman with the intent to establish the new town of Inglewood named after his hometown in Canada . The Company surveyed the area, divided the lots, and laid water pipes. Soon lots were offered for residences, business, and agricultural purposes, with prices ranges from $200 to $1,500 per acre. The early town plot was advertised to potential buyers as 11,000 fertile acres, centrally located in the farming region, with wide and shady streets, and the promise of growing into a large and prosperous town (Robinson 1947 ). In 1888, the development of the Santa Fe Railroad line from Los Angeles to Redondo Beach opened, serving as an important development boost to the growing town. Within a few years, the town had 300 residents, a school, a deputy county clerk, and a deputy sheriff (Metropolitan Transit Authority 2010 ; City of Inglewood n.d.)
By 1905, a poultry colony was established in the area that is now the northern part of the City . This new business saved the City from economic downturn at the turn of the twentieth century. In addition, the Inglewood Park Cemetery (Cemetery) was established roughly from Crenshaw Boulevard to Centinela Avenue along Florence Avenue by a group of businessmen. They organized the Inglewood Park Cemetery Association. The City incorporated in 1908 and had reached a population of 1,200. The Cemetery would serve as the resting place for many of the City’s original settlers. The Inglewood Park Cemetery Association also constructed the first community mausoleum in California (City of Inglewood n.d.; Inglewood Park Cemetery 2024).

The City didn’t reach a period of rapid expansion until the earthquake of 1920. The earthquake became widespread news, and people came from across the state to see the devastation firsthand. In a turn of events, many who came to see the damage decided to stay due to the appeal of the land and the climate. By 1923, the population had reached 3,286 and building permits for the year totaled $516,575.

From 1920 to 1925, the City was the fastest growing City in the United States , and rather than the earthquake decreasing land values, it increased them (Hamilton 1949; Rosenberg 1938).

In 1928, major change came to the City again when Mines Field, which would go on to be the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), was constructed adjacent to the City’s western side. The land was leased by the City of Los Angeles from the Andrew Bennet Ranch. During World War II, the City was transformed from an agricultural hub into an urban community. One major factor in this transformation was wartime defense production that brought new industrial activity as well as an influx of workers and their families to the area. The City’s proximity to LAX also gave it a locational advantage and aided in its successful development of war related businesses (Hamilton 1949; Los Angeles Times (LAT) 2022; Waddington 1994).

Post World War II, LAX grew even more as major airlines moved their headquarter s to the site. Two new hangars and 2,000 feet of additional runway were constructed. This brought even more jobs and A-28
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

26 December 2024
an influx of residents and visitors to the region. In 1949, LAX was designated by the federal government as an intercontinental airport. The same year, Morningside Park, the neighborhood on the eastern side of the City, elected its first council member, Fred Jones (LAT 2022; Waddington 1994).

During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the City experienced more commercial and industrial development, as well as an increasing cultural diversity. In 1960, the population was 63,00, and by 1970, the total reached 90,000. In 1950, the Hollywood Park grandstand was rebuilt at a cost of $12 million. In the same decade, two major hospitals, the Centinela Hospital and Medical Center, and the Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital were constructed. The biggest employer in the City was Kroehlers, which had 284 employees. It produced over 67,000 pieces of furniture annually. As the City could no longer expand out, it began to expand up with a surge of apartment building. Interspersed between commercial, industrial, and residential development, there was a prioritization of open and community spaces, resulting in the construction of Darby Park and Imperial Park. The City joined the Metropolitan Water District, and a reservoir was constructed in Darby Park. During the first six months of 1958, only 24 permits were issued for single-family residences, while 85 were issued for the construction of multi- family apartment buildings (City of Inglewood n.d.; LAT 2022; Waddington 1994).

Later commercial and industrial developments included the construction of the Forum in 1967, which serves as a concert venue and was the home of the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Kings for many years . The Forum drew extensive tourism and increased commerce to the City. Its unique engineering utilized forty cables in the roof that could sustain loads of up to 1.3 million pounds. The 80 columns that made up the framework of its walls were cast on site in single, 57-foot-long pieces, then lifted into place (City of Inglewood n.d.; LAT 2022; Waddington 1994).

In the 1960s, the City also saw increased racial tension as a more diverse population moved into the area. To combat unfair housing restrictions and practices, the federal government passed th e Fair Housing Act of 1968, which changed the City’s existing housing policies. After the passage of the Act, a Black community was established on the eastern border of the City. As a result of the influx of multi- racial residents, the City began to experience the phenomenon termed “white flight.” To combat this, neighborhood groups, such as the Morningside Park Neighbors, formed as multi-racial organizations to demonstrate cohesive living. They changed their name to Inglewood Neighbors in 1968 in the hopes of promoting more integration citywide. They held events, such as the Afro -American Fashion Show and gave out awards to people who carried out integration efforts in the community. In addition, the youth group of the local Presbyterian Church organized a “Bumper Sticker Campaign” which supported the cause of integrati on. They printed 4 ,000 stickers reading “Good Neighbors Come In All Colors,” and encouraged all school district and City vehicles to be branded with this messaging (City of Inglewood n.d.; LAT 2022; Waddington 1994).

In the 1970s, the City entered one of its most prosperous and extensive periods of development and construction. Downtown Inglewood near West Manchester Boulevard saw the construction of more high rises, such as the City Hall and Civic Center Complex, which opened in 1973. The City passed a A-29
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

27 December 2024
noise ordinance to manage excessive airplane noise. This ordinance was the first of its kind in any city (City of Inglewood n.d.; LAT 2022; Waddington 1994).

By 1977, the City reached a population of approximately 90,000. By the 1980s, the population had a Caucasian minority , with Latino and Black populations growing at a steady rate. Edward Vincent became the City’s first Black mayor in 1980. In 1990 a study conducted by the University of Maryland, discovered Inglewood was the only City with over 100,000 people to have a population increase of at least 49% Black between 1980 and 1990 (City of Inglewood n.d.; LAT 2022; Waddington 1994).

In 1999, the City entered a period of economic stagnation when its pro sports teams left the Forum.

However, a refurbishment deal in 2012 at the cost of $100 million ignited a rebirth in the City’s entertainment economy. The Forum reopened in 2014, beginning with a domino effect that introduced even more new development to the area, with the construction of the new SoFi Stadium, home of the Los Angeles Rams and the Los Angeles Chargers. Later in 2021, ground was broken on the $1.8 billion Intuit Dome, which serves as the new home of the Los Angeles Clippers, creating a hub of entertainment. At present day, Inglewood’s population remains over 100,000, and it is a thriving city within the Greater Los Angeles area (City of Inglewood n.d.; LAT 2022; Waddington 1994).

4.4 History of the Project Site

4.4.1 Development of the 300 East Beach Avenue Site
As early as 1928, the 300 East Beach Avenue Site and surrounding area was developed with a mix of residential development, and some industrial and commercial development along the railroad, which now serves as the Metro K Line. Residential development was concentrated to the north and east of the project site, while commercial and industrial development was concentrated west of the project site, facing East Beach Avenue. Inglewood Park Cemetery was also developed by this time, occupying an extensive plot of land with winding roads weaving through it. Development south of the railroad was primarily residential at this time (NETR 2024; UCSB 2024).

Over the next several decades, the greater area surrounding the project site was substantially infilled with residential tract development. The area west of the project site continued to be developed with additional industrial buildings, due to its proximity to the railroad. By the 1950s, most of the industrial buildings within the project site were constructed, and the surrounding area had few remaining undeveloped lots. Edward J. Vincent Jr. Park (Centinela Park originally ), located to the east of the project site, north of the Inglewood Park Cemetery, was developed by this time. By 1970, commercial development began to be constructed west of the project site, as well as to the south of the railroad.

Most of these developments were large, freestanding buildings with sizable parking lots. In addition, multi-family residential developments, such as apartment buildings, were constructed on various lots throughout the area. No major changes to the area occurred after the mid -1970s (NETR 2024; UCSB 2024).

A-30
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

28 December 2024
200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1)
200 East Beach Avenue ( Property 1 ) was constructed in 1958 as a one -story concrete, plastics manufacturing facility owned by the Gutsch Corporation for use as the aaRBee Plastic Co. The original permit lists the builder as Belmont G., but the last name is illegible. There is no other archi tect or engineering information present on the building permit (Permit No. 4892). aaRBee Plastic Co. celebrated its 78th year in business in 1958 (California Eagle 1958). That year, they listed their address at 4505 West Jefferson Boulevard, Los Angeles. In a 1958 newspaper ad, the company advertised itself as modern injection molding plant creating custom molds and offering precision work and economical precision (California Eagle 1958). By 1959, the company listed its address as 200 East Beach Avenue, Inglewood in local newspaper classified ads and is first visible in the 1960 historic aerial photograph (UCSB 2024) (Los Angeles Times 1956). R.B. Gutsch was aaRBee’s president and owner as early as 1947 when he was also the chairman of the Pacific Coast section of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SBNP 1947). No further information was found on Gutsch.
aaRBee Plastic Co. is replaced with Delkay Plastics by 1964 (Los Angeles Times 1964). No further information was found on Delkay Plastics. City Directories for 1971 indicate that Farmer Bros Coffee was a second tenant, besides Delkay Plastics, at the subje ct location (EDI Consultants 2023). Aerial photographs show that the building footprint was expanded to the north by 1972, which was likely part of the work undertaken in the 1972 building permit filed by Delkay (NETR 2024; Permit No. 123847).

By 1982, Don Lee Farms is listed as the owner for Property 1 (Permit No. 87077-1016). The company began in the 1940s when Larry Goodman founded Larry’s Food Products and began producing and distributing frozen sandwiches. They later became one of the first companies to begin producing fully cooked burgers and assembled sandwiches that would be frozen and distributed to supermarkets and school districts. While working as a production manager at the Gardena facility in the 1970s, Larry’s son Donald was provided with firsthand experience of the business and in 1982 decided to purchase the company from his father. It was at this time that the company took on the present name of Don Lee Farms. By 1982 the company moved to Property 1 in Inglewood and established its headquarters and production facility. A crucial turning point for the company came in the mid-1980s when Costco, then Price Club, began purchasing Don Lee Farms’ products to sell in their San Diego store. To keep up with t he demand of school districts a nd Costco, the company eventually opened a cold -storage and warehouse facility in downtown Los Angeles (Don Lee Farms 2024). By the 2000s, the company began to add new products to their menu including plant -based proteins and other vegetarian options. Don Lee Farms opened new production and cold storage camps in Texas in the 2010s. During this time, they were selling hundreds of products to Costco, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Sam’s Club, Walmart, Kroger, and Albertsons. In the last decade they have been prov iding food to the NYC Department of Education, Baltimore City Public Schools, and Los Angeles Unified School District and have multiple facilities in the United States (Don Lee Farms 2024).

A-31
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

29 December 2024
Donald Goodman and his family are known for their philanthropy. Donald remembered his mother working on a regular basis with a charity that helped foster children adapt and cope. Donald and his wife, Andrea, have supported many charitable organizations suc h as the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank and UCLA. Goodman was honored by the Los Angeles Business Journal as Philanthropist of the Year in 2022 for his leadership and donations to the food bank (LA Food Bank 2022). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the company provided over 100 million meals to those in need. The meals were distributed to USDA’s Farmers To Families Food Box Program, “mobilizing resources to support U.S. agriculture, fight hunger and support American families through ‘truck to trunk’ drive -through distribution” (LAT 2024). In 2022, U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters presented Don Lee Farms and Goodman with a Congressional Certificate of Special Recognition for providing scholarships to high school students in Inglewood. He was also nominated for the Los Angeles Times CEO Leadership Award for “outstanding individuals who are impacting change” (Business Wire 2022). In 2023, Donald and Andrea, together with Renee and Meyer Luskin, made a $20 million donation to the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCL A to establish and endow the UCLA Goodman -Luskin Microbiome Center to research the links between brain-gut-microbiome (Dundjerski 2023). 300 East Beach Avenue (Property 2)
Property 2 was constructed in 1946 and is first visible in the 1952 historic aerials (ParcelQuest; UCSB 2024). While the aerial image quality from 1952 is poor, the footprint of the building is still visible (NETR 2024). By 1957, the building’s current footprint is visible (UCSB 2024).

Archival research into the property generated the following tenants/owners/occupants for Property 2 (Table 2). Further research into each company’s name yielded no results.

Table 2. Owner and Occupancy Timeline for 300 East Beach Avenue Tenant/Owner/Occupant Date(s) Source
Michael Blau Women’s Clothing 1947 EDI Consultants 2023 California Baby Togs Inc 1950 EDI Consultants 2023
E.P. Fugle 1952 Permit No. 5277
Air Products, Inc. 1955 Permit No. 1740
Beljax Machine Products 1960-1963 EDI Consultants 2023; LAT 1963 Empco 1963 Permit No. 30231
Data Reproduction System 1966 EDI Consultants 2023
Higgason Thos C. 1971-1985 EDI Consultants 2023
Transat Trade Co. 1990-2000 EDI Consultants 2023
Hig-Gason Salvage Co. 1984 Daily Breeze 1984
Research Staffing/Select Staffing 2016 EDI Consultants 2023

A comparison of Property 2 as it stands today against Google Street View from 2008 and 2012 (Exhibits 4 and 5) demonstrates that the windows were changed out to contemporary vinyl sash windows, and a window at the primary elevation and windows on the south elevation were filled in sometime A-32
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

30 December 2024
between 2008 and 2012 (Google Street View 2024). The images on Google Street View are blurry, but the changes are clear and visible in images found on a realtor website, LoopNet (LoopNet 2024).

Exhibit 4. Primary north facing elevation, 2008, view southeast (LoopNet.com 2024)

Exhibit 5. Primary and south elevations, 2008, view east (LoopNet.com 2024) A-33
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

31 December 2024
302-312 East Beach Avenue (Property 3)
Property 3 has always been identified as two separate addresses: 308 East Beach Avenue and 312 East Beach Avenue. The first portion of Property 3 is identified as 308 East Beach Avenue and was built in 1946 (ParcelQuest 2024). The first person or company associated with the 308 portion of Property 3 was Grimaud Herbert in 1947 (Ancestry 2024; EDI Consultants 2023). The next known occupant of the building was in 1958. According to classified ads and City Directories, Eelco Manufacturing occupied the building from 1958 -1966 (EDI Consultants 2023; LAT v arious). Eelco Manufacturing was a racing products company founded by Els Lohn. During his time at Property 3, Lohn became president of the Speed Equipment Manufacturers Association or SEMA. The organization was changed to the Specialty Equipment Market Association in 1970 and became the leading company for producing performance products for street and race applications. Today, SEMA has over 6,000 members and has been holding the annual SEMA show since their formation in 1960 (SEMA 2024). During Eelco’s occupation of Property 3, a fire started in the 312 section the property and damaged the shared wall between the two buildings (LAM 1960b). In December 1970, the 308 portion of Property 3 succumbed to another fire (LAT 1970).

The next identified tenant of the 308 portion of Property 3 was in 1971 by a lamp factory called Sculptured Lamps-T who occupied the property until 1985 (EDI Consultants 2023). In 1986, a leasing ad was posted for the address, however, there is no other occupancy history available until 1995 (LAT 1986a). From 1995-2000 the property was occupied by Wolfe M. James Studio (EDI Consultants 2023).

James Wolfe is a metal and glass sculptor who moved to Inglewood, and during his time in the City, his artwork became very popular among the community. Wolfe gave away several of his pieces and eventually his artwork was displayed around the City. Today, his artwork is displayed in museums throughout the United States, some including the Whitney Museum of American Art and Washington’s Hirshorn Museum (LAT 1991). In 2000, Property 3 of 308 East Beach Avenue was last occupied by Very Healthy Enterprises (EDI Consultants 2023).

The second portion of Property 3 is identified as 312 East Beach Avenue, which was built between the years 1947-1952 (UCSB 2024). The building sits directly east of 308 East Beach Avenue and is physically connected by a shared wall. While archival research for Property 3 is limited, in 1948 a newspaper ad was posted for a machinist (LAT 1948). In 1950, the building was officially occupied by the company Air Products Inc. and no further information was available on how long they occupied the building. By 1960, the building was occupied by the manufacturing plant Metal Crafts Inc., but it is unknown how long the business occupied the building (LAT 1960). In 1985 the building was then occupied by the manufacturing business Diversified Crating and Packaging Inc. (EDI Consultants 2023). The following year in 1986, the building was occupied by an emerging sign business called Clear Signs (LAT 1986b).

Due to limited archival information, there are no occupancy records between the years 1986-2008. By 2008, the compan y NSA Construction Group Inc. occupied Property 3 (EDI Consultants 2023).

According to permit records, the company altered the building for sound insulation in 2010 (COI 2010).

A-34
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

32 December 2024
The last known company to occupy 312 East Beach Avenue was NSA Construction Group Inc. (EDI Consultants 2023).

Today, Property 3 including both the 308 and 312 East Beach Avenue sections are owned and operated by Don Lee Farms Company.
316 East Beach Avenue (Property 4)
Prior to the construction of the current building, archival research indicates that there was likely a residential property located at this address. City Directories and Voter Registration information indicate that Walter G. Leonard, a laborer, resided at 316 East Beach Avenue with his wife Margie P. Leonard and stepson Grimaud Herbert in 1942 (EDI Consultants 2023; Ancestry 1946, 2024). Tax Assessor records indicate that the current property was constructed in 1946, which aligns with historic aerial photography showing the current building in place by 1947 (ParcelQuest 2024; UCSB 2024).

From 1947 to 1958, Property 4 was occupied by the Phonograph pressing plant Lewis -Rubner Manufacturing Co. (LAT 1958; EDI Consultants 2023). Following the occupancy of Property 4 by the Lewis-Rubner Co., the building had numerous tenants/owners/occupants over the years. Archival research failed to indicate any significant information about any of these companies. A detailed account of all known tenants/owners/occupants are presented below in Table 3.

Table 3. Owner and Occupancy Timeline for 316 East Beach Avenue Company Date(s) Source
Lewis-Rubner Manufacturing Co. 1947-1958 LAT 1958; EDI Consultants 2023 Sav-T Engineering Co. 1960 EDI Consultants 2023
Designed Enclosures 1971 EDI Consultants 2023
Vacant 1973-1976 LAT 1973; LAT 1976a
Carbide Engineering 1978-1981 LAT 1976b; EDI Consultants 2023 Rechem Co. 1987-1990 LAT 1987; EDI Consultants 2023

Starting in the mid-1990s Property 4 appears to have had multiple tenants with overlapping periods of occupancy, suggesting that the building was potentially subdivided at this time. The businesses associated with Property 4 since 1995 include the following: Lamco Manufacturing Co., S.A. Hixson & Co., Shardz, and Richard Silver Glassworks (EDI Consultants 2023).

4.4.2 Development of 338 East Beach Avenue Site
The property known as the 338 East Beach Avenue Site was originally developed in 1922 with a single- family home built for Frank D. Parent. The house was rectangular in plan and designed in the Spanish Eclectic architectural style. The 1923 Sanborn Map shows an ancillary building northeast of the main residence. By 1950, an additional, smaller one-story dwelling was constructed to the northeast of the main residence and ancillary building. By 1966, the ancillary building was demolished, and one more A-35
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

33 December 2024
additional one-story dwelling was added to the northwest corner of the property. Over these decades, the property became substantially infilled with mature trees and shrub growth. Due to this vegetation, changes made to the site after 1966 are difficult to discern via aerial imagery. No changes are noted to the property via online permit records until 2008, when a lot line adjustment was made, merging 338 East Beach Avenue and 355 La Colina Drive. While it is unclear when the other buildings on the property were demolished, aerial imagery shows that in 2014, the main residence was demolished, and the lot was largely cleared of the mature vegetation. Rows of mature eucalyptus trees remained along the western, eastern, and northern edges of the property were in place until circa 2024. The site has remained unchanged since the removal o f the eucalyptus trees (Google Street View; Pinnacle Environmental Inc. 2024; Sanborn Maps various; St. John 2024).

Frank D. Parent (1879-1960)
Frank D. Parent was born in Abilene, Kansas in 1879 and came to California in 1910. During his time in Abilene, he served as the County Attorney and was co -owner of the Abilene Chronicle, the local newspaper. In addition, he coached the baseball and football teams at Abilene High School from 1905- 1909, during which time he coached future President Eisenhower. Upon his move to California, he served on the municipal court bench for 28 years. In 1927, he was head of a committee which chose the site of LAX and initiated its construction. In addition, from 1950 to 1952, he served as honorary chairman of the $2 milli on fund drive which established the Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital. The Frank D. Parent Elementary School in Inglewood was dedicated as a living memorial to Parent shortly before his death. During most of his life in California he resided at 355 La Colina Drive (338 East Beach Avenue). This residence was demolished in 2014. Parent passed away from cancer in 1960 (Los Angeles Mirror 1960b; Valley Times 1960).

A-36
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

34 December 2024
5 Background Research

5.1 CHRIS Records Search
On August 29, 2024, South Environmental Cultural Resources Director Samantha Murray, MA, RPA completed 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. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built-environment resources, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Records (DPR forms), technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps of the study area, the NRHP, the CRHR, the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. The non-confidential results of the records search are presented in Appendix A. The full, confidential records search results are on file with South Environmental.

5.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies
Records search results indicate that no previously conducted cultural resource studies overlap the project site. A total of 9 studies were identified outside the project site within the 0.25-mile records search radius. A list of all previously conducted studies identified within the records search radius is provided in Table 4.

Table 4. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site SCCIC
Report
Number
Author Year Report Title Proximity to
Project Site
LA-02904 Stickel, Gary E. 1993 Draft Report a Phase I Cultural Resources Literature Search for the West Basin Water Reclamation Project
Regional
overview
study
LA-04836 Science
Applications
International
Corporation
2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey Along Onshore
Portions of the Global West Fiber Optic Cable
Project
Outside to
south
LA-04891 Sylvia, Barbara 2000 A Proposed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Between I-105 and Sr-90 on I-405 in the City of Los Angeles,
Los Angeles County California
Outside to
west
LA-07402 Bonner, Wayne H. 2004 Records Search and Site Visit for Sprint Telecommunications Facility Candidate La60xc408d
(Florence Locust RL) 405 East Florence Avenue,
Inglewood, Los Angeles County, California
Outside to
south
A-37
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

35 December 2024
Table 4. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site SCCIC
Report
Number
Author Year Report Title Proximity to
Project Site
LA-07869 Bonner, Wayne H. 2006 Cultural Resources Records Search Results and Site Visit for Sprint Nextel Candidate Ca 7731d (La
Colima), 405 East Florence Avenue, Inglewood, Los
Angeles County, California
Outside to
south
LA-08255 Arrington, Cindy
and Nancy Sikes
2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and
Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project
State of California: Volumes I and II
Outside to
south
LA-09516 Bonner, Wayne H. 2008 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile Candidate LA03329E
(Walgreens La Brea), 230 North La Brea Avenue,
Inglewood, Los Angeles County, California
Outside to
south
LA-11974 Morell, Karl 2012 Abandonment Exemption, BNSF Railway Company, Milepost 7.95 to Milepost 13.25, Los Angeles, Los
Angeles County, CA
Outside to
south
LA-12352 Rendon, Richard 2012 Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Program under the National Park Service Edward Vincent Park
Multi-Purpose Field Rehabilitation Project, City of
Inglewood
Outside to
east

5.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The SCCIC records search results indicate that no previously recorded cultural resources occur within the project site. Two previously recorded historic built environment resources were identified within the 0.25-mile records search radius (Table 5).

Table 5. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.25-Mile of the Project Site Primary
Number Trinomial Resource
Description
Resource
Eligibility
Recorded Year
(By Whom)
Proximity to
Project Site
P-19-188002 n/a Inglewood Veteran’s
Memorial Building
2S2 (NRHP
eligible)
1988 (Unknown) Outside to
east
P-19-190143 n/a Fox Theatre
Inglewood
1S (listed in
NRHP)
2012 (Brian Curran,
Inglewood
Historic
Preservation
Alliance)
Outside to
southwest

A-38
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

36 December 2024

5.2 Related Documents

5.2.1 Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights TOD Plan EIR South Environmental reviewed Section 4.D Cultural Resources in the 2016 Draft EIR to understand the previous completed cultural resources work. The EIR indicates that as part of the City’s Assembly Bill (AB) 52 obligations, notification was provided to Native American contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to offer consultation on the project. No tribal cultural resources or areas of concern were identified as part of the consultation pro cess. Therefore, no additional Native American outreach was completed as part of the current study.

Mitigation Measure 4.D -1 discusses the need for completion of a records search with the SCCIC, a pedestrian survey , building evaluations for properties ov er 50 ye ars old , and preparation of an associated technical report. As such, South Environmental completed this cultural resources technical report which includes historic significance evaluations for all properties proposed for redevelopment as part of the current project.

5.2.2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
South Environmental reviewed two Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) prepared for each of the two project sites by EDI Consultants, Inc. (EDI , 2023) and Pinnacle Environmental Inc. (2024), respectively. The ESAs were reviewed for any information relevant to the history of the project site, including any discussion of building permits, alterations, property ownership, City directory listings, and historic aerial photographs.

5.3 Archival Research

5.3.1 ParcelQuest and the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor On October 1, 2024, all properties within the project site were reviewed using ParcelQuest and the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor online Property Assessment Information System to establish dates of construction (ParcelQuest 2024; Assessor 2024).

5.3.2 City of Inglewood Building Permit Records
On September 30 , 202 4, South Environmental requested all permits associated with the subject properties through the City Clerk’s Office from 1940 to present. These documents confirmed previous alterations to the subject property made over time. Information from this source was used in the development of the historic context presented in this report.

A-39
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

37 December 2024

5.3.3 Historical Newspaper Search
South Environmental reviewed historical newspapers covering the City of Inglewood and the greater Los Angeles area to better understand the development of the project site and surrounding area.

Information from newspapers was used in the development of the historic context presented in this report.

5.3.4 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of the subject property and surrounding area are available for the years 1892, 1907, 1912, 1923, and 1923 with 1950 revisions from the Los Angeles Public Library (Sanborn Maps various). An additional Sanborn Map was available for the year 1966 in the Phase I ESA for 355 La Colina Drive and 338-358 East Beach Avenue prepared by Pinnacle Environmental Inc. The subject property first appears on the 1923 Sanborn Map, showing some residential development on the eastern portion (338 East Beach Avenue Site), and one commercial development on the western section (300 East Beach Avenue Site). By 1966, additional residential dwellings were added to the eastern portion and additional commercial development was added to the western section, similar to present day. Information from t hese Sanborn Maps was used in the development of the historic context presented in this report.

5.3.5 Historical Aerial Photographs
Historic aerial photographs of the project site were available from Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR 2024) for the years 1952, 1963, 1972, 1980, 1985, 1991, 1992-2000, 2003-2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 , and 2022 . Aerial photographs were also available from the University of California, Santa Barbara FrameFinder site (UCSB 2024) for the years 1928, 1938, 1941, 1952, 1965, 1971, and 2002. These photographs were reviewed to assess changes to the subject property and surrounding neighborhood over time.

5.3.6 Inglewood Public Library
South Environmental visited the Inglewood Public Library on October 7, 2024. The following books were reviewed: History of Inglewood by Roy Rosenberg (1938); The History of Inglewood by Gladys Waddington (1994) ; and Inglewood Community Book by Llyod P. Hamilton (1948). Information obtained from these sources was used in the development of the historic context presented in this report.

5.3.7 Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD)
The Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD ) is an online resource that provides information, organized by county, regarding non -archaeological resources in the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) inventory. This includes resources reviewed for eligibility for the NRHP, CRHR, and A-40
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

38 December 2024
the California Historical Landmarks programs through federal and state environmental compliance laws, and resources nominated under federal and state registration programs. South Environmental accessed the BERD from OHP on September 9, 2024. No resources within or adjacent to the project site are listed in the BERD for Inglewood.

A-41
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

39 December 2024
6 Cultural Resources Survey

6.1 Built Environment Survey

6.1.1 Methods
South Environmental Principal Architectural Historian, Sarah Corder, MFA, conducted an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the project site on September 4, 2024. During the survey Ms. Corder walked the entirety of the project site from the public right -of-way (ROW) and was escorted onto the 300 East Beach Avenue property to more closely examine buildings and structures not visible from the public ROW. Fieldwork methods included taking detailed field notes, digital photography, and examination of close-scale field maps and aerial photographs. Photographs were taken with an iPhone 13 Pro.

6.1.2 Results
The project site contains two separate development areas known as the 300 East Beach Avenue Site and the 338 East Beach Avenue Site. The two development sites are divided by residential and commercial properties.

The 300 East Beach Avenue Site consists of approximately 3.99 acres with six parcels . It is roughly rectangular in shape. It contains four properties that are over 45 years old: 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1), 300 East Beach Avenue (Property 2); 308-312 East Beach Avenue (Property 3); and 316 East Beach Avenue (Property 4). All properties are developed with industrial buildings that are primarily utilitarian in design with simple plans and smooth stucco, unadorned exteriors (Exhibits 6-9).

The 338 East Beach Avenue Site consists of approximately 1.54 acres within three parcels. The site is currently vacant and previously disturbed . It contains some vegetation and trees and slopes down towards East Beach Avenue. The 338 East Beach Avenue Site contains no buildings or structures that are more than 45 years old (Exhibit 10).

A-42
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

40 December 2024

Exhibit 6. Overview of 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1), facing southeast.

Exhibit 7. Overview of 300 East Beach Avenue (Property 2), facing southeast.

A-43
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

41 December 2024

Exhibit 8. Overview of 308-312 East Beach Avenue (Property 3), facing southeast.

Exhibit 9. Overview of 316 East Beach Avenue (Property 4), facing southeast.

A-44
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

42 December 2024

Exhibit 10. Overview of 338 East Beach Avenue Site, facing northeast.

6.2 Archaeological Survey

6.2.1 Methods
South Environmental Archaeological Principal Investigator Samantha Murray, MA, RPA, conducted an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the project site on September 4, 2024. Fieldwork included taking field notes, digital photography, and examination of close -scale field maps and aerial photographs.

Photographs were taken with an iPhone 15.

During the archaeological survey, Ms. Murray examined the ground surface for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discolorat ions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, depressions, and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations).

In portions of the project site that were less developed (i.e., the 338 E ast Beach Avenue Site), Ms.

Murray walked transects spaced in 10 -meter intervals. However, in the more heavily developed portions of the project (i.e., the 300 Esat Beach Avenue Site), reconnaissance-level spot-checking was implemented in the few areas with ground surface visibility.

A-45
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

43 December 2024

6.2.2 Results
No archaeological resources were identified in the project site as a result of the archaeological survey.

The 300 East Beach Avenue Site is entirely developed with buildings, structures, and paved areas.

Ground surface visibility was nearly 0%. No archaeological resources were identified in the limited areas of the site with ground surface visibility (see Exhibits 6-9 above).

The 338 East Beach Avenue site contains no standing buildings or structures. This portion of the project site was dominated by a mixture of non-native grasses and shrubs on a north-facing slope (see Exhibit 10 above). Ground surface visibility in this portion of the project site was poor to fair (approximately 30-50%). Although currently undeveloped, this area possesses remnants of prior development including retaining walls, a partial chimney, steps, and foundations. The undeveloped site has signs of frequent fuel modification (mowing, weed whacking, etc.) and is dominated by ruderal herbaceous vegetation as well as eucalyptus (Eucalyptus gunnii) saplings and other ornamental species that remain from previous development.

A-46
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

44 December 2024
7 Property Significance Evaluations
The following presents the property significance evaluations prepared for the four properties over 45 years old proposed for development as part of the proposed project.

7.1 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1)
The following presents an evaluation of 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1) in consideration of CRHR designation criteria.

CRHR Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1) was constructed in 1958 as a one -story industrial building that housed multiple businesses throughout its history. While construction of Property 1 was completed during a significant growth period in the City’s history, it is one of many industrial buildings constructed during this period. In the first two decades of its history, Property 1 was occupied by aaRBee Plastics Co. and Delkay Plastics. Archival research failed to indicate any significant contributions that either of these companies or their products made to history at the local, state, or national level.

However, in the early 1980s a more notable owner, Don Lee Farms, took over Property 1. Following World War II, the company that would eventually become Don Lee Farms established itself as one of the first companies to produce fully cooked burgers and assembled sandwiches that could be frozen and sold at supermarkets and school districts. While the company’s success and growth necessitated their move to Property 1, the original development of these innovative products and the original distribution of these products did not take place at Property 1, but at their previous locations. Further, Property 1 is not the only Don Lee Farms facility . For these reasons, Property 1 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 1 for associations with important events.

CRHR Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Property 1 is associated with R.B. Gutsch and the Goodman family. R.B. Gutsch was the president and owner of aaRBee Plastic Co. and the chairman of the Pacific Coast section of the Society of the Plastics Industry. However, no further information on Gutsch was found.

The building is also associated with the Goodman family. The company initially began as Larry’s Food Products in the 1940s by Larry Goodman. Larry sold the company to his son, Donald, who renamed the business Don Lee Farms in 1982. Donald moved the company to its present location by 1982. As previously discussed, Don Lee Farms is a successful business that has expanded and opened multiple locations in the United States since its founding in 1982. Following the success of Don Lee Farms, Donald and his family became known for their philanthropy and giving back to the community. The family’s generosity can be seen through their generous food donations and scholarships to local high A-47
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

45 December 2024
school students. In 2023, the Goodman family also made a multi -million-dollar donation to establish and endow the UCLA Goodman -Luskin Microbiome Center. While it is clear that Goodman is a successful businessman and philanthropist and his contributions to the community are significant, they do not rise to the level of significance required for designation under these criteria. Further, Property 1, is one of numerous Don Lee Farms properties that have contributed to Donald’s financial success.

For these reas ons, Property 1 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 2 for associations with important people.

CRHR Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Property 1 was constructed in 1958 in the Late Modern style of architecture. It features a flat roof, brick veneer, metal framed clerestory windows, and little to no ornamentation. These features do not serve to distinguish it from other ubiquitous and utilitarian p ost-war commercial and industrial buildings seen throughout Southern California. The style does not possess high artistic value and there are no known architects associated with Property 1. Further, significant alterations have been made since its original construction including reconfiguration of the main entry point, multiple additions, removal of original signage, and connection of the original building to adjacent buildings through paved paths of circulation. These changes have all dramaticall y altered Property 1 from a one -story manufacturing building from the 1950s to a modern industrial property with multiple buildings and components. For these reasons, Property 1 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 3.

CRHR Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Property 1 is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials or technologies. Therefore, the property is not recommended eligible under CRHR Criterion 4.

Integrity
Location: Property 1 retains integrity of location. The property is sited in its original location and remains in its original orientation.

Design: Property 1 does not retain integrity of design. The replacement of the original main entrance, including surrounding windows and doors, multiple additions, and the acquisition of additional buildings connected by paved pathways have dramatically altered the original design intent.

Setting: Property 1 does not retain integrity of setting. When it was originally constructed Property 1 was one of many industrial and commercial buildings functioning independently on small and mid - sized parcels. Today Property 1 dominates much of the block with acquisition of adjacent buildings, the connection of these buildings through paved pathways, the use similar materials and color palettes A-48
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

46 December 2024
(brown stucco), and the installation of security fencing. All of these changes have compromised the integrity of setting to the point that it is no longer recognizable as independent commercial and industrial buildings on individual parcels.

Materials: Property 1 has diminished integrity of materials as windows, doors, were replaced and an addition was made in 1972. Further additions were made to the north elevation in the late 1990s and early 2000s have further diminished the integrity of materials.

Workmanship: Property 1 has diminished integrity of workmanship due to replacement windows, replacement doors, and additions.

Feeling: Property 1 does not retain integrity of feeling. Much like the integrity of setting, the acquisition and incorporation of adjacent buildings into Property 1 have compromised its ability to read as a single industrial building on an individual parcel. It now reads as a large modern industrial building complex.

Association: Property 1 lacks integrity of association. The property has no important associations with events, people, or important patterns of development in the City.

For all of the reasons provided above, 200 East Beach Avenue (Property 1) is not eligible for designation in the CRHR.

7.2 300 East Beach Avenue (Property 2)
The following presents an evaluation of Property 2 in consideration of CRHR designation criteria.

CRHR Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Property 2 was constructed in 1946 as a one -story industrial building that housed many businesses throughout its history. While construction of Property 2 was completed during a significant growth period in the City’s history, it is one of many industrial buildings constructed during this period. Further no evidence was found to suggest that any of the companies that operated out of Property 2 were associated with significant events at the local or state level within the area of expertise. Therefore, Property 2 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

CRHR Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Little to no information was found regarding past owners of the property. Property 2 is associated with several owners/tenants/occupants throughout its history. Archival research did not reveal any specific connections to any significant individuals related to these businesses when they operated at these locations. Therefore, Property 2 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 2.

A-49
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

47 December 2024
CRHR Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Constructed as a utilitarian building in 1946, the building’s design is modest and there is nothing distinctive about the building’s type, period, or method of construction that would represent a significant and distinguishable entity. Post-war industrial buildings are commonplace and ubiquitous architectural forms throughout the region, state, and nation. There was also no evidence to suggest that the design and construction of Property 2 represented a significant architectural or engineering advancement. Further, there have been several major alterations to the property including the replacement of original doors, original windows, infilled openings, and other fenestration changes.

These modifications had a cumulative impact on the overall look and feel of the original design.

Property 2 does not embody the distinctive characteristics of any style. Finally, no original architect, builder, or engineer was found to be associated with Property 2. For these reasons, Property 2 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 3.

CRHR Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Property 2 is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials or technologies. Therefore, the property is not recommended eligible under CRHR Criterion 4.

Integrity
Location: Property 2 retains integrity of location. The property is sited in its original location and remains in its original orientation.

Design: Property 2 lacks integrity of design. Alterations include the removal and replacement of the original windows, the removal and replacement of original doors, and changes in the original fenestration pattern.

Setting: Property 2 has a diminished integrity of setting. While the property was constructed in a predominately industrial area, the acquisition and integration of Property 2 and adjacent properties into the Don Lee Farms site have created a larger industrial complex versus a collection of independent commercial and light industrial buildings as originally designed and constructed.

Materials: Property 2 lacks integrity of materials. Alterations, including the replacement of original doors, replacement of original windows, and the reconfiguration of original entry points, have removed original building materials.

A-50
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

48 December 2024
Workmanship: Property 2 lacks integrity of workmanship. Alterations, including the replacement of original doors, replacement of original windows, and reconfiguration of original entry points, have resulted in a lack of original workmanship.

Feeling: Property 2 has a diminished integrity of feeling as it still resembles an industrial building but appears to now be part of a larger industrial complex versus an independent industrial building as it was originally designed.

Association: Property 2 lacks integrity of association. The property has no important associations with events, people, or important patterns of development in the City.

For all of the reasons provided above, the property at 300 East Beach Avenue (Property 2) is not eligible for designation in the CRHR.

7.3 308-312 East Beach Avenue (Property 3)
The following presents an evaluation of Property 3 in consideration of CRHR designation criteria.

CRHR Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Property 3 was constructed in 1946 as a one -story industrial building that housed many businesses throughout its history. While construction of Property 3 was completed during a significant growth period in the City’s history, it is one of many industrial buildings constructed during this period. Further no evidence was found to suggest that any of the companies that operated out of Property 3 were associated with significant events at the local or state level within the area of expertise. Therefore, Property 3 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

CRHR Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Little to no information was found regarding past owners of the property. Property 3 is associated with several owners/tenants/occupants throughout its history. Archival research did not reveal any specific connections to any significant individuals related to these businesses when they operated at these locations. Therefore, Property 3 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 2.

CRHR Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Originally constructed as a utilitarian building, the building’s design is modest and there is nothing distinctive about the building’s type, period, or method of construction that would represent a significant and distinguishable entity. Post-war industrial buildings are commonplace and ubiquitous architectural forms throughout the region, state, and nation. There was also no evidence to suggest A-51
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

49 December 2024
that the design and construction of Property 3 represented a significant architectural or engineering advancement. Further, there have been several major alterations to the property including the replacement of original doors, original windows, infilled openings, and other fenestration changes.

These modifications had a cumulative impact on the overall look and feel of the original design.

Currently, Property 3 does not embody the distinctive characteristics of any style. Finally, while the building was not found to be associated with any significant architect, builder, and engineer. For these reasons, Property 3 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 3.

CRHR Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Property 3 is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials or technologies. Therefore, the property is not recommended eligible under CRHR Criterion 4.

Integrity
Location: Property 3 retains integrity of location. The property is sited in its original location and remains in its original orientation.

Design: Property 3 lacks integrity of design. Alterations include the removal and replacement of the original windows, the removal and replacement of original doors, and changes in the original fenestration pattern.

Setting: Property 3 has integrity of setting. The building continues to read as a light industrial building within an industrial area.

Materials: Property 3 lacks integrity of materials. Alterations, including the replacement of original doors, replacement of original windows, and the reconfiguration of original entry points, have removed original building materials.

Workmanship: Property 3 lacks integrity of workmanship. Alterations, including the replacement of original doors, replacement of original windows, and reconfiguration of original entry points, have resulted in a lack of original workmanship.

Feeling: Property 3 has integrity of feeling as it still resembles an industrial building.

Association: Property 3 lacks integrity of association. The property has no important associations with events, people, or important patterns of development in the City.

For all of the reasons provided above, the property at 308-312 East Beach Avenue (Property 3) is not eligible for designation in the CRHR.

A-52
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

50 December 2024

7.4 316 East Beach Avenue (Property 4)
The following presents an evaluation of Property 4 in consideration of CRHR designation criteria.

CRHR Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Property 4 was constructed in 1946 as a one -story industrial building that housed many businesses throughout its history. While the construction of Property 4 was completed during a significant growth period in the City’s history, it is one of many industrial buildings constructed during this period. Further no evidence was found to suggest that any of the companies that operated out of Property 4 were associated with significant events at the local or state level within the area of expertise. Therefore, Property 4 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

CRHR Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Little to no information was found regarding past owners of the property. Property 4 is associated with several owners/tenants/occupants throughout its history. Archival research did not reveal any specific connections to any significant individuals related to these businesses when they operated at these locations. Therefore, Property 4 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 2.

CRHR Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Originally constructed as a utilitarian building, the building’s design is modest and there is nothing distinctive about the building’s type, period, or method of construction that would represent a significant and distinguishable entity. Post-war industrial buildings are commonplace and ubiquitous architectural forms throughout the region, state, and nation. There was also no evidence to suggest that the design and construction of Property 4 represented a significant architectural or engineering advancement. Further, there have been several major alterations to the property including the replacement of original doors, original windows, infilled openings, and other fenestration changes.

These modifications had a cumulative impact on the overall look and feel of the original design.

Currently, Property 4 does not embody the distinctive characteristics of any style. Finally, the building was not found to be associated with a significant architect, builder, and engineer. For these reasons, Property 4 is recommended not eligible under CRHR Criterion 3.

A-53
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

51 December 2024
CRHR Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Property 4 is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials or technologies. Therefore, the property is not recommended eligible under CRHR Criterion 4.

Integrity
Location: Property 4 retains integrity of location. The property is sited in its original location and remains in its original orientation.

Design: Property 4 lacks integrity of design. Alterations include the removal and replacement of the original windows and doors, and changes in the original fenestration pattern.

Setting: Property 4 has integrity of setting. The building continues to read as a light industrial building within an industrial area.

Materials: Property 4 lacks integrity of materials. Alterations, including the replacement of original doors and windows, and the reconfiguration of original entry points, have removed original building materials.

Workmanship: Property 4 lacks integrity of workmanship. Alterations, including the replacement of original doors and windows, and reconfiguration of original entry points, have resulted in a lack of original workmanship.

Feeling: Property 4 has integrity of feeling as it still resembles an industrial building.

Association: Property 4 lacks integrity of association. The property has no important associations with events, people, or important patterns of development in the City.

For all of the reasons provided above, the property at 316 East Beach Avenue (Property 4) is not eligible for designation in the CRHR.

A-54
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

52 December 2024
8 Findings and Recommendations

8.1 Findings

8.1.1 Built Environment
The following four (4) built environment resources over 45 years old were identified within the project site:
• Property 1, 200 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-018-004), 1958 • Property 2, 300 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-011), 1946 • Property 3, 308-312 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-010), 1946 • Property 4, 316 East Beach Avenue (APN 4015-017-010), circa 1952 Properties 1-4 were recorded and evaluated for historical significance on the appropriate set of DPR Forms (Appendix B) in consideration of CRHR designation criteria and integrity requirements . The properties were found not eligible under all designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit.

In addition, a review of the surrounding properties was conducted to assess the potential for a historic district. While t he project site is located in an area that developed around the same time and was intended 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 convey significance as a potential historic district.

In conclusion, no historical resources were identified within the project site as a result of this study.

Therefore, with respect to historic built environment resources, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on historical resources under CEQA.

8.1.2 Archaeology
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 deposits; however, ground disturbance always presents a possibility of encountering resources. Standard unanticipated discovery measures for archaeological resources and human remains are provided in Section 8.2 . With implementation of these regulatory requirements, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on historical resources.

A-55
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

53 December 2024

8.2 Recommendations

8.2.1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
Should archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) be exposed during construction activities for the proposed 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.

8.2.2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California PRC, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.

A-56
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

54 December 2024
9 Bibliography
Ancestry.com. 1946. California, U.S., Voter Registrations,1900 -1968. Inglewood, California. Accessed online via: Ancestry.com
Ancestry.com. 2024. U.S. Directories, 1822-1995. Inglewood, California, City Directory, Various years.

Accessed online via: Ancestry.com
Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1885. History of California, Volume III: 1825 -1840. A.L. Bancroft & Co., San Francisco.

Bean, L.J. and C. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538 -549.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bruno, David, Ryan, Gary, Kaplan, Curt and Slemmer, Jonathan. 2000. Climate of Los Angeles, California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS WR-261. Accessed April 19, 2024, at:
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14744#:~:text=Under%20the%20modified%20K%C 3%B6ppen%20classification,transitions%20in%20temperature%22%2D%2DIntroduction.

Building Permit No. BAACR-2009-12-09786, Issued by the City of Inglewood, February 9,2010.

Available online at: https://www.cityofinglewood.org/Archive/ViewFile/Item/79. Accessed November 14,2024
Business Wire. “Donald Goodman, Founder and President of Don lee Farms, has been named Los Angeles Business Journal’s 2022 Philanthropist of the Year.” April 21, 2022. Accessed online:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220421006104/en/Donald-Goodman-Founder- and-President-of-Don-Lee-Farms-has-been-named-Los-Angeles-Business-Journals-2022- Philanthropist-of-the-Year
Byrd, B.F. and L. Mark Raab. 2007. “Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium.” In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215-228. AltiMira Press, New York.

California Eagle. 1958. Advertisement. May 22, 1958. Accessed online: www.newspapers.com California Office of Historic Preservation. 2024. California Historical Landmarks by County: Los Angeles. Accessed online: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21427.

City Data.com. Los Angeles County. Accessed online via: https://www.city-data.com/los-angeles- county/B/Beach-Avenue-4.html
A-57
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

55 December 2024
City of Inglewood. n.d. “City History.” Accessed online: https://www.cityofinglewood.org/512/City- History.

City of Inglewood. 2024. Building Permits. Various years and various buildings. Provided by the City of Inglewood. December 2024.

Cleland, Robert Glass. 2005. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-80, second ed., sixth printing. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

Daily Breeze.
1970. “Fire Damages Inglewood Firm”. The Daily Breeze (Torrance, California). December 2,1970. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/1096641944/ 1972. “Ceramics Glaze Sprayer”. The Daily Breeze (Torrance, California). July 15,1972. Accessed Online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/1097486354/ 1983. Public Notice. July 15, 1983, pg. 9. Accessed online: www.newspapers.com 1984. Public Notice. March 5, 1984, pg. 17. Accessed online: www.newspapers.com Dallas, S. F. 1955. The Hide and Tallow Trade in Alta California 1822 –1848. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington
Dibblee, T.W., and J.A. Minch. 2007. Geologic map of the Venice and Inglewood quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Accessed online:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_81611.htm.

Don Lee Farms. 2024. “Family Since the 1940s.” Accessed online:
https://www.donleefarms.com/family-food-company
Dumke, Glenn S. 1944. The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California . Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California.

Dundjerski, Mariana. “Carrying Forward an Enduring Connection and Legacy of Philanthropy.” Friends-U Magazine. Spring 2023. Accessed online:
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/publication/carrying-forward-enduring-connection-and- legacy-philanthropy
EDI Consultants. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Commercial Office/Warehouse Buildings, 300 E. Beach Avenue, Inglewood, California 90302. Prepared for 308 E. Beach Avenue, LLC. September 14, 2023.

A-58
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

56 December 2024
Erlandson, J.M. 1991. “Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands. In Hunter- Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California”, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. Colten.

Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Glassow, M.A., L. Wilcoxen, and J. M. Erlandson. 1988. “Cultural and Environmental Change during the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory.” In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by G. Bailey and J. Parkington pp. 64–77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Golla, V. 2011. California Indian Languages. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Google Maps. 2024. Street view images of project area properties. Accessed online:
https://www.google.com/maps
Gumprecht, Blake. 1999. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Hamilton, Lloyd P. 1949. Inglewood Community Book. Edited and published by Arthur H. Cawston.

Accessed via Inglewood Public Library.

Harrington, John P. 1942. Fieldwork among the Indians of California. In: Explorations and Fieldwork of the Smithsonian Institution in 1934, pp. 81-84. Washington, DC. 1985 John P. Harrington Papers.

Harrod J. 2012. “The First Lighthouse All Stars Recordings Part three”. November 28,2012. Accessed online via: https://jazzresearch.com/the-first-lighthouse-all-stars-recordings-part-three- contemporary-records/
Inglewood Park Cemetery. 2024. Accessed online: https://www.inglewoodparkcemetery.com/about- us/
Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H.

Chaney, pp. 541–545.

Johnston, B.E. 1962. Map of California’s Gabrielino Indians. By [California – Tongva]. Southwest Museum. Los Angeles, California.

Jones, T.L. and Kathryn A. Klar. 2007. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity.

AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

King, Chester D. 1994. Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California.

A-59
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

57 December 2024
Kowta, M. 1969. The Sayles Complex, A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6:35–69. Berkeley, California.

Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925. “Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Kyle, Douglas E. 2002. Historic Spots in California. 5th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

LoopNet.com. 2024. “Property Record: 300 E Beach Ave, Inglewood, CA 90302.” Accessed online:
https://www.loopnet.com/property/300-e-beach-ave-inglewood-ca-90302/06037-4015017011/ Los Angeles County Assessor. Online Portal. Accessed October 2024. https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/
Los Angeles Mirror.
1951. “Air Products Inc”. The Los Angeles Mirror (Los Angeles, California). June 1,1951. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/693426709/ 1960b. “Frank D. Parent, 81, Ex-Judge, Dies Here.” (Los Angeles, California). June 20, 1960, Pg. 14.

Accessed online:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/694200438/?match=1&terms=%22Frank%20D.%20Parent%

22. 1960. “Flames Cause $250,000 Damage at Metal Plant.” The Los Angeles Mirror (Los Angeles, California). March 26,1960. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/694820067/ Los Angeles Public Library. 1937. The Kirkman-Harriman pictorial and historical map of Los Angeles County, 1860-1937. Accessed online via:
https://tessa2.lapl.org/digital/collection/maps/id/29/rec/2.

Los Angeles Times.
1948. “Milling Machine Operator”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). July 4,1948.

Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/381218070/ 1950. “Machinists for Air Products Inc”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

December 18, 1950. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/385531668/ 1951. “Draftsmen for Air Products Inc”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). January 2, 1951. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/385579057/ 1958. “Lewis Record Co.”. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). February 6,1958. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/381198754/ A-60
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

58 December 2024
1960.“Short Circuit Blamed for $200,000 Fire”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

March 27,1960. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/381001748/ 1965. “Els John elected president of SEMA”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). June 27,1965. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/382100512/ 1976a. “Industrial Property for lease”. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). January 3,1976.

Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/382978980/ 1976b.” Carbide Engineering”. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). August 27,1976.

Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/383399498/ 1985. “Driver for Diversified Crating”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). December 8,1985. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/401592487/ 1986a. “For lease”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). June 1, 1986. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/402991378/
1986b. “Neon Tube Bender for Clear Signs”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

August 24,1986. Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/402408188/ 1987. “Salesperson for Rechem”. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). February 8,1987.

Accessed online via: https://www.newspapers.com/image/403060650/ 1991. “Sculptor Transforms the Neighborhood”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

September 24,1991. Accessed online via: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-24- ca-3177-story.html
2022. “A Brief History of Inglewood.” February 2, 2022. Accessed online:
https://www.latimes.com/inglewoodrenaissance/story/2022-02-03/a-brief-history-of-inglewood. 2024. “Donald Goodman.” Accessed online: https://www.latimes.com/b2b/csuite/donald- goodman
Classified Ads, Various years. Accessed online: www.newspapers.com McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Banning California and Ballena Press, Novato, California.

Metropolitan Transit Authority. 2010. History of Transit in Los Angeles and Current Trends in Supply and Demand. Operations Committee, Finance and Budget Committee, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. Accessed online:
http://www.metronet/board/items/2010/02_February/20100218OP.F&BItem25.pdf Moratto, M. 1984. “California Archaeology.” Academic Press, New York.

A-61
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

59 December 2024
National Environmental Title Research LLC. (NETR). 2024. Historic Aerial Photographs of project area properties, various years. Accessed online: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

National Resources Conservation Service. 2024. Web Soil Survey. Accessed November 25, 2024, at:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

ParcelQuest. 2024. Property information regarding project area properties., Inglewood, California.

Accessed online via https://www.parcelquest.com/.

Pinnacle Environmental Inc. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of an Undeveloped Property: 355 La Colina Drive and 338-358 E. Beach Avenue, Inglewood, California 90302.

Prepared for East Beach Inglewood LLC. January 26, 2024.

Redondo Reflex. 1976. “Factory Sale Quality Decorator Lamps”. The Redondo Reflex (Redondo, California). December 15,1976. Accessed online via:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/621494907/
Rick, T.C., Jon M. Erlandson, and René Vellanoweth. 2001. “Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California.” American Antiquity 66:595–613.

Robinson, W.W. 1947. Inglewood: A Calendar of Events in the Making of a City. Los Angeles, CA: Title Insurance and Trust Company.

Rosenberg, Roy. 1938. History of Inglewood. Edited and published by Arthur H. Cawston. Accessed via Inglewood Public Library.

Sanborn Maps. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. 1950. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Inglewood, California. Accessed online via Los Angeles Public Library.

Santa Barbara News-Press (SBNP). 1947. “Who’s Who of Plastics to Attend Convention Here.” March 16, 1947, pg. 6. Accessed online: www.newspapers.com Southwest Wave. 1947. Classified advertisement. September 21, 1947. Accessed online:
www.newspapers.com.

Specialty Equipment Market Association History. 2024. Accessed online via:
https://www.sema.org/history
St. John. Emilie. 2024. “Inglewood preparing to rezone vacant lot across from Metro K Line.” 2Urban Girls. April 15, 2024. Accessed online: https://2urbangirls.com/2024/04/inglewood-preparing-to- rezone-vacant-lot-across-from-metro-k-line/#google_vignette/.

True, D.L. 1993. “Bedrock Milling Elements as Indicators of Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in Northern San Diego County, California.” In Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(2):1–

26. A-62
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood

60 December 2024
University of California, Santa Barbra (UCSB). 2024. Historic Aerial Photographs of project area, various years. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource. Accessed online: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ U.S. Geologic Service (USGS). 2024. The National Map Viewer. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Washington D.C. Electronic resource, https://apps.nationalmap.giv/viewer/, accessed November 25, 2024.

Valley Times. 1960. “Funeral for Judge Parent Tomorrow.” (North Hollywood, California). June 20, 1960, Pg. 2. Accessed online: https://www.newspapers.com/image/580376523/?article=e2d8ffa9- c3f9-4780-99b3-8168cd428dc5&terms=%22Frank%20D.%20Parent%22.

Waddington, Gladys. 1994. The History of Inglewood. Published by the Historical Society of Centinela Valley. Accessed via Inglewood Public Library. Edited and published by Arthur H. Cawston.

Accessed via Inglewood Public Library.

Wallace, W. 1955. “Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.

Wallace, W. 1978. “Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California,” edited by Robert F.

Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Warren, C.N. 1968. “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast.” In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams, pp. 1–14.

Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales.

Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G. 1965. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California–an Introduction. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A. Accessed November 25, 2024, at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0420a/report.pdf.

A-63

Appendix A:

Records Search Results Summary

A-64
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs Beach-Colina
LA-02904 1993 Draft Report a Phase I Cultural Resources Literature Search for the West Basin Water
Reclamation Project
Environmental Research
Archaeologists: A Scientific
Consortium
Stickel, Gary E.

LA-04836 2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey Along
Onshore Portions of the Global West Fiber
Optic Cable Project
Science Applications
International Corporation
LA-04891 2000 A Proposed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane
Between I-105 and Sr-90 on I-405 in the City
of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County California
Caltrans District 7Sylvia, Barbara 19-000213, 19-000216 LA-07402 2004 Records Search and Site Visit for Sprint
Telecommunications Facility Candidate
La60xc408d (florence Locust RL) 405 East
Florence Avenue, Inglewood, Los Angeles
County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H.

LA-07869 2006 Cultural Resources Records Search Results and Site Visit for Sprint Nextel Candidate Ca
7731d (la Colima), 405 East Florence
Avenue, Inglewood, Los Angeles County,
California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H.

LA-08255 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network
Construction Project State of California:

Volumes I and Ii
SWCA Environmental
Consultants, Inc.

Arrington, Cindy and
Nancy Sikes
LA-09516 2008 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile Candidate
LA03329E (Walgreens La Brea), 230 North
La Brea Avenue, Inglewood, Los Angeles
County, California
MBABonner, Wayne H.

LA-11974 2012 Abandonment Exemption, BNSF Railway
Company, Milepost 7.95 to Milepost 13.25,
Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA
Ball Janick LLPMorell, Karl
LA-12352 2012 Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
Program under the National Park Service
Edward Vincent Park Multi-Purpose Field
Rehabilitation Project, City of Inglewood
City of Inglewood, Office of
Grants and Local Services
Rendon, Richard 19-000181, 19-186555