During the Project’s construction phase, soil would be temporarily exposed. In addition, on-site watering activities to reduce airborne dust would occur in accordance with typical best construction management practices and SCQAMD’s Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Also, construction- 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-139 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 related materials, including adhesives, coatings, lubricants, and fuel would be temporarily stored on the Project Site. However, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevent ion Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), required to minimize soil erosion/sedimentation and other runoff from the Project Site from entering the storm drains during the construction period. In addition, the Project would be subject to Section 10-208 (Low Impact Development Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment) of the City’s M unicipal Code to ensure pollutant loads from the Project Site would be minimized for downs tream receiving waters. Compliance with the NPDES and implementation of the SWPPP and BMPs , as well as the City’s discharge requirements would ensure that any construction stormwater runoff would not violate water quality and/or discharge requirements.
Additionally, during the Project’s operational phase, similar to existing site conditions, most of the Project Site would be developed with impervious surfaces, and all stormwater flows would be directed to storm drainage features and would not come into contact with bare soil surfaces.
However, the Project Applicant would still be required to comply with the City’s LID requirements, including preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which are required to include a site design approach and BMPs that address runoff and pollution at the source. Further, to comply with LID requirements the Project would be required to capture and treat the first 3/4- inch of rainfall from a storm event or the runoff associated with the 85 th percentile, 24-hour storm
event, whichever is greater, in accordance with established stormwater treatment priorities.
Compliance with the LID requirements would control the amount of surface water runoff leaving the Project Site and would ensure that operation of the Project would not violate water quality standard and discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Conformance with existing regulations would ensure construction and operational activities would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, Project impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. The Project Site in its existing condition is nearly completely developed with buildings and associated surface parking areas, which are impervious surfaces. During storm events, all of the storm water that encounters the Project Site is directed to the existing local storm drain system. No storm water at the Project Site reaches groundwater levels. As such, the Project Site is not a source of groundwater recharge. Under the Project, all storm water would continue to be directed toward the local storm drain system and would not have the ability to reach groundwater level at the Project Site. Additionally, all water consumption associated with the Project would be supplied by City and not from groundwater beneath the Project Site. Thus, the Project would have no effect on groundwater supplies or recharge, and no impacts related to this issue would occur. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-140 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 c) Would the project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. In its existing condition, the Project Site is completely developed with impervious surface, including buildings and paved parking areas. All stormwater that encounters the site is directed to the City’s local storm drain system. No rivers or streams are located on or near the Project Site. The Project includes demolition and removal of all existing uses from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, which would include one subterranean level, requiring excavation depths of approximately 16 bgs. During the Project’s construction phase, soil would be exposed. However, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with NPDES SWPPP requirements as well as Section 10-208 (Low Impact Development Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment) of the City’s Municipal Code which would preserve water quality during construction of the Project (refer to response to Checklist Question X(a) (Hydrology and Water Quality – Water Quality). While grading and construction activities may temporarily alter the existing drainage patterns of the site, BMPs would be implemented to minimize soil erosion impacts during Project grading and construction activities. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to implement a LID Plan (during operation), which would reduce the amount of surface water runoff leaving the Project Site after a storm event. Specifically, the LID Plan would require the implementation of stormwater BMPs to retain or treat the runoff from a storm event producing 3/4-inch of rainfall in a 24-hour period. Thus, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, Project impacts related to erosion or siltation would be less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
No Impact. As stated previously, given that the Project Site is nearly completely developed with buildings and surface parking areas, during storm events, all of the stormwater flows from the site to the local streets where the runoff enters the City’s storm drain system. Under the post-Project conditions, most of the Project Site would al so be developed with impervious surfaces, and all stormwater would be directed toward BMP featur es and/or the local storm drain system. The Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff from the site. Nonetheless, the Project Applicant would still be required to implement BMPs and to develop appropriate drainage infrastructure on the site to meet regulatory water quality requirements and to control drainage from the site to not exceed existing rates. Thus, the Project would not increase the runoff from the site entering the City’s existing storm drain facilities. As such, the Project would not cause flooding on or off site. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-141 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 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?
Less Than Significant Impact . As stated previously, given that the Project Site is completely developed with buildings and surface parking areas, during storm events, nearly all of the stormwater flows from the site to the local streets where the runoff enters the City’s storm drain system. Under the post-Project conditions, most of the Project Site would also be developed with impervious surfaces. The Project developer would be required to implement BMPs and to develop appropriate drainage infrastructure on the site to meet regulatory water quality requirements and to control drainage from the site to not exceed existing rates. Thus, the Project would not increase the runoff from the site entering the City’s existing storm drain facilities. As such, the Project would not exceed the capacity of the existing or plann ing drainage system. Therefore, Project impacts related to storm drain capacity would be less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The Project Site is located in an area of minimal flood risk (Zone X) and is not located within a 100-year zone, as mapped by t he Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 56 Thus, the Project would not have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The Project Site is not located near any large bodies of water. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately five miles west of the Project Site. As such, the Project Site is not in an area susceptible to seiche, tsunamis, or mudflows.
57 Thus, the Project would not expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously in response to Checklist Question X(a) (Hydrology and Water Quality – Water Quality), Project impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. As discussed in response to Checklist Question X(b) (Hydrology and Water Quality – Groundwater), no impacts related to groundwater would occur as a result of the Project.
No mitigation measures are required.
56 FEMA, Flood Map Panel #06037C1780G, effective on 12/21/2018, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor, accessed July 6, 2022. 57 California Department of Conservati on, California Tsunami Maps and Data, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps, accessed March 7, 2023. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-142 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City (refer to Table 1-1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). The site of the Project and the related projects are located in an urbanized area where most of the surrounding properties are already developed. The existing storm drainage system serving this area has been designed to accommodate runoff from an urban built-out environment. When new construction occurs, it generally does not lead to substantial additional runoff, since new development is required to control the amount and quality of stormwater runoff coming from their respective sites. Additionally, all new development in the City is required to comply with the City’s LID Ordinance and incorporate appropriate stormwater pollution control measures into the design plans to ensure that water quality impacts are mini mized. Therefore, Project cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-143 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is currently developed.
The Project Site is surrounded by existing development and roadway and utility infrastructure.
Thus, the Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed below, the Project would be substantially consistent with all of the applicable plans, policies, and regulations associated with development of the Project Site. Therefore, Project impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Regulatory Framework
Regional Plans
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The SCAG region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles. As the federally- designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, SCAG is mandated to research and create plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality.
Applicable SCAG publications are discussed below.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS
On September 30, 2008, SB 375 was instituted to help achieve AB 32 goals through regulation of cars and light trucks. SB 375 aligns three policy areas of importance to local government: (1) 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-144 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 regional long-range transportation plans and investments; (2) regional allocation of the obligation for cities and counties to zone for housing; and (3) a process to achieve GHG emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector. It establishes a process for the CARB to develop GHG emissions reductions targets for each region (as opposed to individual local governments or households). SB 375 also requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within the RTP that guides growth while taking into account the transportation, housing, environmental, and economic needs of the region. SB 375 uses CEQA streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential projects, which help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce GHG emissions.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS land use pattern continues the trend of focusing new housing and employment growth in the region’s High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) and aims to enhance and build out the region’s transit network. At the time of the previous 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, HQTAs accounted for just 3 percent of total land in the SCAG region, but they are projected to accommodate 46 percent of the region’s future household growth and 55 percent of the region’s future employment growth by 2040.
58 HQTAs are a cornerstone of land use planning best practice in the SCAG region, and studies by the California Department of Transportation, the USEPA, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission have found that focusing development in areas served by transit can result in local, regional, and statewide benefits including reduced air pollution and energy consumption. In addition, HQTAs concentrate roadway repair investments, leverage transit and active transportation investments, r educe regional life cycle infrastructure costs, improve accessibility, create local jobs, and ha ve the potential to improve public health and housing affordability. As a result, HQTAs are vital to the attainment of regional GHG emissions reduction targets: successful implementation of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with a variety of transportation and housing choices, reducing automobile use and, crucially, associated GHG emissions.
The Project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is discussed in Table VIII-9 in response to Checklist Question VIII (b) (Greenhouse Gas Em issions – Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans, Policies, or Regulations). As discussed there, the Project would be substantially consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS would be less than significant.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Air Quality Management Plan
The Project Site is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. In conjunction with SCAG, the SCAQMD is responsible for formulating and implementing air pollution control strategies, including periodic updates to the AQMP, and guidance to local government about how to incorporate these strategies into their land use plans and decisions about development.
58 SCAG, Final 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, April 2017. HQTAs are defined as areas within one-half mile of a fixed guideway transit stop or a bus transit corridor where buses pick up passengers at a frequency of every 15 minutes or less during peak commuting hours.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-145 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 SCAG is responsible for generating the socio-economic profiles and growth forecasts on which land use, transportation, and air quality management and implementation plans are based. The growth forecasts provide the socioeconomic dat a used to estimate vehicle trips and VMT.
Emission estimates then can be forecast by SCAQMD based on these projected estimates.
Reductions in emissions due to changes in the socio-economic profile of the region are an important way of taking account of changes in land use patterns. For example, changes in jobs/housing balance induced by changes in urban form and transit-oriented development induce changes in VMT by more closely linking housing to jobs. Thus, socio-economic growth forecasts are a key component to guide the Basin toward attainment of the NAAQS.
The current AQMP establishes a comprehensive regional air pollution control program leading to the attainment of State and federal air quality standards in the Basin. In addition to setting minimum acceptable exposure standards for specified pollutants, the AQMP incorporates SCAG’s growth management strategies that can be used to reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and hence air pollution. These include, for example, co-location of employment and housing, and mixed-use land patterns that allow the integration of residential and non-residential uses.
Consistency of the Project with the AQMP are discussed in response to Checklist Question III(a) (Air Quality – AQMP Consistency) of this IS /MND. As discussed there, the Project would be substantially consistent with the AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.
Local Plans
City of Inglewood
General Plan
The current General Plan land use designation for the Project Site as well as the immediately surrounding area is Industrial. In 1980, the City adopted a revised Land Use Element that re- designated this area from residential/commercial land uses to industrial in an effort to promote the development of new industrial and office park uses. However, today the Project Site and surrounding area remain predominantly developed with a mix of commercial and lodging uses along Century Boulevard with single-family residential uses located to the south. Accordingly, the area’s current and foreseeably future uses are not currently consistent with the General Plan’s Industrial designation.
In consideration of this existing inconsistenc y as well as existing and foreseeable land use patterns in the vicinity of the Project Site, a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the Project Site for Commercial/Residential land uses is being proposed in conjunction with the Project. This designation is intended to allow for a mix of residential and commercial uses in conjunction with application of the City’s Planned Assembly Development (PAD) entitlement process, which encourages more creative approaches to the development of land than would be possible through the strict application of the City’s standard zoning regulations. Accordingly, in addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Project will seek PAD approval to establish specific development standards for the Project Site.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-146 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Following the City’s adoption of the requested General Plan Amendment, the Project will be fully consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan discussed in Table XI-
1. As discussed there, the Project would be subs tantially consistent with the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table XI-1
Project Consistency with the General Plan
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Housing Element
Goal 1: Promote the construction of new
housing and new housing opportunities.
Policy 1.1 Provide adequate sites for all types of
housing.
Consistent. As part of a mixed-use development,
the Project includes 129 new dwelling units of
varying size.
Goal 7: Encourage Energy Efficiency and
Greenhouse Gas Reductions.
Policy 7.1 Facilitate residential energy efficient
construction and upgrades.
Consistent. The Project would be required by the
City to incorporate applicable energy efficiency
measures outlined in the City’s Building Code,
Green Building Code, and Section 12-42.1
(Transportation Demand Management
Requirements for Carpool Parking and Bicycle
Facilities) of the City’s Municipal Code as well as
the standards of the Project’s proposed PAD
zoning regulations. The infill and mixed-use
nature of the Project and the Project Site’s
proximity to existing transit, housing,
employment, shopping and entertainment would
reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and associated GHG
emissions.
Land Use Element
Major Mixed-Use Goal
Largeꞏscale development sites integrating
commercial, office, entertainment, and/or
housing that actively engage and enhance
pedestrian activity, enable Inglewood's
residents to live close to businesses and
employment; respect the site characteristics,
and are well-designed reflecting the traditions of
the City.
Policies
1. Land Use Mix. Allow for planned
development mixed ꞏuse districts that
integrate housing with retail, office,
entertainment, and public uses where the
housing may be developed on the upper
floors of non ꞏresidential buildings or
distributed horizontally on the site.
2. Ground Floor Development. Require that the
ground floor of buildings integrating housing
Consistent. The Project includes the
development of a mixed-use building, which
would include residential, hotel, and
event/entertainment uses. The ground floor of the
building would contain the hotel lobby, event
space, and parking, with all residential units on
floors 7 through 12. The Project would be
designed and constructed in accordance with the
City’s design requirements including those
established as part of the Project’s PAD approval.
The residential and non-residential portions of the
Project would be integrated through design,
lighting, and wayfinding signage, but would be
separated by floors. The proposed building would
be oriented toward Century Boulevard, Freeman
Avenue, and 101
st Street, providing the primary
pedestrian access on Century Boulevard and the
primary vehicular access on 101
st Street.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-147 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XI-1
Project Consistency with the General Plan
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
with nonꞏresidential uses must be occupied
by retail, dining, and other uses that engage
and activate pedestrian activity.
3. Architectural Design Quality. Require that
development in mixedꞏuse districts conveys a
high level of architectural design quality and
landscape amenities, reflecting the traditions
that historically have defined the City.
4. Design Integration. Require that residential
and non ꞏresidential portions of mixed ꞏuse
buildings be seamlessly integrated by
architectural design, pedestrian walkways,
and landscape.
5. Cohesive and Integrated Development.
Require that planned development
mixedꞏuse districts seamlessly integrate uses
and buildings as a cohesive project
characterized by:
A connected and unifying street and
sidewalk network
Consistent property setbacks,
frontage design, and building massing
Orientation and design of the ground
floor of buildings to promote
pedestrian activity
Inclusion of attractively landscaped
public sidewalks and open spaces
Consideration of shared parking in lieu
of separate parking for each use
6. Site Development. Require that buildings and
improvements respect their setting and
address elements such as location, slopes,
drainages, native landscapes, and view
sheds, as applicable.
7. Compatibility of Residential and Non-
Residential Uses. Require that buildings
integrating housing with non-residential uses
be designed to assure compatibility among
uses and public safety including separate
access, fire suppression barriers, secured
resident parking, noise insulation, and similar
elements.
Noise Element
Goals
1. Provide for the reduction of noise where the
noise environment represents a threat to the
Consistent. As part of this IS/MND, an
assessment of the Project’s noise impacts on the
surrounding area was conducted. (Refer to
Checklist Topic XIII. Noise.) As discussed there,
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-148 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XI-1
Project Consistency with the General Plan
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
public health and welfare. In those areas
where the environment represents a threat to
the public health and welfare, it is the
objective of the City to reduce environmental
hazards to levels consistent with the
protection of the public health and welfare.
2. Reduce noise impacts in degraded areas. In
those areas where the environment is
degraded, but not to an extent that represents
an immediate hazard to public health and
welfare, it is the objective of the City to reduce
environmental degradation as much as
feasible and practical within the limits
imposed by conflicting objectives.
3. Protect and maintain those areas having
acceptable noise environments. In those
areas where a quality environment now
exists, it is the objective of the City to prevent
degradation of that environment.
4. Provide sufficient information concerning the
community noise levels so that noise can be
objectively considered in land use planning
decisions. Noise and land use
incompatibilities can be avoided for new
developments when noise is properly
considered in the planning and design of the
project. It is the objective of the City to
prevent future land use and noise conflicts
through the planning process.
Policies
4.1 Provide for measures to reduce noise
impacts from traffic noise sources.
4.2 Incorporate noise considerations into land
use planning decisions.
4.3 Develop measures to control non-
transportation noise impacts.
4.4 Reduce noise conflicts at the source.
4.5 Reduce noise conflicts at the receiver.
the Project’s operational noise impacts would be
less than significant. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, the Project’s
construction noise impacts would be less than
significant.
Zoning Code
The current zoning designation for the Project Site as well as the immediately surrounding area is C-2A (Airport Commercial), which allows commercial and hotel uses but does not permit residential uses. In conjunction with the requested General Plan Amendment to establish a 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-149 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Commercial/Residential land use designation for the Project Site, a corresponding PAD approval is being requested that would establish specific development standards for the Project and Project Site, in furtherance of the PAD process’s purpose of encouraging more creative approaches to the development of land than would be possible through the strict application of standard zoning regulations. Specifically, the proposed PAD approval would facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Site’s existing hotel uses with a new vertically integrated development containing commercial, lodging, entertainment, and housing uses that will enhance pedestrian activity and reflect high architectural design quality. The proposed PAD standards will achieve this goal by establishing specific use, development, and design standards that will ensure the compatibility of the Project with both nearby uses as well as the City’s long-range planning and policy goals to encourage increased commercial activity along its key corridors.
Consistent with the requirements of the Inglewood Municipal Code, the Project would require City Council approval of the following discretionary entitlements:
General Plan Amendment to change Project Site’s land use designation from Industrial to Commercial/Residential;
Zoning Code Amendment regarding extended-stay hotel;
Approval of a Planned Assembly Development and Special Use Permit for the Project Site to allow certain deviations from various IMC provisions; Tract Map and Condominium Plan;
Site Plan Review;
Sign Agreement to allow Project’s proposed digital signage; and Tree Removal Permit
Following approval of the above entitlements, the Project would be fully consistent with the City’s applicable zoning regulations.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed previously, the Project would not result in any inconsistencies with any of the applicable plans, policies, or regulations associated with development of the Project Site. The City would assess the consistency of the related projects with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations associated with those projects, individually. Regardless of any potential inconsistencies the related projects may result in, because the Project would not result in any inconsistencies, the Project would not have the potential to contribute to any cumulative inconsistency impacts.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-150 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of av ailability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of avai lability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a) Would the project 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? No Impact. The Project Site is located in an urbanized part of the City. The Project Site is not located in an area designated for Portland cement concrete-grade (PCC-grade) aggregate or land classified Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2).
59 60 Thus, the 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. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project 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. The Project Site is located in an urbanized part of the City. The Project Site is not identified as a mineral resource recovery site. Thus, the 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. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed previously, the Project would not result in any impacts related to mineral resources.
Regardless to what degree the related projects could result in impacts related to mineral resources, because the Project would not result in any impacts related to mineral resources, the Project would not have the potential to contribute to any cumulative impacts.
59 California Geological Survey, Updated Miner al Resource Zones for Portland Content Concrete Aggregate in the San Fernando Valley and Saugus-Newhall Production-Consumption Regions, 2021. 60 MRZ-2 is defined as “Areas where adequate information indicate s that significant mineral deposit s are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their pres ence exists. This zone shall be applied to known mineral deposits or where well- developed lines of reasoning, based upon ec onomic-geologic principles and adequate data, demonstrate that the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral deposits is high.”
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-151 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XIII. NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation 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?
b. Generation of 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 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?
The information and analysis presented below is based primarily on the Noise Technical Data prepared by DKA Planning, included in Appendix H.
Fundamentals of Noise
Characteristics of Sound
Sound can be described in terms of its loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel (i.e., dB). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A-weighted scale (dBA) is used to reflect the normal hearing sensitivity range. On this scale, the range of human hearing extends from 3 to 140 dBA.
Table XIII-1 provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common sources.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-152 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XIII-1
A-Weighted Decibel Scale
Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Sound Level (dBA Leq)
Near Jet Engine 130
Rock and Roll Band 110
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100
Power Motor 90
Food Blender 80
Living Room Music 70
Human Voice at 3 feet 60
Residential Air Conditioner at 50 feet 50
Bird Calls 40
Quiet Living Room 30
Average Whisper 20
Rustling Leaves 10
Source: Cowan, James P., Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, 1993.
These noise levels are approximations intended for general reference and informational use.
Noise Definitions. This noise analysis discusses sound levels in terms of equivalent noise level (Leq), maximum noise level (Lmax) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Equivalent Noise Level (L eq): Leq represents the average noise level on an energy basis for a specific time period. Average noise level is based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of sound. For example, the L eq for one hour is the energy average noise level during that hour. L eq can be thought of as a continuous noise level of a certain period equivalent in energy content to a fluctuating noise level of that same period. Maximum Noise Level (L max): L max represents the maximum instantaneous noise level measured during a given time period.
CNEL: CNEL is an adjusted noise measurement scale of average sound level during a 24-hour period. Due to increased noise sensitivities during evening and night hours, human reaction to sound between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. is as if it were actually 5 dBA higher than had it occurred between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. From 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., humans perceive sound as if it were 10 dBA higher. To account for these sensitivities, CNEL figures are obtained by adding an additional 5 dBA to evening noise levels between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. and 10 dBA to nighttime noise levels between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. As such, 24-hour CNEL figures are always higher than their corresponding actual 24-hour averages.
Effects of Noise. The degree to which noise can impact an environment ranges from levels that interfere with speech and sleep to levels that can cause adverse health effects. Most human response to noise is subjective. Factors that influence individual responses include the intensity, frequency, and pattern of noise; the amount of background noise present; and the nature of work or human activity exposed to intruding noise. Accord ing to the National Institute of Health (NIH), extended or repeated exposure to sounds at or above 85 dB can cause hearing loss. Sounds of 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-153 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 70 dBA or less, even after continuous exposure, are unlikely to cause hearing loss. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that adults should not be exposed to sudden “impulse” noise events of 140 dB or greater. For children, this limit is 120 dB.
Exposure to elevated nighttime noise levels can disrupt sleep, leading to increased levels of fatigue and decreased work or school performance. For the preservation of healthy sleeping environments, the WHO recommends that continuous interior noise levels not exceed 30 dBA, L
eq and that individual noise events of 45 dBA or higher be avoided. Assuming a conservative exterior to interior sound reduction of 15 dBA, continuous exterior noise levels should therefore not exceed 45 dBA L
eq. Individual exterior events of 60 dBA or higher should also be limited.
Some epidemiological studies have shown a weak association between long-term exposure to noise levels of 65 to 70 dBA, L
eq and cardiovascular effects, including ischemic heart disease and hypertension. However, at this time, the relationship is largely inconclusive.
People with normal hearing sensitivity can recogn ize small perceptible changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA. Changes of at least 5 dBA can be readily noticeable and may cause community reactions. Sound level increases of 10 dBA or greater are perceived as a doubling in loudness and can provoke a community response. However, during daytime, few people are highly annoyed by noise levels below 55 dBA L
eq.
Noise Attenuation. Noise levels decrease as the distance from noise sources to receivers increases. For each doubling of distance, noise from stationary sources can decrease by about 6 dBA over hard surfaces (e.g., reflective surfaces such as parking lots) and 7.5 dBA over soft surfaces (e.g., absorptive surfaces such as soft dirt and grass). For example, if a point source produces a noise level of 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet and over an asphalt surface, its noise level would be approximately 83 dBA at a distance of 100 feet, 77 dBA at 200 feet, etc.
Noises generated by mobile sources such as roadways decrease by about 3 dBA over hard surfaces and 4.5 dBA over soft surfaces for each doubling of distance. It should be noted that because decibels are logarithmic units, they cannot be added or subtracted. For example, two cars each producing 60 dBA of noise would not produce a combined 120 dBA.
Noise is most audible when traveling by direct line of sight, an unobstructed visual path between noise source and receptor. Barriers that break line of sight between sources and receivers, such as walls and buildings, can greatly reduce source noise levels by allowing noise to reach receivers by diffraction only. As a result, sound barriers can generally reduce noise levels by up to 15 dBA.
The effectiveness of barriers can be greatly reduced when they are not high or long enough to completely break line of sight from sources to receivers.
Fundamentals of Vibration
Characteristics of Vibration. Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Unlike noise, vibration is not a common environmental problem, as it is unusual for vibration from vehicle sources to be perceptible. Common sources of vibration include trains, construction activities, and certain industrial operations.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-154 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Vibration Definitions. This analysis discusses vibrat ion in terms of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV).
PPV is commonly used to describe and quantify vibration impacts to buildings and other structures. PPV levels represent the maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal and are usually measured in inches per second.
Effects of Vibration. High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings. However, groundborne vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider groundborne vibration to be an annoyance that can disrupt concentration or disturb sleep. Groundborne vibration can also interfere with certain types of highly sensitive equipment and machines, especially imaging devices used in medical laboratories.
Perceptible Vibration Changes. Unlike noise, groundborne vibration is not an environmental issue that most people experience every day. Background vibration levels in residential areas are usually well below the threshold of perception for humans, approximately 0.01 inches per second.
Perceptible indoor vibrations are most often caused by sources within buildings themselves, such as slamming doors or heavy footsteps. Common outdoor sources of groundborne vibration include construction equipment, trains, and traffic on rough or unpaved roads. Traffic vibration from smooth and well-maintained roads is typically not perceptible.
Regulatory Framework
Noise
Federal. Currently, no federal noise standards regulate environmental noise associated with short-term construction activities or long-term operations of development projects. As such, temporary and long-term noise impacts produced by the Project would be largely regulated or evaluated by State and City of Inglewood standards designed to protect public well-being and health.
State. The State’s 2017 General Plan Guidelines establish county and city standards for acceptable exterior noise levels based on land use. These standards are incorporated into land use planning processes to prevent or reduce noise and land use incompatibilities. Table 2 illustrates State compatibility considerations between various land uses and exterior noise levels.
California Government Code Section 65302 also requires each county and city to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development. Section 65302(f) requires a noise element to be included in the general plan. This noise element must identify and appraise noise problems in the community, recogni ze Office of Noise Control guidelines, and analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-155 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XIII-2
State of California Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (dB, Ldn or CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential - Low Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential - Multi-Family
Transient Lodging - Motels Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable - Specifi ed land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable - New constructi on or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: California Office of Planning and Research “General Plan Guidelines, Noise Element Guidelines (Appendix D, Figure 2), 2017.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-156 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels that are subject to relatively high levels of noise from transportation. The noise insulation standards, collectively referred to as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) set forth an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL for habitable rooms.
The standards require an acoustical analysis which indicates that dwelling units meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Local jurisdictions typically enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards through the building permit application process.
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission serves as the State-mandated airport land use commission (ALUC) that plans development and ensures compatibility of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) with surrounding land uses. This is done through review of proposed development surrounding LAX and through policy and guidance provided in the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The 1991 ALUP, as revised in December 2004, establishes safe airport operations through the delineation of Runway Protections Zones (RPZs) and height restriction boundaries and to reduce noise exposure to sensitive uses through noise insulation or land reuse.
LAX Airport Land Use Plans. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the entity that owns and operates LAX, has adopted the 2017 LAX Plan and 2017 LAX Specific Plan. These documents provide a framework to guide land use decisions for the LAWA Master Plan. While these plans govern areas near LAX west of La Cienega Boulevard, they do not regulate land uses to the east.
As such, the Project Site is not regulated by these plans. Further, the Project Site is not within the RPZ and is not subject to land use restrictions that apply, including restrictions on residential uses.
LAX Noise Exposure Map Report Update. In 2015, LAWA updated its Noise Exposure Map Report to document noise exposure in Inglewood and other communities from aircraft operations.
While the update helps ensure that aircraft noise mitigation programs can receive federal funding, it also helps guide noise mitigation programs for new development in the City. Figure 3 of the LAX Noise Exposure Map Report Update shows the Project Site’s southeasternmost portion is located just inside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.
City of Inglewood General Plan Noise Element. The City of Inglewood General Plan includes a 1987 Noise Element that includes policies and standards in order to guide the control of noise to protect residents, workers, and visitors. Its primary goal is to regulate long-term noise impacts to preserve acceptable noise environments for all ty pes of land uses. The Noise Element includes the following three relevant goals for the Project:
Goal 1: Provide for the reduction of noise where the noise environment represents a threat to public health and welfare. In those areas where the environment represents a threat to the public health and welfare, it is the objective of the City to reduce environmental hazards to levels consistent with the protection of the public health and welfare.
Goal 3: Protect and maintain those areas having acceptable noise environments. In those areas where a quality environment now exists, it is the objective of the City to prevent degradation of that environment.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-157 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Goal 4: Provide sufficient information concerning the community noise levels so that noise can be objectively considered in land use planning decisions. Noise and land use compatibilities can be avoided for new developments when noise is properly considered in the planning and design of the project. It is the objective of the City to prevent future land use and noise conflicts through the planning process.
The Noise Element includes the following relevant policies:
4.1 Provide for measures to reduce noise impacts from traffic noise sources.
4.2 Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.
4.3 Develop measures to control non-transportation noise impacts
4.4 Reduce noise conflicts at the source.
4.5 Reduce noise conflicts at the receiver.
4.6 Protect those who live and work in the City from dangerous on-the-job noise exposure.
4.7 Provide support for the above programs.
There are programs applicable to construction projects that call for protection of noise sensitive uses and use of best practices to minimize short-term noise impacts. However, the Noise Element contains no quantitative thresholds of significance for evaluating a project’s noise impacts.
City of Inglewood Municipal Code. The Chapter 5 (Offenses, Miscellaneous), Article 2 (Noise Regulations) of the City’s Municipal Code, establishes “criteria and standards for the regulation of noise levels within the community.” These regulations protect “the comfort, repose, health, or peace of residents in the area,” and define noise levels that are considered public nuisances and subject to abatement through the City’s enforce ment authority. They include the following key provisions:
Section 5-27: Base Ambient Noise Level: establishes base ambient noise levels within respective times and zones. Where actual noise measurements exceed base ambient noise levels as designated by Section 5-27 (see Table XIII-3), the measured noise level shall be employed as the base ambient noise level.
Table XIII-3
Base Ambient Noise Levels
Decibels Time Land Use Zone
45 dBA 10:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. Residential
55 dBA 7:00 A.M.-10:00 P.M. Residential
65 dBA Anytime Commercial and uses not specified
75 dBA Anytime Industrial
Source: City of Inglewood Municipal Code Section 5-27.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-158 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024
Sections 5-29: Excessive Noise-Unlawful and 5-30: Maximum Residential Noise Levels:
establish the City’s authority to regulate noise that “disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person residing in the area,” and identifies maximum lawful noise levels and maximum duration periods that may be generated on residential and nonresidential properties. Refer to Tables XIII-4 and XIII-5.
Table XIII-4
Maximum Residential Noise Levels – Exterior Noise
Noise Level Exceeded Maximum Duration Period
Base Ambient Noise Level (BANL) 30 minutes in any hou r 5 dB(A) above BANL 15 minutes in any hou r
10 dB(A) above BANL 5 minutes in any hou r
15 dB(A) above BANL 1 minute in any hou r
20 dB(A) above BANL Not permitted
Source: City of Inglewood Municipal Code.
Table XIII-5
Maximum Residential Noise Levels – Interior Noise
Noise Level Exceeded Maximum Duration Period
Base Ambient Noise Level (BANL) 5 minutes in any hou r
5 dB(A) above BANL 1 minute in any hou r
10 dB(A) above BANL Not permitted
Source: City of Inglewood Municipal Code.
Section 5-31: Maximum Nonresidential Noise Levels: Measured on the exterior of nonresidential properties, no noise level is permitted to exceed the respective base ambient noise levels for commercial and industrial land uses for a maximum cumulative duration of 30 minutes in any hour.
Section 5-39: Machinery, Equipment, Fans and Air-Conditioning, Noise Regulated: states that it is unlawful for any person to operate, cause to operate or permit the operation of any machinery, equipment, device, pump, fan, compressor, air-conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient noise base level by 5 dBA.
Section 5-41: Construction of Building and Projects, Noise Regulated: states that is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of 500 therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects or to operate any pile driver, pneumatic hammer, derrick, excavation or earth moving equipment, or other construction equipment between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the next day in such a manner that a reasonable person residing in 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-159 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless a permit has been obtained from the Permits and Licenses Committee of the City.
Section 5-43: Motor Driven Vehicles. Noise Regulated: prohibits the operation of any motor driven vehicle due to the nature of the operation of the vehicle, condition of the vehicle, or modification made to the vehicle, that would generate noise so that a reasonable person is caused discomfort or annoyance.
Section 5-45: Excessive Train Horn Noise Prohibited: states that it is unlawful for any person to operate or sound, or cause to be operated or sounded, between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the next day, a train horn or train whistle which creates noise in excess of 90 dBA at any place or point 300 hundred feet or more distant from the source of such sound.
Vibration
Federal. In 2018, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual to aid in the estimation and analysis of vibration impacts.
Typically, potential building and structural damages are the foremost concern when evaluating the impacts of construction-related vibrations. Table XIII-6 summarizes FTA’s vibration guidelines for building and structural damage. While these are reference values for vibration levels at 25 feet of distance, this analysis uses logarithmic equations to determine whether building damage would occur regardless of actual distance between construction activity and nearby buildings.
Table XIII-6
FTA Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Structure and Condition
Threshold Criteria
(in/sec PPV)
at 25 Feet
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual”, September 2018.
The FTA Assessment Manual also cites criteria for cases where more detailed analysis may be required. For buildings consisting of concrete wall and floor foundations, masonry or concrete walls, or stone masonry retaining walls, continuous vibrations of 0.3 inches per second PPV can be damaging. For buildings consisting of steel or reinforced concrete, such as factories, retaining walls, bridges, steel towers, open channels, underground chambers and tunnels with and without concrete alignment, continuous vibrations of 0.5 inches per second PPV can be damaging. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-160 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Existing Conditions
Noise Sensitive Receptors
The Project Site is located on a major east-west arterial in the City with a wide variety of land uses. Representative sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site include the following:
Crestridge Inn, 4230 Century Boulevard. This motel is located directly west of the Project Site, where it is approximately 5 feet fr om the common property line between the two parcels.
Super 8 Motel, 4238 Century Boulevard. This motel is also located directly west of the Project Site, where it is approximately 3 feet from the common property line between the two parcels.
Residences, 4200 block of 101st Street (south side), 50 feet south of the Project Site. Residences, Freeman Avenue (east side), 50 feet east of the Project Site. Residences, 4100 block of Century Boulevard; 110 feet northeast of the Project Site across Century Boulevard
Residences, 1200 block of Myrtle Street; 180 feet north of the Project Site across Century Boulevard.
Sea Breeze Inn, 4307 Century Boulevard; 320 feet northwest of the Project Site across Century Boulevard.
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
The Project Site is developed with a 137-room hotel and surface parking areas all of which have minor sources of on-site operational noise. These include wall-mounted air conditioning units that occasionally generate noise levels of approximately 81.9 dBA at one foot of distance. The primary source of most on-site noise is from the approx imately 1,088 daily vehicle trips traveling to and from the Project Site to the drop-off area off Century Boulevard or into the parking lot entrance off 101
st Street. There is minor noise from the operation of the parking lot, including tire friction as vehicles navigate to and from parking spaces, doors slamming, car alarms, and engine acceleration. Most of these sources are instantaneous (e.g., car alarm chirp, door slam) while others may last a few seconds. Intermittent noise from solid waste management and collection activities is of short duration, as are occasional loading of goods for the hotel.
The primary source of noise near the Project Site is vehicle traffic, as transportation noise is the main source of noise in urban environments, largely from the operation of vehicles with internal combustion engines and frictional contact with the ground and air. The major source of vehicle noise in the area is traffic on Century Boulevard, which carries about 37,612 daily vehicles between Freeman Avenue and Myrtle Avenue, equating to about 3,000 vehicles during the P.M. peak hour.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-161 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 In March 2022, DKA Planning took short-term noise measurements near the Project Site to determine the ambient noise conditions of the neighborhood at sensitive receptors. As shown in Table XIII-7, noise levels along roadways near the Project Site ranged from 56.8 to 65.8 dBA L eq,
which was generally consistent with the traffic volumes on local streets.
Table XIII-7
Existing Noise Levels
Noise
Measurement
Locations, Dates, and
Times
Primary
Noise
Source
Sound Levels Nearest
Sensitive
Receptor(s)
Base
Ambient
Noise
Level
Noise/Land Use
Compatibilityb
dBA
(Leq)
dBA
(CNEL)a
A. Super 8 Motel
March 8, 2022 at
8:03 A.M.
Traffic on
Century Blvd. 64.3 62.3 Sea Breeze Inn, Motels
– Century Blvd.
65 Conditionally
Acceptable
B. 1233 Myrtle Ave.
June 29, 2022 at
9:09 A.M.
Traffic on
Myrtle Ave. 62.3 60.3 Residences – Myrtle
Ave.
55 Normally
Acceptable
C. 4141 Century Blvd.
Mark 8, 2022 at 8:20
A.M.
Traffic on
Century Blvd. 65.8 63.8 Residences – Century
Blvd.
55 Conditionally
Acceptable
D. 4130 Freeman Ave.
March 8, 2022 at
7:44 A.M.
Traffic on
Century Blvd. 65.0 63.0
Residences – Freeman
Ave (10000 and 10100
blocks)
55 Conditionally
Acceptable
E. 4214 101 st St.
March 8, 2022 at
7:26 A.M.
Traffic on
101st St. 56.8 54.8 Residences – 101 st St.
55 Conditionally
Acceptable
a Estimated based on short-term (15-minute) noise measurement us ing Federal Transit Administration procedures from 2016 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Appendix E, Option 4.
b Pursuant to California Office of Planning and Research “General Plan Guidelines, Noise Element Guidelines, 2017. When noise measurements apply to two or more land use categories, the more noise-sensitive land use category is used. See Table XIII-2 for definition of compatibility designations.
Source: DKA Planning, 2022
Ambient noise levels are influenced by aircraft operations at LAX, located approximately two miles to the east, particularly with inbound traffic that approaches the airport from the east. As shown in Table XIII-8, aircraft from LAX represent a source of noise near the Project Site.
Table XIII-8
Aircraft Noise Levels in Inglewood (2013, dBA CNEL)
Address LAX Aircraft All Aircraft Community Total
944 S. Eucalyptus Ave. 61.6 61.6 60.8 64.2
215 W. Kelso St. 66.5 66.5 95.4 95.4
800 La Brea Dr. 67.4 67.4 83.4 83.5
11028 Doty Ave. 58.4 58.7 70.6 70.8
10220 S. Yukon Ave. 69.6 69.6 67.8 71.8
9601 6th Ave. 61.1 61.0 87.0 87.0
Source: Los Angeles World Airports. Noise Exposure Map Report Update; Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Part 150; August 2015. https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/noise-management/files/150- noise-exposure/final-lax-nem-entire-report.ashx
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-162 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 All measured noise levels were higher than the base ambient noise levels identified in the Section 5-27 of the City’s Municipal Code, with the exception of the Super 8 Motel. As such, the analysis below uses the Municipal Code’s base ambient noise level of 65 dBA as the existing noise level for any sensitive receptors in the commercial zone along Century Boulevard (e.g., Super 8 Motel).
Existing Ambient Vibration Levels
The Project Site includes a hotel facility with a surface parking lot, neither of which involves use of equipment or heavy-duty vehicles that generate substantive groundborne vibration.
The primary source of groundborne vibration near the Project Site is vehicle travel, including the 1,088 daily vehicle trips traveling to and from the Project Site. The blend of passenger vehicles, and trucks, with occasional delivery trucks, generate minimal levels of vibration. Consistent with federal guidance, “[i]t is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible…” As such, vehicle movement generates imperceptible ground vibration, with the occasional exception of heavy-duty vehicles that travel over speed bumps, potholes, and other street irregularities.
a) Would the project result in generation 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed below, with mitigation, the Project would not result in generation 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, and noise impacts would be less than significant.
Thresholds of Significance
Construction Noise Thresholds. While the City does not have adopted guidelines for determining the significance of temporary noise impacts, t he on-site construction noise impact would be considered significant if the following would occur:
Construction activities would elevate existing ambient exterior sound levels by 5 dBA (hourly Leq) or more at a noise-sensitive use during the daytime (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.) or 8:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., if a permit is approved allowing nighttime work.
Operational Noise Thresholds. In addition to applicable City standards and guidelines that would regulate or otherwise moderate the Project’s operational noise impacts, the following criteria are adopted to assess the impact of the Project’s operational noise sources:
Project operations would cause ambient noise levels at off-site locations to increase by 3 dBA CNEL or more to or within “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-163 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 noise/land use compatibility categories, as defined by the State’s 2017 General Plan Guidelines.
Project operations would cause any 5 dBA CNEL or greater noise increase.
Project Impacts
Construction
On-Site Construction Activities
Construction of the Project would generate noise during the construction process that would span approximately 26 months of demolition; grading; building construction of the garage, hotel, and residences; and application of architectural coatings, as shown in Table XIII-9. During all construction phases, noise-generating activities could occur at the Project Site between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, in accordance with Section 5-41 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Table XIII-9
Construction Schedule Assumptions
Phase Duration Notes
Demolition Months 1-3
Removal of 61,000 square feet of building floor area
and 40,502 square feet of asphalt/concrete parking
lot hauled 30 miles to landfill in 10-cubic yard
capacity trucks.
Site Preparation Month 3 Removal of trees, plants, landscaping, weeds Grading/Shoring Months 3-7
Approximately 112,813 cubic yards of soil (including
swell factors for topsoil and dry clay) hauled 30 miles to landfill in 10-cubic-yard capacity trucks.
Below Grade
Parking
Construction
Months 6-9 Pour in place construction.
Above Grading
Parking
Construction
Months 9-18 Pour in place construction.
Building
Construction Months 9-26
Includes framing, welding; installing electrical,
plumbing, and HVAC, insulation, interior drywall,
flooring.
Architectural
Coatings Months 19-26 Application of interior and exterior coatings and sealants.
Source: DKA Planning, 2022.
Noise levels would generally peak during the demolition and grading phases, when diesel-fueled heavy-duty equipment like excavators and dozers are used to move large amounts of debris and dirt, respectively. This equipment is mobile in nature and does not always operate at in a steady- state mode full load, but rather powers up and down depending on the duty cycle needed to conduct work. As such, equipment is occasionally idle during which time no noise is generated. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-164 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 During other phases of construction (e.g., building construction, architectural coatings), noise impacts are generally lesser than during demolition and grading because they are less reliant on using heavy equipment with internal combustion engines. Smaller equipment such as forklifts, generators, and various powered hand tools and pneumatic equipment would generally be utilized. Off-site secondary noises would be generated by construction worker vehicles, vendor deliveries, and haul trucks.
As shown in Table XIII-10, when considering ambient noise levels, the use of multiple pieces of powered equipment simultaneously would increase ambient noise negligibly. However, construction activities could elevate noise levels at the residences across 101 st Street by up to
8.4 dBA Leq. This noise level would exceed the significance threshold of 5 dBA and be considered significant but mitigable.
Table XIII-10
Construction Noise Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors (Unmitigated) Receptor
Maximum
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Existing
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
New
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Increase
(dBA
Leq)
Potentially
Significant
?
1. Sea Breeze Inn 48.9 65.0* 65.1 0.1 No
2. Residences –
Myrtle Ave.
45.7 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
3. Residences –
Century Blvd.
57.8 65.8 66.4 0.6 No
4. Motels –
Century Blvd.
53.3 65.0* 65.3 0.3 No
5. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10000
block)
63.0 65.0 67.1 2.1 No
6. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10100
block)
59.5 65.0 66.1 1.1 No
7. Residences –
101st St.
64.5 56.8 65.2 8.4 Yes
* Reflects Section 5-27 of the Municipal Code base ambient noise level for commercial zones. If measured noise levels were used, construction impacts would still be less than 5 dBA Leq threshold of significance.
Source: DKA Planning, 2022 and SoundPLAN Essential model (version 5.1).
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-165 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Mitigation Measures
NOISE-1 The Project developer shall install temporary noise barriers and insulation blankets along the southern perimeter of the Project Site along 101st Street at least 8.2 feet in height and a surface density of four pounds per square foot or more with no gaps between barrier panels and between the barrier and the ground.
As shown in Table XIII-11, Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would ensure that construction noise levels would not elevate ambient noise levels at any nearby sensitive receptors by more than 5 dBA L
eq. Therefore, with mitigation, the Project’s noise impact associated with on-site construction activities would be less than significant.
Table XIII-11
Construction Noise Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors (Mitigated) Receptor
Maximum
Construction
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Existing
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
New
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Increase
(dBA
Leq)
Potentially
Significant
?
1. Sea Breeze Inn 49.0 65.0* 65.1 0.1 No
2. Residences –
Myrtle Ave.
45.9 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
3. Residences –
Century Blvd.
58.0 65.8 66.5 0.7 No
4. Motels –
Century Blvd.
53.3 65.0* 65.3 0.3 No
5. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10000
block)
63.2 65.0 67.2 2.2 No
6. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10100
block)
58.8 65.0 65.9 0.9 No
7. Residences –
101st St.
59.8 56.8 61.6 4.8 No
* Reflects Section 5-27 of the Municipal Code base ambient noise level for commercial zones.
Source: DKA Planning, 2022.
Off-Site Construction Activities
The Project would generate noise at off-site locations from haul trucks moving debris and dirt from the Project Site during demolition and grading activities, respectively. Other sources of off-site noise would include vendor and contractor trips and worker commute trips. These activities would generate up to an estimated 510 peak-hourly passenger-car-equivalency (PCE) vehicle trips 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-166 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 (refer to Table XIII-12) during the grading phase, which includes converting noise from heavy- duty truck trips to an equivalent number of PCE trips. This would represent approximately 17 percent of traffic volumes on Century Boulevard, which would be used as part of the haul route.
As Century Boulevard carries approximately 3,000 vehicles between Freeman Avenue and Myrtle Avenue in the peak hour of traffic, the Project’s construction-related trips would not double traffic volumes (i.e., a 100 percent increase), the threshold at which traffic noise levels could increase by 3 dBA or more. Therefore, noise impacts from construction-related traffic would be less than significant.
Table XIII-12
Construction Vehicle Trips (Maximum Hourly)
Construction Phase Worker
Trips
Vendor
Trips
Haul
Trips
Total
Trips
Percent of
Peak Hour
Trips on
Century
Blvd.a
Demolition 6 0 17 b 23 0.8
Site Preparation 4 0 0 4 0.1
Grading 5 0 505 c 510 17.0
Construction: Below Grade
Parking 148 253
d 0 401 13.4
Construction: Above Grade
Parking 148 253 d 0 401 13.4
Construction: Hotel and
Apartments 148 253 d 0 401 13.4
Architectural Coatings 89 0 0 89 3.0
a Percent of existing traffic volumes on Centur y Boulevard between Freeman Avenue and Myrtle Avenue.
b The Project would generate approximately 376 haul trips over a 62-day period with seven-hour workdays. Because haul trucks emit more noise than passenger vehicles, a 19.1 passenger car equivalency (PCE) was used to convert haul truck trips to a passenger car equivalent. c The project would generate 22,563 haul trips over 122 days with seven-hour workdays. Assumes a
19.1 PCE.
d This phase would generate about 93 vendor truck tr ips daily over a seven-hour workday. Assumes a
19.1 PCE.
Source: DKA Planning, 2022
Operation
On-Site Operational Noise
During the Project’s operational phase, the Project would produce noise from both on- and off- site sources. As discussed below, the Project would not result in an exposure of persons to or a generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-167 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. As illustrated in Table XIII-13, the Project would not increase surrounding noise levels by more than 5 dBA CNEL, the threshold of significance utilized in this analysis. As a result, the Project’s on-site and offsite operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment
The Project would operate mechanical equipment in several locations throughout the development, including an outdoor space on the southeast corner of the 12 th floor. This area would be dedicated to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) equipment, approximately 122 feet above grade. This would include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment that heats and cools large volumes of air. This equipment would include a number of sound sources, including compressors, condenser fans, supply fans, return fans, and exhaust fans that could generate a sound pressure level of up to 81.9 dBA at one foot.
Noise levels from operating this MEP equipment on nearby sensitive receptors would be negligible for several reasons. First, there would be no line of sight from the MEP area to sensitive receptors. Because the residences near the Project Site are one to two stories in height, there would be no sound path from the HVAC equipment to residences that would be over 100 feet lower. Second, the presence of the proposed building’s edge would create an effective noise barrier that would further reduce noise levels from equipment by 8 dBA or more. A 12-foot and 6- inch barrier around the MEP area would further shield sensitive receptors near the Project Site.
As illustrated in Table XIII-13, noise from outdoor MEP equipment would negligibly elevate noise levels. Compliance with Section 5-39 of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure the operation of any machinery would not elevate noise levels at any off-site locations by 5 dBA. Any booster (supply and exhaust) fans that ventilate the subterranean garage would be located on the above- ground garage levels. Otherwise, all equipment (e.g., electrical room, transformer, elevator equipment (including hydraulic pump, switches, controllers), house pool and spa equipment and pumps, utility fan rooms, other operational equipment) would be fully enclosed within the structure, shielded from outside sources, and would therefore produce minimal noise impacts for off-site sensitive receptors. This includes MEP vaults in the basement garage, ground level, and the aforementioned 12
th floor.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-168 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XIII-13
Composite Operational Noise Levels
Receptor
Existing
Ambient
Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)
Calculated Project-Related Noise Sources
(dBA CNEL)
Project
Composite
Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)
Ambient +
Project
Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)
Significance
Criterion
(dBA CNEL)
Significant
Impact? Traffic
Mechanical
Equipment
Loading
and Trash
Compactor
Outdoor
Spaces
1. Sea Breeze Inn 63.0* 59.8 24.4 0 30. 7 59.8 64.7 68.0 No
2. Residences –
Myrtle Ave.
56.2 37.9 23.9 0 31.3 38.9 60.3 61.2 No
3. Residences –
Century Blvd.
63.8 59.3 29.6 0 34.3 59.3 64.7 68.8 No
4. Motels –
Century Blvd.
63.0* 59.8 13.5 0 31. 3 59.8 64.7 68.0 No
5. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10000 block)
63.0 56.6 33.6 0 27.8 56.6 63.9 68.0 No
6. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10100 block)
63.0 53.3 33.0 14.6 25. 6 53.3 63.4 68.0 No
7. Residences –
101st St.
54.8 57.6 13.5 28.2 31. 3 57.6 59.4 59.8 No
* Reflects Section 5-27 of the Municipal Code base ambient noise level for commercial zones.
Source: DKA Planning, 2024.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-169 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Outdoor Uses
While most operations would be conducted inside the proposed building, outdoor activities would also generate noise. This would include human conversation, trash collection, landscape maintenance, and commercial loading. These are discussed below. Human conversation. Noise could include passi ve activities such as human conversation and socializing in outdoor spaces. This includes the following:
o Street-level café tables along the Century Boulevard frontage. o Interior courtyard off 101
st Street would be available for passive recreation. Any noise would be open to 101 st Street but shielded from off-site sensitive receptors to the north, west, and east.
o Private decks for some condominiums. These outdoor spaces would be recessed from the edge of the building to shield any noise on three sides. Private endless pools and/or Jacuzzis would be located on some decks.
o Roof-top swimming pool and patio. While no amplified music is anticipated at this facility, this analysis assumes daily operation from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
All these areas would be used for passive socializing and recreation. There would be intermittent activities that would produce negligible noise levels from human speech, based on the Lombard effect. This phenomenon recognizes that voice noise levels in face- to-face conversations generally increase proportionally to background ambient noise levels, but only up to approximately 67 dBA at a reference distance of one meter.
Specifically, vocal intensity increases about 0.38 dB for every 1.0 dB increase in noise levels above 55 dB, meaning people talk slightly above ambient noise levels in order to communicate. Any conversations on the private patios would be intermittent and would not elevate noise levels at the adjacent residences over a 24-hour period by 5 dBA CNEL or more.
Trash collection. On-site trash and recyclable materials for residents, the hotel, and commercial uses would be managed from the dock area on the first floor of the parking garage. Haul trucks would access solid waste from 101
st Street at least once weekly,
where refuse trucks would use trash compactors and hydraulics that generate noise.
These noise levels would reach approximately 71 dBA L
eq and 66 dBA L eq for collection
trucks and trash compactors, respectively, at 50 feet of distance and be similar in impact to existing trash and recycling service for the existing hotel. 61 As summarized in Table
XIII-11, these intermittent trash collection activities would not substantially elevate 24-hour noise levels at off-site locations by 5 dBA CNEL or more.
61 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club reference noise level, 2003. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-170 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Landscape maintenance. Noise from gas-powered leaf flowers, lawnmowers, and other landscape equipment can generate substantial bursts of noise during regular maintenance. For example, gas-powered leaf blowers and other equipment with two- stroke engines can generate 100 dBA L
eq and cause nuisance or potential noise impacts
for nearby receptors. Any intermittent use of landscape equipment would operate during the day and would represent a negligible impact that would not increase 24-hour noise levels at off-site locations by 5 dBA CNEL or more.
Commercial loading. On-site loading and unloading activities would be managed at the entrance to the dock area on the first floor of the parking garage, which would be accessible from 101
st Street. Light- and medium-duty vehicles and trucks would perform their activities within the enclosed dock area, largely shielded from off-site receptors; as a result, there would be negligible noise impacts on off-site receptors and impacts would not increase CNEL noise levels at off-site locations (refer to Table XIII-13). In addition, compliance with of the City’s Municipal Code would help ensure that any noise level does not exceed base ambient noise levels for commercial uses for more than 30 minutes in any hour.
Auto-Related Activities
The majority of vehicle-related noise at the Project Site would come from vehicles entering and exiting the development. During the P.M. peak hour, up to 378 vehicles would generate noise in and out of the Project Site. Access would be located at the front entrance on Freeman Avenue, which would access the underground parking garage. Secondary access would be available off 101
st Street, where vehicles could access the underground garage or the above-ground parking levels. As shown in Table XIII-13, the contribution of traffic to and from the Project Site would have a minimal impact on noise levels at local receptors.
Parking garage noise would include tire friction as vehicles navigate to and from parking spaces, doors slamming, car alarms, and minor engine acceleration. Most of these sources are instantaneous (e.g., car alarm chirp, door slam) while others may last a few seconds. Regardless, the Project’s parking garage activities would be within the enclosed garage structure. As existing parking activities are done in an open-air surface parking lot, the Project could reduce parking- related noise.
As summarized in Table XIII-13, the combined noise impact of all these operational sources on sensitive receptors near the Project Site would not elevate current ambient noise levels by 5 dBA CNEL or more. As a result, the impact of the Project’s on-site operational noise sources would be less than significant.
Off-Site Operational Noise
During the P.M. peak hour, approximately 378 vehicles would travel to and from the Project Site.
This would represent about 12.6 percent of traffic volumes on Century Boulevard, which carries about 3,000 vehicles between Freeman Avenue and Myrtle Avenue in the peak hour of traffic.
Because it takes a doubling of traffic volumes (i.e., 100 percent) to increase ambient noise levels 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-171 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 by 3 dBA Leq, the Project’s traffic would neither increase ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by 3 dBA or more into “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise/land use compatibility categories, nor increase ambient noise levels 5 dBA or more. Therefore, the Project’s offsite operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed below, the Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold of Significance
There are no adopted City standards or other applicable regulations that would govern the Project’s vibration impacts. The FTA’s criteria in its 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual have been used where applicabl e and relevant to assist in assessing groundborne vibration levels.
Project Impacts
Construction
Construction equipment can produce groundborne vibration based on equipment and methods employed. While this spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance, buildings on nearby soil can be affected. This ranges from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels. Table XIII-14 summarizes vibratory levels for common construction equipment.
Groundborne vibration would be generated by construction activities at the Project Site. As a result of equipment that could include on-site bulldozer operations or the vibrational equivalent, vibration velocities of up to 0.171 inches per second PPV are projected to occur at the Crestridge Inn and Super 8 Motel, the nearest structures. This impact is below the 0.20 inches per second PPV threshold from FTA that is considered potentially harmful to Class III buildings. And as shown in Table XIII-14, a more distant building would experience even lower levels of groundborne vibration. Other potential construction activities would produce less vibration and have lesser potential impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, construction-related structural vibration impacts would be considered less than significant.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-172 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XIII-14
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Approximate PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)
Pile Driver (impact) 0.644
Pile Drive (sonic) 0.170
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202
Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Truck 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
As shown in Table XIII-15, the Project’s estimated construction vibration impacts at the nearest off-site structures would not exceed FTA thresholds for potential damage. As a result, construction activities would not compromise the structures near the Project Site. Therefore, the Project’s vibration impacts as generated by on-site constr uction activities would be considered less than significant.
Table XIII-15
Building Damage Vibration Levels – On-Site Sources
Off-Site
Receptor
Location
Distance
to
Project
Site
(feet)a
Vibration Velocity Levels at Off-Site Sensitive
Receptors from Construction Equipment
(in/sec PPV)
Significance
Criteria
(PPV)
Potentially
Significant
Impact? Large
Bulldozer
Caisson
Drilling
Loaded
Trucks
Jack-
hammer
Small
Bulldozer
FTA
Reference
Vibration
Level (25
Feet)
N/A 0.089 0.089 0.076 0.035 0.003 -- --
Crestridge
Inn 15 0.148 0.148 0.127 0.058 0.005 0.20 b No
Super 8
Motel 13 0.171 0.171 0.146 0.067 0.006 0.20 b No
Residences,
101st St. 60 0.037 0.037 0.032 0.015 0.001 0.20 b No
Residences,
Freeman
Ave
60 0.037 0.037 0.032 0.015 0.001 0.20 b No
a Includes a ten-foot setback for equipment maneuverability. b FTA criterion for Category III (non-engineered timber and masonry buildings).
Source: DKA Planning, 2022.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-173 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Operation
During operation of the mixed-use housing, hotel, and entertainment facility, there would be no significant stationary sources of groundborne vibr ation, such as heavy equipment or industrial operations. Operational groundborne vibration in the Project Site’s vicinity would be generated by its related vehicle travel on local roadways. However, road vehicles rarely create vibration levels perceptible to humans. As a result, the Project’s long-term vibration impacts would be less than significant.
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. The Project Site is located approximately 1.75 miles east of Aviation Boulevard, which serves as the eastern boundary for the majority of LAX activities. The 1991 ALUP, as revised in December 2004, defined a planning boundary for LAX by identifying a CNEL noise contours which identify the level of compatibility for land uses within the planning area boundaries. Residential uses are identified as non-compatible for parcels exposed to 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Commercial land uses are identified as compatible with 65 and 70 dBA CNEL noise levels. The CFR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines categorizes hotel uses as a transient lodging form of residential.
The Project Site is not within the Runway Protection Zone of the 1991 ALUP, as revised in December 2004. This is confirmed in the 2015 LAX Noise Exposure Map Report Update (Figure 3), which shows only the southeasternmost portion of the Project Site as located just inside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.
62 As noted earlier, the Project Site is not regulated by the LAX Plan or the LAX Specific Plan.
As a result, the Project would not be subject to land-use restrictions or noise insulation requirements for residential and other uses to reduce noise exposure. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project.
Cumulative Impacts
There are two related projects located in proximity to the Project Site, including Related Project #4 located at 4049-4055 Century Boulevard (750 feet east of the Project Site) and Related Project #3 located at 616-620 East 99
th Street (800 feet east of the Project Site). As demonstrated by the analysis below, cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant.
62 The figure is included in Appendix H.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-174 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XIII-16
Cumulative Construction Noise Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Receptors Receptor
Maximum
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Existing
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
New
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Increase
(dBA
Leq)1
Potentially
Significant
?
1. Sea Breeze Inn 49.1 65.0 2 65.1 0.1 No
2. Residences –
Myrtle Ave. 46.6 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
3. Residences –
Century Blvd. 58.0 65.8 66.5 0.7 No
4. Motels –
Century Blvd. 53.3 65.0* 65.3 0.3 No
5. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10000
block)
63.0 65.0 67.1 2.1 No
6. Residences –
Freeman Ave. (10100
block)
58.9 65.0 66.0 1.0 No
7. Residences –
101st St. 60.0 56.8 61.7 4.9 No
1 Assumes implantation of Mitigation Me asure NOISE-1 identified previously. 2 Reflects Section 5-27 of the Municipal Code ba se ambient noise level for commercial zones.
Source: DKA Planning, 2024.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-175 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes demolition and removal of a hotel from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, which would include residential, hotel, and event space uses.
The Project Site is located within SCAG’s jurisdiction. SCAG’s mandated responsibilities include development plans and policies with respect to the region’s population growth, transportation programs, air quality, housing, and economic development. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes the following growth forecast for population, households, and employment for the City:
63 Population: 114,300 persons in 2016 and 137,100 in 2045 Households: 37,500 households in 2016 and 47,700 in 2045 Employment: 33,800 jobs in 2016 and 45,900 in 2045
Table XIV-1 lists SCAG’s forecasts for population, housing, and employment for the City, as well as the number and percent change.64
63 SCAG, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communi ties Strategy, Demographics and Growth Forecast, Table 14, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file -attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth- forecast.pdf?1606001579.
64 Employment information is provi ded for informational purposes only. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-176 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XIV-1
Population, Housing, and Employment
Forecasts for the City
Based on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Year Population Households Employment1
20222 119,017 39,610 36,303
20253 121,376 40,666 37,555
2045 137,100 47,700 45,900
Change 2022 to 20253
Number
Changed 2,359 1,055 1,252
Percent
Changed 1.98% 2.66% 3.44%
Change 2025 to 2045
Number
Changed 15,724 7,034 8,345
Percent
Changed 12.95% 17.29% 22.22%
1 Employment information is provided for information purposes only. 2 Population, housing and employment rate data fo r 2022 (baseline year) and 2025 (anticipated buildout year of the Project) was calculated based on a linear interpolation of growth projections in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
3 Represents a comparison of baseline year to Project buildout year.
Project Impacts
Construction
The construction activities associated with t he Project would create temporary construction- related jobs. Nevertheless, the work requirements of most construction activities are highly specialized, so that construction workers remain at a job site only for the time in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. Thus, construction workers would not be anticipated to relocate their residence to the Project area and would not induce substantial population growth and/or require permanent housing. Therefore, the Project’s population growth impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.
Operation
Indirect Growth
The Project includes infill development of a site that is located in an urbanized area. The Project would be served by existing infrastructure and would not require or include the development of any new utility or roadway infrastructure beyond what is required to accommodate the Project 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-177 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 only. Thus, the Project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth, and no impacts related to indirect population growth would occur as a result of the Project.
Direct Growth
The Project Site is currently developed with a 137-room hotel and associated surface parking.
The Project includes demolition and removal of all existing uses from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, which would include 11 condominium units, 118 serviced apartment units, 175 hotel rooms, and 54,700-square-foot event space (including restaurant, bar, and retail space).
As shown on Table XIV-2, the Project’s residential population would represent approximately
16.23 percent of the forecasted growth between 2022 and 2025 and approximately 2.43 percent of the forecasted growth between 2025 and 2045. Additionally, the Project’s housing units would represent approximately 12.22 percent of the forecasted growth between 2022 and 2025 and approximately 1.83 percent of the forecasted growth between 2025 and 2045. Thus, the Project’s population and housing growth would fall within the forecasted growth for the City. Thus, the Project would not represent substantial or significant unplanned growth as compared to projected growth for the City. Therefore, Project impacts related to population and housing growth would be less than significant.
Table XIV-2
Project Estimated Comparison for the City
Based on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Project Comparison Amount1 % of Comparison
As compared to Growth Forecast from 2022 to 2025
383 residents2 2,359 16.23%
129 units 1,055 12.22%
380 jobs3 1,252 30.35%
As compared to Growth Forecast from 2025 to 2045
383 residents 15,724 2.43%
129 units 7,034 1.83%
380 jobs3 8,345 4.55%
1 Refer to Table XIV-1.
2 Assumes 2.97 persons per household. Source: US Census. 3 Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis, LLG Engineers, June 14, 2024 in Appendix I. City of Inglewood VMT Methodology assumes 12 employees per 10 hotel guestrooms and 4 employees per 1,000 square feet of event and entertainment floor area.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-178 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No housing is located on the Project Site. As such, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impacts related to this issue would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City that are within 0.5 miles of the Project Site (refer to Table 1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). The related projects could result in a net increase in the number of housing units and associated population and the amount of employment in the Project Site area and could contribute to growth in the City. However, as discussed previously, the Project would not result in unplanned growth. Thus, the Project would not have the potential to contribute to any cumulative impacts related to unplanned growth. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to unplanned growth would be less than significant.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-179 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial ad verse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered gover nmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the cons truction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes demolition and removal of a 137-room hotel from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, including residential, hotel, and event space uses, which could result in an increased demand for fire protection services.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides fire protection and paramedic services to residents and businesses within the City, including to the existing developed uses on the Project Site. Los Angeles County Fire Station No. 18, located at 4518 Lennox Boulevard approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the Project Site, is the closest fire station to the Project Site.
The proximity of the Project Site to this fire station would allow for a relatively quick response time. In addition, the Project would be constructed in compliance with the requirements of the City’s Fire Code (Chapter 6 of the City’s Municipal Code), which requires that there is adequate fire flow serving the site, fire prevention and suppression measures, fire access, and a sufficient number of hydrants.
The Project Applicant would be required to submit Project plans to LACFD and incorporate LACFD fire protection and suppression features that are appropriate for the Project. Compliance with the City’s Fire Code and the inclusion of the LACFD fire prevention measures would ensure that the Project would not require the LACFD to expand existing facilities or construct new facilities. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-180 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City that are within 0.5 miles of the Project Site (refer totable 1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). Implementation of the related projects could result in a net increase in the number of residents and employees in the Project Site area and could further increase the demand for fire protection services. Cumulative development requires the LACFD to continually evaluate the need for new or physically altered facilities in order to maintain adequate service ratios. Similar to the Project, the related projects would be subject to the City’s Fire Code through the process of compliance, the ability of the LACFD to provide adequate facilities to accommodate future growth and maintain acceptable levels of service would be ensured. Furthermore, the increased demands for additional LACFD staffing, equipment, and facilities would be funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., property taxes and government funding) to which the Project and related projects would contribute. Therefore, the cumulative impact to fire protection would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Inglewood Police Department (IPD) provides police protection services to residents and businesses within the City, including to the existing developed uses on the Project Site. IPD headquarters is located at One West Manchester Boulevard approximately 2.3 miles north of the Project Site.
The Project includes demolition and removal of a 137-room hotel from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, including residential, hotel, and event space uses, which could result in an increased demand for police protection services. Given the net increased intensity of use of the Project Site that would occur as a result of the Project, it is possible that the Project could result in an increased need for police protection services at the site. However, the Project would include security features, such as secured parking facilities, entrances/exists, on-site security personnel, and surveillance cameras. Additionally, the Project would be required to submit Project plans to the IPD Crime Prevention unit for review and would be required to incorporate any additional security features identified by the IPD. The Project would not result in the need for IPD to expand existing facilities or develop new facilities.
Therefore, Project impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City that are within 0.5 miles of the Project Site (refer to Table 1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). Implementation of the related projects could result in a net increase in the number of residents and employees in the Project Site area and could further increase the demand for police protection services. Related projects would be reviewed by City Police Department staff prior to development permit approval to ensure adequate security measures are provided for each site-specific cumulative development project in the City. Because the City is currently urbanized and future site-specific projects would consist of infill development and would not require physical expansion of the geography served by IPD, it is anticipated that future development could result in the need for additional sworn officers and equipment but not for a 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-181 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 new or expanded station. Therefore, the cumulative impact on police protection services would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes demolition and removal of a 137-room hotel from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, including residential, and event space uses, which could result in a demand for school services.
However, pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, the applicant would be required to pay developer school impact fees to Inglewood Unified School District (IUSD). Pursuant to Section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees “...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, in volving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Therefore, Project impacts on school services would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City that are within 0.5 miles of the Project Site (refer to Table 1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). The related projects could result in an increase in the number of families with school-age children in the Project Site area. However, similar to the applicant of the Project, the applicants of all the related projects would be required to pay the state-mandated applicable school fees to the IUSD to ensure that no significant impacts on school services would occur. Therefore, cumulative impacts on school services would be less than significant. d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. Parks and recreational amenities in the City include the following:
Siminski Park
Darby Park (playground, picnic and sports areas)
Ashwood Park (tennis, volleyball, and basketball courts, wading pool, and workout area) Grevillea Art Park
Center Park
Queen Park Learning Garden
Rogers Park (playground, recreation building, wading pool, and various sporting fields) Edward Vincent Jr. Park (multiple playgrounds, athletic facilities, picnic areas, pool) North Park
The Project includes demolition and removal of a 137-room hotel from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, including residential, hotel, and event space uses. The residential portion of the Project (129 units or 383 new residents) could result in a demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the Project would incorporate on-site open space and recreational amenities, including courtyards, sky decks, and swimming and exercise facilities, for Project occupants and guests. Additionally, per Section 12- 105.9 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project would be required to pay a development impact 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-182 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 fee to offset demand for and impacts on parks and recreational facilities as a result of the Project.
Thus, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government al 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 or other performance objectives for parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, Project impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City that are within 0.5 miles of the Project Site (refer to Table 1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). The related projects could result in an increase demand for parks and recreational facilities. Similar to the Project, the applicants of the residential related projects would be required to comply with the City’s open space requirements and to pay fees in accordance with Section 12-105.9 of the City’s Municipal Code to offset demand for and impacts on parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Library Services
Less Than Significant Impact. The Inglewood Public Library, the Lennox Library, and the Crenshaw Imperial Branch Library are located within a 2.0-mile radius of the Project Site. The Project includes demolition and removal of a 137-room hotel from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, including residential, hotel, and event space uses. The residential portion of the Project (129 units or 383 new residents) could result in a demand for library services. The Inglewood Public Library System is financed by the City’s General Fund, the majority of whose revenues come from property taxes, utility user taxes, sales and use taxes, and motor vehicle in-lieu taxes. The Project would contribute to the financing of library services through property taxes and utility user taxes, which would offset the Project’s demand for library services. Thus, the Project would not 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 or other performance objectives for library services. Therefo re, Project impacts on library services would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City that are within 0.5 miles of the Project Site (refer to Table 1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). Implementation of the related projects in concert with the Project could increase the demand for library services in the Project Site area. As with the Project, the related projects would contribute to the financing of library services through property taxes and utility user taxes, which would offset cumulative demand for library services. Therefore, cumulative impacts on library services would be less than significant.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-183 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XVI. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substant ial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
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?
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. Refer to the response to Checklist Question XI(a)(iv) (Public Services – Parks). As discussed there, parks and recreational amenities in the City include the following:
Siminski Park
Darby Park (playground, picnic and sports areas)
Ashwood Park (tennis, volleyball, and basketball courts, wading pool, and workout area) Grevillea Art Park
Center Park
Queen Park Learning Garden
Rogers Park (playground, recreation building, wading pool, and various sporting fields) Edward Vincent Jr. Park (multiple playgrounds, athletic facilities, picnic areas, pool) North Park
The Project includes demolition and removal of a 137-room hotel from the Project Site and development of the site with a 333,500-square-foot mixed-use building, including residential, hotel, and event space uses. The residential portion of the Project (129 units or 383 new residents) could result in a demand for parks. However, the Project would incorporate on-site open space and recreational amenities, including courtyards, sky decks, and swimming and exercise facilities, for Project occupants and guests. Additionally, per Section 12-105.9 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project would be required to pay a development impact fee to offset demand for and impacts on parks and recreational facilities as a result of the Project. Thus, the Project would not 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. Therefore, Project impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-184 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 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? No Impact. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
No impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project.
Cumulative Impacts
Refer to the response to Checklist Question XI(a)(iv) (Public Services – Parks).
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-185 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a.
Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or poli cy
addressin
g the circulation system, including tran sit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b.
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelin es
se
ction 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c.
Substantially increase hazards due to a geomet ric
desi
gn feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipm
ent)?
d.
Result in inadequate emergency access?
The information and ana
lysis presented below is based primarily on the following source (refer to Appendix I):
Transportation Impact Analysis, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, August 16, 2024. a) Would the project
conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less T
han Significant Impact. The methodology for determining a project's transportation impact associated with conflicts with plans, programs, ordinances, or policies is described in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines as follows:
A project that generally conforms with and does not obstruct the City’s development policies and standards will generally be considered to be consistent. The Project Applicant should review the documents and ordinances identified in the TIA Guidelines (refer to Table 3.1-1 thereof) for City plans, policies, programs, ordinances, and standards relevant to determining project consistency.
The City has prepared and adopted many plans, programs, ordinances, or policies that establish the framework for transportation planning involving all travel modes. These policies have overall goals to provide a safe, accessible, and sustainable transportation infrastructure for all users.
Generally, the City’s transportation policies or standards that protect the environment are outlined to support multi-modal transportation options resulting in a reduction of VMT. A project would not specifically be shown to result in an impact by virtue of not implementing a plan, program, ordinance, or policy as a whole, since many of these are implemented by the City over time, and over a broader area, but the intention of this threshold is to ensure that proposed development projects and plans do not preclude the City from implementing these plans, programs, ordinances, 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-186 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 or programs. The project should coordinate with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s current list of plans, programs, ordinances, or policies.
As confirmed in Table XVII-1, the Project would not conflict with the relevant City plans, programs, ordinances, or policies and does not include any features that would preclude the City from completing and complying with these guiding documents and policy objectives. The Project would not conflict with any plans or policies that govern the public right-of-way, such as Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. As discussed in Section VIII (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the Project has been found to be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction strategies in 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would comply with existing applicable City ordinances and other requirements pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code. Thus, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, Project impacts related to this issue would be less than significant.
Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion General Plan Circulation Element (1992)
The Circulation Element of the City of Inglewood
General Plan identifies the system of freeways, major
and minor arterials, and collector streets needed to
carry traffi c within and through the City. The primary
purpose of the Circulation Element, as stated within, is to require that the provision of adequate street access and traffic capacity is considered for current and future land use needs. The Circulation Element also describes
transit services within the City and designates truck
routes and bicycle routes throughout the City.
The I -405 Freeway is a north -south freeway that runs
through the western portion of the City, and the I- 105 Freeway is an east -west freeway that runs along the
southernmost portion of the City. The Circulation
Element defines the following classifications of streets:
Major Arterials. Major arterials are the most
important surface streets, functioning as primary
intercity routes and collecting and distributing a
large portion of local tra ffic. Major arterials are
typically designed to carry over 30,000 vehicles
per day with a minimum of two travel lanes in
each direction and a separate me
dian lane to
accommoda
te left-turn movement.
Minor Arterials. Minor arterials, also referred to as secondary a
rterials, are similar to major arterials
except that t
hey may be discontinuous within the
City and m
ay carry less tra ffic volume. Minor
Consistent: Based on review of the Circulation
Element, the street cla
ssifications for roadways
within the immediate vicinity of the Project (i.e.,
Century Boulevard, Freeman Avenue, 101
st
Street, etc.) would not change due to the Project.
Furthermore, street widenings are not required or
recommended as a result of the Project.
In addition, the Circulation Element designates
truck routes and bicycle routes within the City.
Century Boulevard is designated as a truck route,
and the Project would not disrupt the flow of trucks
along the Century Boulevard corridor. While
Century Boulevard, Freeman Avenue, and 101
st
Street have not been identified as potential bicycle
routes within the City, the Project would not
preclude the City from installing bicycle
infrastructure along these roadways in the future.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the
Circulation Element.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-187 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion arterials are typically designed to carry 15,000 to
30,000 vehicles per day with a minimum of two
travel lanes in each direction. A separate median
lane to accommodate left- turn movement is
desirable if there is sufficient roadway width.
Collectors. Collectors are transitional street s
between arterials and local streets, collectin g
vehicle
s from the local street system an d
transporting them to the arterial system.
Collectors
may also provide cross- city access.
Collectors may be designed to carry up to 15,000
vehicle
s per day, although 3,000 to 10,000
vehicles is more typical. Collectors will have at
least one travel lane in each direction, althoug h
two travel lanes may be
utilized depending upon
volume and function.
General Plan Land Use Element (2020)
The Project is currently designated for Commercial Land Uses, but the Project includes a request to designate the site for the Commercial Residential land use designation.
This designation is intended to allow for the development of mixed commercial and residential uses pursuant to the City’s Planned Assembly Development (PAD)
procedures
Consistent. The Project includes the
development of a mixed -use building, which
would include residential, hotel, and
event/entertainment uses. The ground floor of the
building would contain the hotel lobby, event
space, and parking, with all residential units on
floors 7 through 12. The residential and non -
residential portions of the Project would be
integrated through design, lighting, and
wayfinding signage, but would be separated by
floors. The proposed building would be oriented
toward Century Boulevard, Freeman Avenue,
and 101
st Street, providing the primary pedestrian
access on Century Boulevard and the primary
vehicular access on 101
st Street.
As part of the Project’s land use entitlement
requests, a PAD approval and corresponding
Special Use Permit approval would be requested,
which would establish Project-specific use and
development standards intended to ensure the
development of the Project as a high-quality
integrated mixed use development. The Project’s
consistency with primary purpose of the
Commercial Residential land use designation
therefore supports the alignment of the Project with
the aspects of the Land Use Element that relate to
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-188 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion the circulation system, including transit, roadways,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Envision Inglewood - 2019 City of Inglewood Mobility Plan (2019) The Envision Inglewood - 2019 City of Inglewood
Mobility Plan (“Mobility Plan”) is designed to provide the framework for addressing current and future
infrastructure needs in a responsible, sustainable
manner. It also provides the tools necessary to help the City assess future transportation infrastructure
demands as it evaluates proposed development
projects and the potential for public- private
partnerships, considering all implementation tools.
The Mobility Plan establishes the vision, goals, policies, infrastructure enhancements and program
requirements, including transportation and tra ffic
control measures and strategies necessary to improve
and augment the City’s local transportation network and access to the regional transportation system so as to
minimize neighborhood intrusion caused by increased
traffic resulting from entertainment and sporting events.
The Mobility Plan features seven goals that are equal in weight and define the City’s high-level mobility priorities.
Each of the goals contain strategies that are specific, measurable, and outline how the goals are met. For
each goal, several objectives or strategies were
established to guide the City as it implements its
Mobility Plan.
Goal 1: Sustainability and Environmental
Considerations
Goal 2: Neighborhood Protection and Preservation
Goal 3: Create an E fficient, Balanced, Multimodal
Mobility Network
Goal 4: Congestion Reduction and Transportation
Management System
Goal 5: Safety
Goal 6: Accessibility
Goal 7: Reliability
Consistent: The Mobility Plan draws upon the
1992 Circulation Element, as well as state laws
like SB 743 that seek to promote alternative
forms of mobility and circulation to support the
goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The
Project implements many goals and strategies of
the Mobility Plan and does not conflict with the
Mobility Plan. These features of the Project
include:
Providing EV charging stations
and
infrastructur
e
Providing bicycle parking facilities
Providing new residential and commercial
uses near p
ublic transit
Consolidating the overall number of curb
cuts/driveways
Making new ADA -compliant pedestrian
improvements and ensuring pedestrian
safety
through improvement of the
sidewalk and right of way
Enhancing
on-site lighting to provide
safer pedestrian pathways
The Project
is consistent with the goals and
strategies of the Mobility Plan relative to the
circulation system, including transit, roadways,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-189 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion To achieve t
hese goals, the City continues to embrace
previous mobility concepts, including several from the
1992 City of Inglewood General Plan Circulation
Element, but also seeks to broaden its overall approach and priorities to advance mobility, innovation and
climate action.
General Design Guidelines (1979)
The General Design Guidelines provide guidelines for
the improvement and development of property in the
City of Inglewood, which are intended to supplement the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The guidelines
below are relevant to circulation:
Parking Guidelines
1. Outdoor parking lots may be a cheaper method
of providing required parking spaces ; however,
they consu
me valuable site area and there must
be landscap
ed to be visually attractive. Parking
structures may be a greater initial expense but
generally pr
ovide a more e fficient use or the
land.
2. Generally, the most economical parking
patterns are achieved with spaces located on
both sides of each aisle and with the spaces
aligned at 90 degrees. Deviation from the 90-
degree parking angle
may add to the ease of
entering and
backing out of parking spaces, but
the additio
nal area required for the same
number of pa rking spaces may restrict the use
of parking
patterns that are less than 90
degrees.
3. Entrances and exits to parking facilities should
be limited in number a
nd should be designed
and located
to minimize any interference with
the flow of street traffic.
4. To reduce intrusio n into residential
neighborhoo
ds, parking lots should take access
from other t
han residential streets except when
a lot is serving a residential use.
5. Barren parking lots are consid ered to be
unsightly an
d distracting. Parking areas should
be located and designed to mini mize direct
exposure to
public view. These areas should be
buffered with landscaping to reduce the visual
Consistent: Vehicle parking would be provided
in one subte
rranean level and a five-story parking
garage at the back of the proposed building.
Entrances/exits to the parking would be limited to
one access point on Freeman Avenue and two
access points on 101st Street, none of which are
on residential streets. All parking spaces would
be constructed and located in accordance with
the City’s requirements and as set forth in the
proposed PAD zone regulations.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-190 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion impact and may be located at the rear of
buildings, or by taking advantage of natural
topography or planned grading, created in areas
which are above or below adjacent street and
property grades.
Residential Standards
1. Parking spaces shall be located on the same lot
as the use and be within 200 feet of the entrance
to the reside
nce. They shall not be located in the
required sid
e yards and shall be farther than 40
feet from the front line except for two spaces
which are pe
rmitted within 40 feet of the front line.
2. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall
be provided
for each residential unit. The spaces
required for one or two-unit develop ments shall
be fully en
close and include garage doors.
Carports do not satisfy the requ irements for
residential p
arking spaces.
3. All parking spaces located within a building shal l
have the following minimum inside dimensions.
Each space adjacent to another with no
intervening obstructions (8 feet wide x 19 feet
long)
Any single space separated by walls or othe r
obstruction
s (9 feet and 6 inches wide x 19 feet
long)
4. Garage door clearances shall be a minimum of 8
feet wide per space and 6 feet and 8 inches high.
5. Garage entrances facing the front street shall be
22 feet or more from the front lot line.
6. Garage entrances facing the side street of a
corner lot shall not be located within the strip
which is defined by drawing lines 10 feet and 22
feet from the exterior side lot line and parallel to
it.
7. Required driveways for residential developments
shall provide the unobstructed minimum widths of
10 feet for
one to 9 living units, and 16 feet for 10
to 20 living
units. Refer to the Municipal Code
when reside
ntial driveways serve more than 20
living units. No driveway shall exceed 28 feet in
width at the front or exterior side lot
line.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-191 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion
8. Residential driveways shall be paved with not
less than
3 1/2 inch es of Portland cement
concrete.
9. When access to any parking space requires a 90
degree or right angle turn, an unobstructed area
with a depth of 25 feet shall be provided for
maneuvering into the sp
ace.
10. When access to any parking space involves a
reverse turn or "S" turn, an unobstructed area
shall be provided for man
euvering into the space.
The required minimu
m depth of unobstructe d
area is dep
endent upon the encroachment into
the line of direct access to the parking space, and
is shown in the following diagram and table [refer
to page 20 in the Design and Development
Standards and Guidelin
es].
11. Residential parking facilities, including t he
driveway, f
or 3 or more living units shall be
separated from any abutting residen tial property
by a mason
ry wall not less than 5 feet high. All
portions of t
his required wall which are adjacent
to the required front yard of the resident ial
property sha
ll be 3 feet 6 inches high. (See Walls
and Fences.
)
12. All required parking spaces shall be maintained
for parking p
urposes only.
Commercial and Industrial Standards
1. Parking facilities shall be located within 300 feet
of the use fo
r which they are provided.
2. Every development shall provide the minimu m
number of standard
size off -street parking
spaces as specified by the Inglewood Municipal
Code. The following is p
rovided only to indicate
that the required number of spaces varies with
the use and gross floor ar
ea.
Theaters and recreational uses = 1 space/35 sf
Restaurants and grocery stores = 1 space/150
sf
Offices and
general commercial = 1 space/300
sf
Manufacturing and general industrial = 1
space/500 sf
Warehouse = 1 space/1,500 sf
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-192 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion
1. All parking spaces located outside of a building
shall have
the following minimum dimensions.
Spaces not alongside a wall or obstruction = 8
feet and 6 in
ches wide x 20 feet long
Spaces alongside a wall or obstruction = 9 feet
and 6 inches wide x 20 feet long
2. All parking spaces located within a building shall
have the following minimum inside dimensions.
Each space adjacent to another with no
intervening obstruction = 8 feet wide x 19 feet
long
Any single space separated by walls or other
obstruction
s 9 feet and 6 inches x 19 feet long
3. Each parking lot shall provide a minimum of one
parking space, 12 feet wide, specifically for the
use of the h
andicapped. This space shall be in
close proximity to the main entrance of the
building an
d shall be clearly designated,
"RESE
RVED FOR THE HANDICAPPED.”
Loading Guidelines
1. Entrances and exits to loading facilities should
be limited in number and should be designed
and located
to minimize any interference with
the flow of traffic along the street.
2. To reduce the intrusion into residentia l
neighborhoo
ds, loading areas sh ould have
access
from other than residential streets.
3. Loading areas are considered to be unsightly
and should
be located and designed to minimize
direct expo
sure to public view. T hese areas
should be
bu ffered with landscaping to reduce
the visua
l impact.
4. The design of loading facilities must take into
consideration the specific dimensions required
for maneuvering the combinations of trucks and
tractor-traile
rs into and out of loading position at
docks or in stalls and driveways. The
maneuvering space required is largely
dependent o
n three factors: (1) overall length of
the tractor-trailer unit; (2) the width-of the space
Consistent: The Project would include one
loading entrance/exit, which would occur from
101
st Street, and would be constructed in
accordance with applicable standards.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-193 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion in which the vehicle must be placed; and (3) the
turning radius of the tractor-truck which pulls the
unit. Inasmuch as the tractor-trailer uses slightly
more space to pull out than to back in, all
reference to maneuvering space is based on the
requirements for pulling out.
Standards
1. Every commercial development shall provide a
loading sta
ll for service vehicles. Industrial
developments sha
ll be designed to provide
loading stalls in accordance with the expecte d
use of the pr
operty.
1. Loading areas shall be visibly sepa rated from
public entra
nces and parking areas.
2. Loading stalls shall be designed to no t interfere
with circulation or parking, and to permit trucks
to fully maneuver on
the property without
backing from or onto a public street.
3. The minimum loading stall width shall be 12 feet.
The recommended wid
th of 15 feet is required
for loading
stalls alon gside a wall or other
obstruction.
4. For general commercial develop ments the
minimu
m loading stall length shall be 20 feet.
For other developments in which trucking is an
activit
y the minimum stall length shall be 30 feet
or equal to the length of the longest trucks and
tractor-traile
rs expected at the facility, whichever
is greater.
5. The depth of the loading apron shall be
sufficient to permit trucks to maneuver into and
out of the
loading stalls. The minimum loading
apron depth shall be 2
5 feet or equal to the
length of the loading stall, whichever is greater.
6. Loading areas shall be graded to drain surface
water to an alley, stree
t or public storm drain.
Surface water shall be conducted under any
intervening public sidewalk by a
drain approved
by the Public Works Department.
7. The surface area used for any load ing activity
shall be pa
ved with not less than 2 inches of
asphaltic concrete on 4 inches of cr ushed rock
base, or wit
h 3 1/2 inches of Portland cement
concrete. Soil conditions or the nature of the
trucking activity may necessita
te greater
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-194 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion requirements as determined by the Division of
Building and Safety.
8. Each loading space aligned with and directly
adjacent to a parking space shall be clearly
designated “LOADING ONLY.”
9. Poured concreate curbs shall be provided at the
perimeter of the planter areas that abut paved
vehicle areas.
10. A combination of masonry walls and
landscaping shall be provided to bu ffer or
screen loading areas from direct public view and
from abutting residential properties. (See
Landscaping.)
11. All artificial illumination shall be installed,
directed, and shielded to confine all direct rays
within the property.
12. All loading facility improvements, including the
pavement, striping, curbs, and landscaping shall
be continuously maintained, which includes
repairs, repainting, replacement, and regular
cleaning.
Pedestrian Guidelines
1. Where grades become excessive, ramps or
stairs must be used. It is best to have a set of
stairs no higher than eye level so that a
pedestrian may judge the distance to the top of
the landing safely.
2. The width of walks or plazas in a pedestrian
circulation system depends on capacity
requirements, scale, and their relation to other
elements.
3. A clearly defined and delineated access from the
public sidewalk to the primary building entrance
should be provided.
4. Special attention should be given to the provision
of convenient access to the pedestrian circulation
system for handicapped persons. This will
require extra consideration in designing the
placement of building entrances in relation to
parking lots and/or public sidewalks.
Standards
1. Width: Minimum acceptable sidewalk width is 4
feet without obstructions. In appropriate
Consistent: The Project would provide
pedestrian circulation amenities in compliance
with all City size and location standards, including
those set forth in the Project’s requested PAD
approval. Additionally, the Project would be
required to comply with Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-195 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion locations, methods other than paved walkways
may be utilized to delineate pedestrian ways.
2. Ramps: Grades in excess of 6.67% (1 vertical to
15 horizontal) shall be considered a ramp an d
shall meet b
uilding code requirements for ramps.
The maximum acceptable ramp grade is 12.5
%
(1 vertical to 8 horizontal).
3. Handrails: Any ramp or set of steps shall be
provided with handrails for pedestrian safety.
4. Handicapped Access: All new construction is
required to have an entrance accessible to
handicapped persons. To qualify as a
handicapped entrance there must
be access
from a parking lot with designated
handicapped
spaces or
access from a public sidewalk th at
meets the following:
a.
no steps or curbs
b.
no sidewalk grade greater than 5%
c.
no ramp grade greater than 8.33% (1 vertical to
12 horizontal)
d. adequate platform space at the building entrance
to provide a
wheelchair while opening the door.
(See Building Code.)
5. Handicapped Access – Public Right -of-Way: If a
curb or sidewalk is reconstructed within a
pedestrian crosswalk area, or is located before a
site that is being developed, the developer sh
all
construct
a sidewalk access ramp (wheelch air
ramp) for the hand
icapped as part of the
improvemen
ts required by the Department of
Public Wor
ks, unless directed otherwise by t he
Engineer.
Hollywood Park Specific Plan (2015)
The Hollywood Park Specific Plan project site is located on the northeast corner of Prairie Avenue and Century
Boulevard. The streets that border the Specific Plan area include, Prairie Avenue on the west and Century
Boulevard to the south. Access to the site can also be
obtained from Pincay Drive to the north. Manchester
Boulevard (State Route 42) and Crenshaw Boulevard are
located a few blocks north and east, respectively. All of the roads, mentioned above, provide access to the nearby regional freeway network. The purpose of the Hollywood
Park Specific Plan is to provide the land use framework Not Applicable / Consistent: The Project is not
located within the boundaries of the Hollywood
Park Specific Plan area and it is located
approximately 1,500 feet southwest corner of the
Specific Plan area at Century Boulevard and
Prairie Avenue.
Nevertheless, the Project aligns with the
transportation and circulation goals of the
Hollywood Park Specific Plan by co- locating
housing, commercial uses that generate jobs, and
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-196 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion for the redevelopment of the 238 -acre Hollywood Park
site with a mix of parks, retail, housing, entertainment, gaming, hotel and civic uses.
The transportation goals for the Specific Plan area are to:
Provide pedestrian connections from Hollywood
Park to major transit
corridors on Century
Boulevard and Prairie Avenue.
Reduce reliance on the private au tomobile by
enhancing
opportunities for transit ridership,
walking and biking.
Reduce
traffic compared to other developments
by provid
ing a mix of commercial, entertainment,
restaurant, residential and park uses in proximity
to each other and to existing transit routes.
other visitor serving amenities in close proximity to
each other. The Project would provide adequate
on-site parking and bicycle parking which would
accommodate the demands of the Project and
avoid conflict with the Hollywood Park
redevelopment.
The Project would provide pedestrian circulation
amenities in compliance with all City size and
location standards, which would complement the
new amenities generated through implementation
of the Specific Plan. The Project is consistent with
the policies of the Hollywood Park Specific Plan
that address circulation.
Active Transportation Plan (Imagine Inglewood) (2022)
The City of Inglewood has developed an Active
Transportation Plan and Safe Routes to School Plan
(ATP/SRTS) that incorporates bicycling, walking, safe
routes to school, and Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) considerations. The ATP/SRTS establishes a
vision for the City and will guide the community toward a future where active transportation is a viable option for all ages who live, work, and play within its borders. The Plan also allows access to increasing public transit connectivity to the rest of the Los Angeles region and it will create a network that will meet the needs for those who are transit dependent, those looking for alternatives, and
recreational users.
The purpose of this ATP/SRTS is to create a Complete
Streets update to the City of Inglewood General Plan. This Plan is comprised of the following four main components:
(1) Bicycle
Facilities Plan, (2) Pedestrian Facilities Plan,
(3) SRTS Plan, and an (4) ADA Transition Fra
mework
Plan.
Consistent: The Proje ct is consistent with and
does not conflict with the Active Transportation
Plan and Safe Routes to School Plan (ATP/SRTS).
The Project implements many goals and strategies
that are included within the ATP/SRTS. These
features of the Project include:
Providing bicycle parking facilit
ies
Providing ne w residential and commercial
uses near p
ublic transit
Consolidating the overall number of curb
cuts/driveways
Making new ADA- compliant pedestrian
improvements and ensuring pedestrian
safety through improvement of the sidewalk
and right of way
Enhancing
on-site lighting to provid e safer
pedestrian p
athways
City of Inglewood Municipal Code, Chapter 3: Motor Vehicles and Traffic City of Inglewood Municipal Code, Chapter 3: Motor
Vehicles and Tra ffic includes standards related to tra ffic enforcement, parking, truck route regulations, parking
meter regulations, bicycle regulations, seizure and
forfeiture of vehicles, regulations for nuisance vehicles, and prohibitions of illegal motor vehicle speed contests.
Not Applicable / Consistent : The Project would
include o ff- street vehicle parking and bicycle
parking facilities as required and conditioned.
These off-street facilities would follow all applicable
regulations and are not proposed in such a way that
would conflict with the City’s enforcement of City of
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-197 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion These regulations primarily address regulation and
enforcement of standards in the public way.
Inglewood Municipal Code, Chapter 3: Motor
Vehicles and Traffic.
All users, guests, patrons, employees, and others
who visit or reside at the Project would still be
subject to the enforcement of applicable public
regulations and tra ffic enforcement. As such, the
Project would not conflict with the regulations of the
City of Inglewood Municipal Code, Chapter 3:
Motor Vehicles and Traffic relative to the circulation
system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
City of Inglewood Municipal Code, Chapter 12: Planning and Zoning The Project is currently designated for Commercial Land Uses, but the Project includes a request to designate the site within the Major Mixed-Use land use designation and proposes the establishment of site-specific standards.
This application is being reviewed by the Planning
Department and will be subject to final approval. The site- specific overlay standards will be determined by the
Planning Department and subject to approval by the City Council.
Consistent: The current zoning designation for the
Project Site as well as the immediately surrounding
area is C -2A (Airport Commercial), which allows
commercial and hotel uses but does not permit
residential uses. In conjunction with the requested
General Plan Amendment to establish a
Commercial Residential land use designation for
the Project Site, a corresponding PAD approval is
being requested to allow for the development of the
mixed-use residential and commercial Project,
which is what the Commercial Residential land use
designation is specifically intended to allow for.
Specifically, the proposed PAD approval would
facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Site’s
existing hotel uses with a new vertically integrated
development containing commercial, lodging,
entertainment, and housing uses that would
enhance pedestrian activity and reflect high
architectural design quality. The proposed PAD
approval will achieve this goal by establishing
specific use, development, and design standards
that will ensure the compatibility of the Project with
both nearby uses as well as the City’s long- range
planning and policy goals to encourage increased
commercial activity along its key corridors.
ConnectSoCal: 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS (2020)
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020- 2045
RTP/SCS, which calls for $639 billion in transportation investments and reducing VMT by 19 percent per capita
from 2005 to 2035. The updated plan accommodates 21.3
percent growth in population from 2016 (3,933,800) to
2045 (4,771,300) and a 15.6 percent growth in jobs from 2016 (1,848,300) to 2045 (2,135,900). The updated
The Project is consistent with the goals and policies
of ConnectSoCal: 2020 -2045 SCAG RTP/SCS
(2020), as it:
Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum,
meets the most ambitious
voluntary standard in the California Green
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-198 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion RTP/SCS calls for a number of land use-based strategies to accommodate growth, minimize criteria pollutant
emissions, and achieve the following climate change
objectives:
Decreasing
drive-along work commutes by three
percent
Reducing per capita VMT by five percent and
vehicle hours traveled per capita by nine percent
Increasing transit commuting by two percent
Reducing travel delay per capita by 26 percent
Creating 264,500 new jobs annually
Reducing greenfield development by 29 percent
by focusing on smart growth
Locating six more percent household growth in
HQTAs, which concentrate roadway repair
investments, leverage transit and active
transportation investments, reduce regional lif
e
cycle in
frastructure costs, improve accessibility,
create local jobs, and have the potential to
improve public health and housing affordability.
Locating 15 percent more jobs in HQTAs
Building Standards Code at the time of
project approval.
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded
by exist
ing urban uses and reuses or
redevelops previously undeveloped or
underutilized land that is presently served
by existing utilities and essential
public
service
s (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer)
Consists of transit -supportive d ensities
(minimu
m of 20 residential dwelling units
per acre), or
is in proximity to existing transit
stops (within a half mile), or satisfie s more
detailed an
d stringent criteria specified in
the region’s SCS.
The Project is consistent with and does not conflict
with the ConnectSoCal: 2020- 2045 SCAG
RTP/SCS plan.
Metro 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (2020)
The 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
provides a detailed roadmap for how Metro will plan, build, operate, maintain, and partner for improved mobility in the next 30 years. The LRTP will guide future funding plans and policies needed to move LA County forward for a
more mobile, resilient, accessible and sustainable future.
Not Applicable / Consistent: The Project does not
propose any public transportation improvements
nor would it conflict with any long-range proposals
in the Metro 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan.
The Project is consistent with the Metro 2020 Long
Range Transportation Plan as it proposes new
housing and commercial uses that would locate
employment opportunities near transit. The Project
users would have access to bus and rail transit
opportunities that are proposed for and currently
exist within Inglewood. The Project would also
include bike parking and pedestrian improvements
that would provide opportunities for alternative
mobility, as prioritized by the Metro plan. The
Project is consistent with and would not conflict
with this plan.
Metro Short Range Transportation Plan 2014 (2014)
The Short Range transportation Plan was developed as a
focused ten -year plan to guide Metro actions through
2024. The Plan will advance Metro toward the long -term goals outlined in the 2009 Long Range transportation
Plan (LRTP), a 30-year vision for addressing growth and Not Applicable / Consistent: The Project does not
propose any public transportation improvements
nor would it con flict with any long range proposals
in the Metro Short Range transportation Plan 2014.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-199 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion traffic in LA County. The Plan monitors Metro’s progress
in moving projects and programs forward to ensure our
system moves people and goods safely.
The Project is consistent with the Metro Short
Range transportation Plan 2014 as it proposes new
housing and commercial uses that would locate
employment opportunities near transit. The Project
users would have access to bus and rail transit
opportunities that are proposed for and currently
exist within Inglewood. The Project would also
include bike parking and pedestrian improvements
that would provide opportunities for alternative
mobility, as prioritized by the Metro plan. The
Project is consistent with and would not con flict
with this plan.
Inglewood First/Last Mile Plan 2019 (2019)
The Inglewood First/Last Mile Plan is a joint e ffort
between Metro and the City of Inglewood to develop
first/last mile improvements for improving the walking and bicycling environment for four Metro stations in and
adjacent to the City. With Metro’s coordination with local jurisdictions and other agencies including the City of
Inglewood, City of Los Angeles, City of Hawthorne, and
LAWA, the Inglewood First/Last Mile Plan builds on the
ongoing development and transportation changes
occurring in the area.
The four stations are:
Fairview Heights Crenshaw/LAX Line Station
Downtown Inglewood Crenshaw/LAX Line Station
Westchester/Veterans Crenshaw/LAX Line
Station
Crenshaw Green Line Station
The First/Last Mile Plan identified some key challenges to pedestrian and bicycle access to the stations. The
challenges included the following:
Long blocks
Wide arterial streets to cross
Freeway crossings
Lack of streetscape amenities
The top recommendations include:
Crosswalk improvements (high -visibility
crosswalks, dual curb ramps, pedestrian signals,
etc.)
Not Applicable / Consistent: As described herein,
the Project is not located within one mile of any of
the specified transit stations. The Project does not
propose any major infrastructural improvements
that are contrary to the recommendations of the
First/Last Mile Plan.
Nevertheless, the Project includes amenities and
features that would complement the goals and
intent of the First/Last Mile Plan 2019 including:
bicycle parking, sidewalk repaving, addition of
street-adjacent landscaping, intentionally designed
lighting for user safety, and visual enhancements
that improve the pedestrian experience. The
Project does not conflict with the First/Last Mile
Plan 2019.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-200 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion New sidewalks and sidewalk repaving
Bicycle
infrastructure
Additional
lighting
Visual enhancements that reflect characteristics
of the city and local neighborhoods
City of Los Angeles Crenshaw Boulevard Streetscape Plan (2015) In September 2015, the City of Los Angeles approved the Crenshaw Boulevard Streetscape Plan to create a
complete, multi-modal street that reflects the future Metro Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Transit Project. The boundaries of the Crenshaw Boulevard Streetscape Plan extend
along Crenshaw Boulevard from Adams Boulevard to the
north, and the 79
th Street to the south, within the City of
Los Angeles boundary. While the Streetscape Plan does
not apply to boundaries within the City of Inglewood, it recommends street improvements along Crenshaw
Boulevard from 67th Street to 70th Street:
Existing: Six lanes, center turn lane
Proposed: Two lanes, center turn lane (wit
h
scattered medians), par
king/bus platform on both
travel directions, buffered bike lanes (6’ bike lanes
with 4’ raise
d buffer)
Not Applicable / Consistent: The Project
is
located on Century Boulevard, approximately 2.5
miles from Crenshaw Boulevard and 70th Street,
where the Streetscape Plan is applicable. The
Project does not propose any improvements which
would conflict with the policies in the City of Los
Angeles Crenshaw Boulevard Streetscape Plan
that address circulation.
The Project includes improvement and
maintenance of the public right of way and new
landscaping as required by the City, which would
support the intent of the Streetscape Plan to
improve pedestrian connectivity and walkability.
City of Inglewood Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2015)
In 2013, the City commissioned a Pedestrian Safety
Assessment (PSA) which analyzed current safety
conditions for pedestrians and to a limited degree,
bicyclists. The assessment documented that Inglewood
has a need to plan for e ffective investments to reduce
serious pedestrian and safety issues, and to provide a
disadvantaged community with a broader range of high -
quality transportation options. Recommendations
included general and location -specific improvements
such as enhancements to moto rist’s visibility of
pedestrians, intersection improvements, ADA -
compliancy, and suggested bikeway treatments. As part
of the pedestrian safety assessment a walking audit was conducted at five focus areas, and site- specific
improvements were recommended at each of the focus
areas. These locations are listed below:
La Tijera School
La Tijera Blvd/Fairview Blvd.
La Tijera Blvd./64th Pl.
Downtown
Inglewood
Not Applic
able / Consistent: None of the site -
specific locations for recommended improvements
are within the immediate proximity of the Project
site. Even so, the Project includes sidewalk
improvements and maintenance of the public right
of way as required by the City, which would
improve the pedestrian experience and enhance
safety for pedestrians. The Project is consistent
with and would not conflict with the
recommendations of the City of Inglewood
Pedestrian Safety Assessment.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-201 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion Mid-block cr osswalk on Market St between Queen
St. and Regent St.
Market St./Regent St.
Market St./Florence Ave.
Locust St./Florence Ave
Locust St./Grace Ave.
Parking garage on Locust St. between Queen St.
and Manchester Blvd.
Locust St./Hillcrest Blvd.
Market St. at Hillcrest Blvd./Kelso St.
Maitland Ave. between 80th St. and Van Ness Ave.
Crenshaw Blvd. between Imperial Blvd. and I-105
light rail station
Imperial Blvd./Crenshaw Blvd.
Crenshaw Blvd. near Crenshaw LRT station
City of Inglewood Energy and Climate Action Plan (2013) In March 2013, the City adopted the Inglewood Energy
and Climate Action Plan (ECAP), which outlines a
roadmap for achieving community -wide energy
consumption and GHG emissions reductions. The ECAP
includes several strategies and actions related to energy efficiency and conservation, including energy and water
conservation design features in new development
projects. Strategy 4 specifically addresses transportation and circulation.
Strategy 4: Improve Transportation Options and Manage
Transportation Demand
Make roadways more efficient
Improve
transit
Improve bicycle facilities
Make parking more efficient
Reduce commute trips
Encourage land use intensification and diversity
Consistent: Through compliance with the City’s
Green Building Code as required of the Project by
the City, the Project would support the energy
consumption reductions outlined in the ECAP,
which may include the following:
Meeting/exceeding
Title 24 energy
standards
Provision of electric vehi cle (EV) charging
stations
Implement
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures in
accordance
with Section 12 -42.1
(Transportation Demand Management
Requirements for Carpool Parking and
Bicycle Facilities) of the City’s Municipal
Code and the provisio
ns of the Project’s
proposed Mixed -Use Overlay zoning
designation
Unbundled
parking
Minimize driveway cuts
Provision of sidewalk amenities
Additionally,
the Project represents a more intense
use of the Project Site with a diverse mix of
complementary uses. Along with the Project Site’s
proximity to transit, the Project would allow for a
reduction in traffi c trips, VMT, and associated
consumption of fossil fuels.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-202 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XVII-1
Consistency Discussion
Plans, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Consistency Discussion For these r
easons, the Project would not conflict
with the Inglewood Energy and Climate Action Plan
(ECAP) policies relative to the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
Westchester/Veterans Station Area Transit Oriented Development Plan and Design Guidelines (2021) The Westchester/Veterans TOD Plan area consists of
roughly 379 acres on the western side of the City of
Inglewood. The TOD Plan area lies roughly within one -
half mile of the Westchester/Veterans Metro station,
which is currently under construction as part of the
Crenshaw/LAX Line at the northwest corner of Florence
and Hindry Avenues. A key purpose explained in the
Westchester/Veterans TOD Plan is to maximize the
utilization of the Metro Crenshaw/LAX Line as a means of accessing both housing and jobs for transit riders both departing from and entering Inglewood.
Not Applicable / Consistent: The Project is not
located within the boundaries of the
Westchester/Veterans TOD Plan area and it is
located approximately 1.8 miles away from the
Westchester/Veterans Metro Station.
Nevertheless, the Project would bring new
residential tenants, commercial visitors, and
commercial jobs to Century Boulevard, near
several local bus stops. The Project would
supplement the Westchester/Veterans TOD Plan
goal of locating housing and jobs in Inglewood
within proximity to transit resources. The Project is
consistent with and would not conflict with the TOD
Plan policies relative to the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
Crenshaw/Imperial Transit Oriented Development Plan and Design Guidelines (2021) The Crenshaw/Imperial TOD Plan area consists of
roughly 103 acres in the southern part of the City of
Inglewood. Most of the TOD Plan area lies within one-half mile of Crenshaw Station on the Metro Green Line,
located in the median of the 105 freeway at Crenshaw
Boulevard.
A key purpose of the Crenshaw/Imperial TOD Plan area
is to maximize the utilization of the Metro Green Line as a means of accessing both housing and jobs for transit
riders both departing from and entering Inglewood.
Not Applicable / Consistent: The Project is not
located within the boundaries of the
Crenshaw/Imperial TOD Plan area and it is located
approximately 1.8 miles away from the
Crenshaw/Imperial Metro Station. Nevertheless,
the Project would bring new residential tenants,
commercial visitors, and commercial jobs to
Century Boulevard, near several local bus stops.
The Project would supplement the
Crenshaw/Imperial TOD Plan goal of locating
housing and jobs in Inglewood within proximity to
transit resources. The Project is consistent with
and would not conflict with the TOD Plan policies
relative to the circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Source: LLG, 2024. Refer to Appendix I.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3? Less
Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. VMT is defined as a measurement of miles traveled by vehicles within a specified re gion and for a specified period of time. VMT is a 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-203 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network and is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (round-trip) travel and is often estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.
In September 2013, the Governor’s Office signed Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), starting a process that fundamentally changes the way transporta tion impact analysis is conducted under CEQA.
Within the State’s CEQA Guidelines, these changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant traffic impacts. SB 743 identifies VMT as the most appropriate CEQA transportation metric, along with the elimination of auto delay/LOS for CEQA purposes statewide. The justification for this paradigm shift is that LOS impacts lead to improvements that increase roadway capacity and therefore induce more traffic and GHG emissions.
The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued proposed updates to the CEQA Guidelines in November 2017 and an accompanying technical advisory guidance in April 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory ) that amends the Appendix G question for transportation impacts to delete reference to vehicle delay and level of service and instead refer to Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines asking if the project will result in a substantial increase in VMT. Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) states the following:
Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Comprehensive updates to the State CEQA Guidelines were certified and adopted by the California Natural Resources Agency in December 2018. Accordingly, the City adopted significance criteria for transportation impacts based on VMT for land use projects and plans in accordance with the amended Appendix G question:
Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
For land use projects, the intent of this threshol d is to assess whether a land use project causes substantial vehicle miles traveled. The City has developed screening criteria to address this question. The criteria below are based on the OPR Technical Advisory but reflect local considerations.
If the project requires discretionary action, and the answer is no to the following question, further analysis will not be required and a “less than significant” determination can be made:
• Does the development project generate a net increase of 250 or more daily vehicle trips? 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-204 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 As summarized in Table XVII-2, the Project is expected to generate a net increase of 3,067 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the Project is required to perform a VMT analysis.
Project Traffic Generation
Traffic volumes generated by the Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis were estimated using the following rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual:
Apartments: ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifam
ily Housing [Mid-Rise]) trip generation
average rat
es were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the residential a
partment component of the Project.
Condominiums: ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifa mily Housing [Mid-Rise]) trip generation average rat
es were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the residential condominium component of the Project.
Condominiums: ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the hotel co mponent of the Project.
Restaurant: ITE Land Use Code 930 (Fast Casual Restaurant) trip generation aver age rates were u
sed to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the food hall and café uses containe
d within the Project’s event and entertainment area.
T
able XVII-2
Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size Daily
Trip Ends
Volumes
AM Peak-Hour
Volumes
PM Peak-Hour
Volumes
In Out Total In Out Total
Project
Apartments
Condominiums
Hotel
Restaurant
Retail
Bar
Event/Entertainment
Subtotal
Transit Trips
Apartments (5%)
Condominiums (5%)
Hotel (5%)
Restaurant (5%)
Retail (5%)
Bar
(5%)
118 du
11 du
175 rooms
10,330 gsf
800 glsf
10,590 gsf
20,630 gsf
536
50 1,398
1,003
44 1,330
740
5,101
(27)
(3)
(70)
(50)
(2)
(67)
10 1
45 --
--
--
--
56 (1)
0 (2)
0 0
0 34
3 36
--
--
--
--
73 (2)
0 (2)
0 0
0 44
4 81
--
--
--
--
129
(3)
0 (4)
0 0
0 28
2 53
72 3
73 41
272
(1)
0 (3)
(4)
0 (4)
18 2
50 58
2 60
33 223
(1)
0 (3)
(3)
0 (3)
43 4
103
130
5 133
74 495
(2)
0 (6)
(7)
0 (7)
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-205 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Event/Entertainment
(5%)
Subtotal
Walk-In Trips
Hotel (15%)
Restaurant (15%)
Retail (15%)
Bar (15%)
Event/Entertainment
(15%)
Subtotal
Internal Capture
Restaurant (10%)
Retail (10%)
Bar (10%)
Event/Entertainment
(10%)
Subtotal
(37)
(256)
(199)
(143)
(6)
(189)
(105)
(642)
(81)
(4)
(107)
(60)
(252)
0 (3)
(6)
0 0
0 0
(6)
0 0
0 0
0 0
(4)
(5)
0 0
0 0
(5)
0 0
0 0
0 0
(7)
(11)
0 0
0 0
(11)
0 0
0 0
0 (2)
(14)
(8)
(10)
0 (10)
(6)
(15)
(6)
0 (6)
(3)
(15)
(4)
(12)
(7)
(8)
0 (9)
(5)
(29)
(5)
0 (5)
(3)
(13)
(4)
(26)
(15)
(18)
0 (19)
(11)
(63)
(11)
0 (11)
(6)
(28)
Subtotal Project Driveway Trips 3,951 47 59 111 209 169 378 Existing Site
Hotel
Existing Transit
Trips
Hotel (5%)
(137 rooms)
(1,095)
55 (35)
2 (28)
1 (63)
3 (41)
2 (40)
2 (81)
4 Subtotal Existing Driveway Trips (884) (28) (23) (51) (4033 (32) (65) Net increase Driveway Trips 3,067 19 41 60 176 137 313
du = dwelling unit gsf = gross square feet glsf = gross leasable square feet
Source: LLG, 2024. Refer to Appendix I.
Retail: ITE Land Use Code 822 (Strip Retail Plaza [40k]) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the retail space contained within the Project’s event and entertainment area. Bar: ITE Land Use Code 975 (Drinking Place) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the 2 nd floor lounge/bar and virtual
sports suites uses contained within the Project’s event and entertainment area. Event/Entertainment: ITE Land Use Code 435 (Multipurpose Recreational Facility) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the event/entertainment component of Project. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-206 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 In addition to the trip generation forecasts for the Project (that are essentially an estimate of the number of vehicles that could be expected to enter and exit the Project Site access points), an adjustment was made to the trip generation forecast based on the Project Site’s existing land use.
The existing land use includes a hotel with 137 guestrooms. The trips associated with the existing use have been subtracted from the Project’s trips to account for the existing environmental condition. ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel) trip generation average rates were used to estimate the trip reduction related to the existing use.
A forecast was also made of the transit trips that would be generated by the Project in lieu of trips by the private automobile. The Project Site is currently served by many local lines and regional/commuter lines via stops located within convenient walking distance along Century Boulevard, Hawthorne Boulevard, La Brea Avenue, and Prairie Avenue. The transit lines include Metro Local Lines 40, 117, 211/215, 212 and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works’ The Link – Lennox shuttle. A transit adjustment of five percent has been utilized.
Furthermore, a forecast was also made of the walk-in trips that would be generated by the Project in lieu of trips by the private automobile. The walk-in trip reduction accounts for walk-in patronage both from within the Project as well as other surrounding land uses, specifically the IBEC (subsequently renamed the Intuit Dome, is now operational and will be prior to the opening of the Project), SoFi Stadium/YouTube Theater, and other uses within the Hollywood Park Specific Plan site, as well as the Forum. A walk-in adjustment of 15 percent has been utilized due to the Project Site’s proximity to major pedestrian attractors.
Lastly, an internal capture adjustment has been applied for the Project to account for synergistic effects of the planned land use mix. Internal capture trips are those trips made internal to the site between land uses in a mixed or multi-use development, land uses tend to interact, and thus attract a portion of each other’s trip generation. An internal capture adjustment of 10 percent has been utilized to account for the interactions among the residential, hotel, and event/entertainment land uses provided within the Project Site.
As shown in Table XVII–2, the Project would generate 60 net new vehicle trips (19 inbound trips and 41 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the Project would generate 313 net new vehicle trips (176 inbound trips and 137 outbound trips).
Over a 24-hour period, the Project would generate 3,067 daily trips ends (approximately 1,534 inbound trips and 1,533 outbound trips) during a typical weekday.
Impact Criteria and Methodology
For development projects, a project will have a potential VMT impact if the project meets the following:
• For residential projects, the project would generate residential VMT per capita exceeding 15 percent below the existing residential VMT per capita for the Baseline Area in which the project is located, or greater than 9.66 residential VMT per capita. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-207 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 • For office projects, the project would generate employment VMT per employee exceeding 15 percent below the existing employment VMT per employee for the Baseline Area in which the project is located, or greater than 14.46 employment VMT per employee.
• For event centers and regional serving retail projects, the project would result in a net increase in total VMT (citywide).
For other land use types (i.e., the hotel employee component of the Project), measure VMT impacts for the work trip element using the criteria for office projects above.
Summary of Project VMT Analysis
The evaluation of the potential transportation im pacts due to the Project as measured through VMT is provided below.
Residential
The Project proposes 118 residential apartment dwelling units and 11 residential condominium dwelling units. It is expected that the residential units would be utilized by persons associated with sports teams, leagues, concert promoters, and others regularly visiting the nearby entertainment venues (e.g., SoFi Stadium, Intuit Dome, YouTube Theater, the Forum, etc.). Residents of the Project would occupy their units on a part-time basis. Further, the basis of their “commute to work” would generally be one mile or less. Notwithstanding, the Project’s units were considered as traditional fully-occupied dwelling units for purposes of conservative VMT analysis.
The residential VMT per capita for the Project was estimated utilizing the City’s VMT Calculator.
The detailed City’s VMT Calculator worksheet for the Project’s residential component is contained in Appendix C of the TIA included in Appendix I. As shown, the estimated residential VMT per capita for the Project is 9.18, which is less than the City’s significance threshold of 9.66 residential VMT per capita. Therefore, the residential component of the Project would have a less-than- significant VMT impact.
The City’s VMT Calculator contains a menu of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that may be implemented as either Project Design Features (PDF) or mitigation measures. The Project would implement the Prom otions and Marketing TDM strategy (Strategy 4-N) within the City’s VMT Calculator, with 100 percent of residents participating. Strategy 4-N is included in Section 3 (Project Description) as PDF-1. The Project would utilize promotional and marketing tools to educate and inform residents about alternative transportation options and the effects of their travel choices. Rather than two-way communication tools or tools that would encourage an individual to consider a different mode of travel at the time the trip is taken (i.e., smartphone application, daily email, etc.), this TDM strategy includes passive educational and promotional materials, such as posters, information boards, or a website with information that residents can choose to read at their own leisure. Materials would be placed in an area with the greatest amount of visibility for Project residents (e.g., lobby, mailroom, elevator, etc.). 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-208 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 As shown in Appendix C , the estimated residential VMT per capita for the Project with implementation of PDF-1 is 8.81, which is less than the City’s significance threshold of 9.66 residential VMT per capita. Thus, implementation of PDF-1 would further reduce the residential VMT per capita expected to be generated by the Project, which is already shown to be at a less- than-significant level without PDF-1.
Hotel, Event, and Entertainment
The Project proposes a hotel component with 175 guestrooms and an event and entertainment area totaling 42,350 square feet of retail, restaurant, and related commercial uses. It is noted that an existing hotel on the Project Site providing 137 guestrooms would be removed to accommodate construction of the Project. It is expected that the hotel would be utilized by guests to fly into nearby LAX and then attend an event at one of the nearby venues located within one mile of the Project Site. The event and entertainment area of the Project is intended to serve as an ancillary use for residents and hotel guests at the Project, as well as to provide pre- and post- event dining and gathering opportunities for attendees of the nearby entertainment venues.
The employment VMT-per-employee expected to be generated by the Project was estimated utilizing the City’s VMT Calculator. While the City’s VMT Calculator does not allow for direct inputs for hotel uses, it does include direct inputs for office uses. General office employment VMT is similar to hotel and event/entertainment space employment VMT since in each instance, the employment VMT is the VMT generated by Home-Based Work trip attractions. While the employment trips to and from home may occur at different hours, the characteristics of these trips are similar (e.g., general office, hotel, and event/ entertainment employees drive from home to work and back).
To utilize the office-equivalency use in the City’s VMT Tool, an estimate of the number of hotel and event/entertainment employees at the Project is needed, which then can be converted to the approximate equivalent amount of office building floor area. The City utilizes a factor of 12 employees per 10 hotel guestrooms, which results in 210 employees. For the event and entertainment area, a factor of four employees per 1,000 square feet of floor area is utilized, which results in approximately 170 employees. In total, it is estimated that that Project would have 380 employees based on the employment factors accepted by the City. In order to calculate the daily commute trips, the total employment is multiplied by two, which results in 760 daily commute trips.
The calculation for determining the office equivalent square footage is as follows:
760 trips / 10.84 trips *1,000 square feet = 70,111 square feet Based on the City’s accepted methodology, the employment generated by the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment component would correlate to a 70,111 square-foot office use.
Based on the methodology described above, the employment VMT per employee expected to be generated by employees of the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment component was estimated utilizing the City’s VMT Calculator. The detailed City’s VMT Calculator worksheet for the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment component are contained in Appendix C of the TIA included in Appendix I.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-209 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 As shown in Appendix C, the estimated employment VMT per employee for the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment component (not including the effectiveness of PDF-1) is 15.28 employment VMT per employee. This exceeds t he City’s significance threshold of 14.46 employment VMT per employee. Thus, without mitigation, the VMT impact of the hotel and event and entertainment component of the Project would be significant. However, as discussed below, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 the Project’s VMT impact would be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
To ensure that the Project’s VMT impacts would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure is required:
TRAFFIC-1: The Project operator shall offer a minimum transit subsidy of $0.75 per day to a minimum of 30 percent of the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment employees.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1, the Project’s employment VMT per employee is reduced to 14.39 employment VMT per employee and would fall below the City’s threshold of 14.46 employment VMT per employee. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measure, the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment component would have a less-than-significant employment VMT per employee impact.
In addition to implementing the Transit Subsidies TDM strategy as a mitigation measure, as stated previously, the Project would implement the Prom otions and Marketing TDM strategy (Strategy 4-N) within the City’s VMT Calculator, with 100 percent of employees participating, as PDF-1.
The Project would utilize promotional and marketing tools to educate and inform employees and residents about alternative transportation options and the effects of their travel choices. Rather than two-way communication tools or tools that would encourage an individual to consider a different mode of travel at the time the trip is taken (i.e., smartphone application, daily email, etc.), this TDM strategy includes provision of passive educational and promotional materials, such as posters, information boards, or a website with information that employees and residents could choose to read at their leisure. Materials would be placed in an area with the greatest amount of visibility for Project employees and residents. As shown in Appendix C of the TIA included in Appendix I, with the Promotions and Marketing TDM strategy implemented as PDF-1 in addition to the Transit Subsidies TDM strategy implemented as Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1, the Project’s employment VMT per employee remains at 14.39 employment VMT per employee, less than the City’s threshold of 14.46 employment VMT per employee. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Preliminary Project access plans were reviewed in light of commonly accepted traffic engineering design standar ds to ascertain whether any deficiencies are apparent in the site access plans which would be considered significant. The determination of impact significance is applied on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors:
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-210 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 • The relative amount of pedestrian activity at project access points • Design features/physical configurations that affect the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists to drivers entering and exiting the site, and the visibility of cars to pedestrians and bicyclists
• The type of bicycle facilities the project driveway(s) crosses and the relative level of utilization
• The physical conditions of the site and surrounding area, such as curves, slopes, walks, landscaping or other barriers, that could result in vehicle/pedestrian, vehicle/bicycle, or vehicle/vehicle safety hazards
• The project location, or project-related changes to the public right-of-way, relative to proximity to the Pedestrian Routes to School program area • Any other conditions, including the approximate location of incompatible uses that would substantially increase a transportation hazard
Qualitative Review of Site Access Points
The Project Site has frontage along Century Boulevard, Freeman Avenue, and 101 st Street.
Century Boulevard is designated by the City as a Major Arterial by the City with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Freeman Avenue is designated by the City as a Collector with an assumed speed limit of 25 miles per hour. 101
st Street is designated by the City as a Local Street
with an assumed speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
The Project would improve the pedestrian experience along these corridors, including at the Project Site access points, which would enhance connections to and from the numerous pedestrian destinations in the direct vicinity of the Project Site. The Project would improve the sidewalks along the Century Boulevard, Freeman Avenue, and 101 st Street property frontages to
enhance the pedestrian experience and ensure ADA compliance. Newly surfaced sidewalks would be provided along the Project Site’s Century Boulevard, Freeman Avenue, and 101 st Street
frontages. Signalized crossings are provided within convenient walking distance to the Project Site along the Century Boulevard, La Brea Avenue, Hawthorne Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue corridors.
Bicycle facilities are not currently provided along Century Boulevard, Freeman Avenue, and 101 st
Street in the Project study area. While future bicycle facilities are currently not planned along these roadways, the Project would not preclude the City from installing bicycle facilities on these roadways, or any other roadway in the Project vicinity. In addition, bicycle parking would be provided consistent with IMC Section 12-42.1 and the standards of the Project’s proposed PAD regulations.
The Project would remove the existing driveways along the south side of Century Boulevard and new driveways would not be installed. Remova l of the Century Boulevard driveways would 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-211 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 eliminate potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at the existing site driveways, which would enhance the pedestrian experience along the corridor. As Project residents, guests, and visitors would travel on foot to the nearby pedestrian attractors such as the Intuit Dome (which will be operational prior to the opening of the Project), SoFi Stadium, YouTube Theater, and other uses within the Hollywood Park Specific Plan site, as well as the Forum, the pedestrian experience along the Century Boulevard corridor is of the utmost importance to the Project.
The Project would maintain and improve the existing Project Site access points along the west side of Freeman Avenue, which would be utilized for the Project’s valet operations. Vehicles bound to the Project’s valet area would access the valet drop-off/pick-up area by making a southbound right- turn from Freeman Avenue into the northerly Freeman Avenue Driveway.
Vehicles would continue southbound in the valet drop-off/pick-up area and leave their vehicle with a valet attendant. The attendant would then park the vehicle in the on-site parking garage.
Vehicles leaving the Project Site from the valet drop-off/pick-up area would exit via the outbound- only southerly Freeman Avenue Driveway via a left- or right-turn onto Freeman Avenue. It is noted that valet attendants would be able to access the parking garage internally from the valet drop- off/pick-up area and would not need to utilize local streets (i.e., Freeman Avenue and 101 st Street)
to park vehicles. The Project’s valet drop-off/pick-up area has been designed to provide circulation internal to the Project Site to reduce conflicts with vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists along Freeman Avenue. Additionally, access to the Project’s parking garage would be provided via one driveway along the north side of 101
st Street.
Access to the Project’s loading docks would be provided via a new driveway along the north side of 101st Street, east of the proposed driveway providing access to the Project’s parking garage.
The AutoTURN software package was utilized to demonstrate that delivery vehicles can successfully enter and exit the Project’s loading space. Exhibits demonstrating the maneuvers of 23-foot delivery vehicles (DL-23) entering and ex iting the Project’s loading dock are contained within Appendix A of the TIA included in Appendix I. As shown in the exhibits contained within Appendix A, DL-23 vehicles can enter the Project’s loading dock via a continuous westbound right-turn movement (i.e., three-point turns are not required). Similarly, DL-23 vehicles can exit the Project’s loading dock via a continuous southbound left-turn movement. The sidewalk and driveway improvements would be designed to impr ove conditions for all modes of travel and reduce the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at the driveways. An excellent line of sight is provided for all modes of travel (motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists) at the Project’s proposed driveways.
The Project Site is located on flat terrain and the physical condition of the Project Site and the proposed entry/exit points would be improved in conjunction with the Project, therefore, the potential for vehicle/pedestrian, vehicle/bicycle, or vehicle/vehicle impacts would be reduced. The Project would not preclude the City from making future safety-related improvements along the roadways fronting the Project Site. Given the existing physical conditions of the Project Site, the planned reduction of curb cuts along Cent ury Boulevard, and the proposed sidewalk improvements along the property’s C entury Boulevard, Freeman Avenue, and 101 st Street
frontages, no safety concerns related to geometric design are noted. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-212 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 The driveways would not require the removal or relocation of existing passenger transit stops and would be designed and configured to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with transit services and pedestrian traffic. No security gates or other parking control features are proposed along the Project Site driveways in close proximity to the public right-of-way. The driveways and site access points would be designed to ensure adequate maneuver ing by vehicles entering and exiting the Project Site. It is recommended that “No Parking” signs be installed along the Project’s 101 st Street
frontage from the Freeman Avenue intersection to the residential parking access point to ensure that passenger and delivery vehicles entering and exiting the Project Site can do so safely. This would result in the loss of approximately eight on-street parking spaces.
Therefore, based on the above, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant.
Site Distance Review of Proposed 101
st Street Driveways
A sight distance review has been conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the sight distance provided at the two proposed driveways on 101st Street. The westerly 101st Street driveway would provide access to the Project’s on-site parking garage related to the residential component. The easterly 101
st Street driveway would provide access to the Project’s loading dock. Specifically, the sight distance analysis has been prepared in order to determine the adequacy of motorists’ line of sight departing the two driveways.
The sight distance analysis has been prepared in accordance with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (HDM). 101 st Street is designated as a Local
Street by the City and the County. One through travel lane is provided in each direction on 101st Street within the Project study area. There is no speed limit posted on 101 st Street within the
Project study area, thus a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour is assumed, consistent with California Vehicle Code Section 22352(b)(1). Per Table 201.1 of the HDM, a stopping sight distance of 150 feet in each direction should be provided.
Appendix D of the TIA included in Appendix I contains exhibits displaying the minimum required stopping sight distance at each of the 101
st Street driveways. As illustrated in the exhibits
contained in Appendix D, the front bumper of the vehicle was placed at the edge of the curb cut, with the driver set back approximately eight feet. The exhibits show that the removal of parking spaces along the north side of 101
st Street would be required to provide the minimum stopping sight distance. In total, it is estimated that 12 street parking spaces would need to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed driveways.
Vehicle Trip Generation Forecast
The first step in the queuing analysis was to prepare a vehicle trip generation forecast for the Project so as to estimate the number of vehicles that may utilize the valet area during peak periods. The vehicle trip generation forecast for the Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours is presented in Table XVII-2, which indicates that the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment components are forecast to generate the following trips during the peak hours:
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-213 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 • 66 vehicle trips (37 inbound/29 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour • 330 vehicle trips (180 inbound/150 outbound) during the weekday PM peak hour The Project’s hotel and event and entertainment components are forecast to generate its highest number of vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Thus, the forecast PM peak-hour trips were utilized in the vehicle queuing analysis.
Estimated Peak Vehicle Queue
A vehicle queuing analysis was prepared to evaluate the adequacy of the Project’s on-site valet area. In preparing the queuing analysis, the 95
th percentile vehicle queue was estimated using a
Poisson distribution. The 95 th percentile vehicle queue is typically used by traffic engineers to determine, for example, the required length of left-turn pockets at intersections. This design parameter is based on the expectation that the left-turn pocket would be able to accommodate vehicle queues in the left-turn lane 95 percent of the time during the peak hour. The Poisson distribution is used to estimate the rate of vehicle arrivals over the course of the peak hour. For example, 60 peak-hour left-turn vehicles would typically not arrive at the left-turn lane at a regular rate of one car per minute. In some minutes during the peak hour, two or three vehicles may arrive, while in other minutes, no vehicles would arrive. Accordingly, the Poisson distribution was used to estimate the variations in vehicle arrival rates over an analyzed peak hour, with the 95 th
percentile forecast used as the basis of design.
In addition to the rate of vehicle arrivals, vehicle queueing at the Project’s valet area would be influenced by: 1) the number of valet attendants available to handle arriving and departing vehicles, and 2) the estimated service or dwell time of each vehicle while at the valet area.
Accordingly, to estimate vehicle queuing based on the number of arriving vehicles, number of valet attendants, and average service/dwell time, an M/M/s queuing model 6 was used utilized.
The M/M/s queuing model calculates average vehicle queuing during the analyzed peak hour, as well as peak queues during the PM peak hour at the 95
th percentile confidence level.
The model requires the input of three parameters: vehicle arrival rate per hour, the number of servers (i.e., valet attendants), and average service rate per hour. For this analysis and utilizing the PM peak hour trip generation forecasts in Table XVII-2, the model inputs are based on a peak- hour arrival rate of 180 vehicles at the hotel drop-off area. As previously noted, departing vehicles related to the Project’s hotel and event and entertainment components would retrieve their vehicle internal to the Project Site, and therefore would not contribute to vehicle queues in the valet drop- off area.
In utilizing the M/M/s model, a typical service/dwell time of one minute per vehicle was assumed.
Using the forecast vehicle arrival rates, as well as average service/dwell time, the number of valet attendants was varied to produce a 95
th percentile vehicle queue that can be accommodated
onsite within the porte-cochere areas and accessway without causing vehicles to queue into the public right-of-way.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-214 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 The M/M/s queuing calculations prepared for the Project’s valet drop-off area are provided in Appendix D of the TIA included in Appendix I. As shown Appendix D, the expected average on- site queue during the weekday PM peak hour is approximately 3.09 vehicles. As further shown in the table provided in Appendix D, at the 95
th percent confidence level (precisely, 96.48 percent
as shown in Appendix D ), the maximum on-site queue is calculated to be six vehicles. As previously noted, the valet drop-off area can accommodate seven queued vehicles. Furthermore, if necessary, the drop-off point can be moved further into the Project’s parking garage to accommodate additional queuing capacity. Accordingly, Project-related trips are not expected to queue onto Freeman Avenue. Therefore, the planned on-site valet drop-off area can adequately accommodate the forecast peak queue of six vehicles during the weekday PM peak hour. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s proposed resident, guest, and patron vehicular ingress and egress is proposed to be provided from new driveways on Freeman Avenue and 101 st
Street. In addition, loading is proposed to be provided via a separate driveway, also on 101st Street. All ingress/egress associated with the Project would undergo review by the City and Los Angeles County Fire Department, and required to be designed and constructed in conformance to all applicable City and County standards to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained for the Project Site and the surrounding area. Therefore, Project impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a project’s cumulative impacts are based on an assessment of whether the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Based on the OPR Technical Advisory (page 6), the thresholds of significance recommended therein for VMT metrics are considered as “efficiency-based” thresholds. Further, the OPR Technical Advisory states “A project that falls below an efficiency- based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa.” Thus, as the Project is expected to result is a less than significant transportation impact based on the use of the VMT metrics, a less than significant cumulative transportation impact for the Project can be concluded.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-215 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial advers e change in the signifi cance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resour ces 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 wi th cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listi ng in the California Register of Hist
orical Resources, or in a local register of historic al resou
rces as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1
(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivisio n (c) of Publi
c Resources Code Section 502 4.1. In
appl
ying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shal l
con
sider the significance of the resource to a California
Native Ameri
can tribe.
a) Would t he project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Publ
ic 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of histor ical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k)?
No Impact.
As discussed in response to Checklist Question V a) (Cultural Resources – Historical Resources), a search of the California Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Resources database indicated that none of the existing buildings located on or adjacent to the Project Site are listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places. On August 4, 2022, the City sent letters to tribes historically known in the area.
None of these recipients provided any information regarding the potential for tribal cultural resources to exist at or near the Project Site, and none requested consultation with the City. Thus, the Project would not 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-216 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k). Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Publ
ic 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a resource determined by the lead agency, in its dis cretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Res
ources 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.
No Impact. Approved by Governor Brown on
September 25, 2014, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American Tribes to identify potential significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074, as part of CEQA. PRC Section 21084.2 establishes that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, PRC Section 21080.3.1 requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. That consultation must take place prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for the project. As a result of AB 52, the following must take place: 1) prescribed notification and response timelines; 2) consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures; and 3) documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings for the administrative record. Under AB 52, if a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. PRC Section 21074 provides a definition of a tribal cultural resource. In brief, in order to be considered a tribal cultural resource, a resource must be either: 1) listed or determined to be eligible for listing on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or 2) one that the lead agency chooses in its discretion supported by substantial evidence to treat as a tribal cultural resource. In the latter instance, the lead agency must determine that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the state register of historic resources or as a city-designated cultural resource. In applying those criteria, a lead agency shall consider the value of the resource to the tribe. As specified in AB 52, lead agencies must provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if the tribe has submitted a written request to be notified. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation.
On August 4, 2022, an notification letter was mailed to tribes historically known in the Project Site area, describing the Project and requesting any information regarding resources that may exist 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-217 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 on or near the Project Site. None of the tribes provided any information regarding the potential for tribal cultural resources to exist at or near the Project Site, and none requested consultation with the City.
As such, there is no substantial evidence that shows tribal cultural resources exist at the Project Site. Thus, the Project would not 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in 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.
Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project.
Cumulative Impacts
Impacts related to tribal cultural resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site-by- site basis. The City would require the applicants of each of the related projects to assess, determine, and mitigate any potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources that could occur as a result of development, as necessary. As discussed previously, the Project would not result in any impacts to tribal cultural resources. As such, the Project would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to cultural resources would be less than significant. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-218 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a.
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastew ater treat ment or storm
water d
rainage, electric power, na tural gas, or
telecom
munications facilities, the construction or
relo
cation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b.
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
durin
g normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c.
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatm ent
pro
vider which serves or may serve the project that it
has a
dequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
deman
d in addition to the provider’s existi ng
c
ommitments?
d.
Generate solid waste in excess of State or lo cal
stand
ards, or in excess of the capacity of lo cal
infrast
ructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid
waste reduction goals?
e.
Comply with federal, state, and local management an d
redu
ction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
a) Would the project require or result in relocation or the construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or storm wate r drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, th e construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less T
han Significant Impact. As discussed below, Project impacts related to these issues would be less than significant.
Water Facilities
Local water conveyance infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project Site is maintained and operated by Golden State Water Company. The Project Site is served by a 12-inch water line in Century Boulevard. As shown in Table XIX-1, the Project would consume a net increase of approximately 42,559 gallons of water per day (or 0.04 million gallons per day [mgd]). It should be noted that this amount does not take into account the effectiveness of water conservation measures required in accordance with the City’s Green Building Code, which would likely reduce the Project’s water consumption (and wastewater generation) shown in Table XIX-1. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-219 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Table XIX-1
Estimated Project Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation1 Land Uses Size Water
Consumption/
Wastewater
Generation Rate2
Total (gpd)3
Existing Uses
Hotel 137 rooms 120 gpd/room 16,440
Proposed Uses
Residential,
Bachelor
Residential, 1-Bedroom
Residential, 2-Bedroom
Hotel
Restaurant
Retail
Bar
Event Space
18 units
36 units
75 units
175 rooms
344 seats
4 800 sf
706 seats4
20,630 sf
75 gpd/unit
110 gpd/unit
150 gpd/unit
120 gpd/unit
30 gpd//seat
25 gpd/1,000 sf
15 gpd/seat
25 gpd/1,000 s
f
1,350
3,960
11,250
21,000
10,320
20 10,590
509
Subtotal 58,999
Less Existing (16,440)
Net Increase 42,559
gpd = gallons per day sf = square feet
1 Assumes wastewater generation is equal to water consumption. 2 Source: City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Sewer Generation Factors, April 6, 2012. 3 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.
4 Assumes 30 sf per seat.
As part of
the permitting process for the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to coordinate with the Golden State Water Company to determine if the existing water supply infrastructure maintains sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project’s demand for water. If a deficiency or service problem is discovered during the permitting process, the Project Applicant would be required to fund any necessary upgrades to adequately serve the Project. Water main and related infrastructure upgrades would not be expected to create a significant impact to the physical environment because: (1) any disruption of service would be of a short-term nature; (2) replacement of the water mains would be within public and private rights-of-way; and (3) the existing infrastructure would be replaced with new infrastructure in areas that have already been significantly disturbed. For these reasons, the Project would not require or result in relocation or the construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, Project impacts related to water facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City that are located within 0.5 miles of the Project Site (refer to Table 1-1 in Section 1 [Introduction]). All of the related projects are located within an urbanized 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-220 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 area of the City and represent infill development, served by existing utilities, including water facilities. As with the Project, the related projects would likely require project- or site-specific infrastructure to connect to the existing infrastruc ture, but the related projects would not require new or expanded water facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to water facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the service area of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). Wastewater generated within the City is conveyed to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in the City of Carson via interceptor sewers.
The JWPCP provides both primary and secondary treatment and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd. In December 2019, JWPCP treated 250 mgd and had an excess capacity of 150 mgd.
65 The maximum peak flow is 540 mgd. The Project would generate a net increase of approximately 42,559 gallons of wastewater per day (or 0.04 mgd) (refer to Table XIX-1). It should be noted that this amount does not take into account the effectiveness of water conservation measures required in accordance with the City’s Green Building Code, which would likely reduce the Project’s water consumption (and wastewater generation) shown in Table XIX-1. With a remaining daily capacity of 150 mgd, the JWPCP would have adequate capacity to serve the Project, as the Project’s wastewater generati on would only represent 0.02 percent of the JWPCP’s available capacity. Therefore, Project impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the related projects in concert with the Project could increase the need for wastewater treatment. Table XIX-2 shows that the cumulative development in the City could result in the need to treat approximately 559,063 gallons of water per day (or 0.55 mgd per day). It should be noted that this amount does not take into account the net decrease in wastewater generation (and water consumption) that would occur as a result of removal of existing uses for the related project or the effectiveness of water conservation measures required in accordance with the City’s Green Building Code, both of which would likely substantially reduce the cumulative water consumption and wastewater generation shown in Table XIX-2. With a remaining treatment capacity of approximately 175 mgd, the HTP would have adequate capacity to accommodate the wastewater treatment requirements of cumulative development. No new or upgraded treatment facilities would be required. Therefore, the cumulative wastewater impacts related to water treatment would be less than significant.
65 Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Jo int Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater- sewage/facilities/joint-water-pollution-control-plant, accessed April 2022. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-221 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Storm Water Drainage
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Question X(c)(iii) (Hydrology and Water Quality – Storm Drain Capacity), Project impacts related to storm drainage facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impacts
Refer to the cumulative impact discussion provided in response to Checklist Topic X (Hydrology and Water Quality).
Table XIX-2
Estimated Cumulative Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation 1 Land Uses Size Water Consumption/
Wastewater
Generation Rate2
Total (gpd)
Multi-Family Residential 2,211 du 3 150 gpd/du 331,650
Commercial 4,497,083 sf 50 gpd/1,000 s f 224,854
Total Related Projects 556,504
Plus Project 42,559
Total 599,063
gpd = gallons per day du = dwelling unit
1 Assumes wastewater generation equals water consumption. 2 Source: City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Sewer Generation Factors, April 6, 2012. This rate does not account for the effectiveness of any current water conservation measures that are required in the City.
3 Assumes all units are 2-bedroom units.
Electrical Power
Less T
han Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Questions VII(a) and (b) (Energy), Project impact related to electric power facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Refer to the cumulative impact discussion provided in response to Checklist Topic VII (Energy).
Natural Gas
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Questions VII(a) and (b) (Energy), Project impact related to natural gas facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Refer to the cumulative impact discussion provided in response to Checklist Topic VII (Energy). 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-222 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Telecommunications
Less Than Significant Impact. In the Project Site area, existing telephone service is typically provided by AT&T, and existing cable television/inte rnet is typically provided by Spectrum. The Project Site could be served by existing telecommunications facilities that are available in the Project Site area. The Project would require Project- and site-specific infrastructure to connect to the existing utilities, but the Project would not require new or expanded facilities. Therefore, Project impacts related to telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
There are 6 related projects in the City (refer to Table 1 in Section 1 [Introduction]) within 0.5 miles of the Project Site. All of the related projects are located within an urbanized area of the City. All of the related projects represent infill development and are served by existing utilities, including telecommunications infrastructure. As with the Pr oject, the related projects would likely require project- or site-specific infrastructure to connect to the existing infrastructure, but the related projects would not require new or expanded facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant. b) Would t
he project have significant water supplies available to serve the pr oject from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less T
han Significant Impact. Potable water supply to the City comes from the following two sources:
1. Imported surface water purchased from the West Basin Municipal Water District thr ough the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California pipe connections; and
2. Local groundwater produced from the West Coast Groundwater Basin via City wells The imported water is treated at Sanford M. An
derson Water Treatment Plant, and groundwater
supplies are blended prior to entering the City’s water distribution system. Golden State Water Company and Cal America Water also provide water to the City service population. According to the Inglewood 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City can meet all normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year water supply demands available through the Year 2045.
With the inclusion of water supplies currently under development, potential water supply surpluses range from 5 percent to 110 percent of projected demands.
As shown in Table XIX-1, the Project would consume a net increase of approximately 42,559 gallons of water per day (or 0.04 mgd). Golden State Water Company has indicated that water service is available at the Project Site.
66 The estimated water demand of the Project is not
expected to exceed available supplies. Adequate water supplies would be available to the Project, and new or expanded water supplies would not be required. Therefore, Project impacts on water supply would be less than significant.
66 Golden State Water Company, Joseph Zhoa, P.E., PhD., April 18,2022. Refer to Ap pendix J. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-223 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the related projects in concert with the Project could increase the need for wastewater treatment. Table XIX-2 shows that the cumulative development in the City could result in the need to treat approximately 599,063 gallons of water per day (or 0.55 mgd per day). It should be noted that this amount does not take into account the net decrease in wastewater generation (and water consumption) that would occur as a result of the removal of existing uses for the related project or the effectiveness of water conservation measures required in accordance with the City’s Green Building Code, both of which would likely substantially reduce the cumulative water consumption and wastewater generation shown in Table XIX-2.
The City (through its 2020 UWMP) anticipates that its projected water supplies will meet demand through the year 2045. In terms of the City’s overall water supply condition, any related project that is consistent with the City’s General Plan has been taken into account in the planned growth of the water system. In addition, any related project that conforms to the demographic projections from SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and is lo cated in the service area is considered to have been included in the City’s water supply planning efforts so that projected water supplies would meet projected demands. Similar to the Project, each related project would be required to comply with City and State water code and conservation programs for both water supply and infrastructure.
Related projects that propose changing the zoning or other characteristics beyond what is within the General Plan would be required to evaluate the change under CEQA review process. The CEQA analysis would compare the existing to the proposed uses and the ability of existing supplies and infrastructure to provide a suffici ent level of water service. Future development projects within the service area of the City would be subject to the water conservation measures outlined in the City’s Green Building Code, which would partially offset the cumulative demand for water. Expansion or modification of water service infrastructure to serve future growth in the City is undertaken as required in the normal process of providing water service. For these reasons, cumulative impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a det
ermination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve th e project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less T
han Significant Impact. Refer to response to Checklist Question XIX(a) (Utilities and Service Systems – Wastewater Treatment).
Cumulative Impacts
Refer to the cumulative impacts discussion included in response to Checklist Question XIX(a) (Utilities and Service Systems – Wastewater Treatment). 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-224 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 d) Would t he project 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 T
han Significant Impact. The primary landfills in the County and the capacity of these landfills are shown in Table XIX-3. As shown, the landfills have an approximate available daily intake of 25,535 tons.
Table XIX-3
Landfill Capacity
Landfill Facility
Estimated
Remaining
Life (years)
Estimated
Remaining
Disposal
Capacity
(million tons)
Permitted
Intake
(tons/day)
Daily
Disposal
(tons/day)
Available
Daily Intake
(tons/day)
Antelope Valley 13 10.1 3,600 2,785 815
Azusa NA 65.4 8,000 1,025 6,975
Burbank 110 2.3 240 125 115
Calabasas 14 4.0 3,500 955 2,545
Chiquita Canyon 27 54.4 12,000 6,114 5,886
Lancaster 81 9.8 3,000 395 2,605
Scholl Canyon 8 3.4 3,400 1,486 1,914
Sunshine Canyon 17 54.0 12,100 7,420 4,680
Total 25,535
Source: County of Los Angeles, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2020 Annual Report, October 2021.
As shown in
Table XIX-4, the Project result in a net increase in daily solid waste generation of approximately 0.46 tons per day. The estimation of the Project’s solid waste generation is conservative and does not account for the effectiveness of recycling efforts, which is mandatory in the City. With a remaining daily intake capacity of approximately 25,535 tons of solid waste per day, the landfills serving the County could accommodate the Project’s daily solid waste generation. Thus, the Project would not require new or expanded landfills. Therefore, Project impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Project and the related projects could increase the need for landfill capacity in the region. As shown in Table XIX-5, implementation of the cumulative development would result in an estimated solid waste generation of approximately 16.06 tons per day. It should be noted that this amount does not take into account the net decrease in solid waste generation that would occur as a result of removal of existing uses or the effectiveness of recycling measures 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-225 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 required in accordance with existing City’s recycling regulations, both of which would likely substantially reduce the cumulative solid waste generation.
With a remaining daily capacity of approximately 25,535 tons of solid waste per day, the landfills serving the Project and related project would have adequate capacity to accommodate cumulative solid waste generation. Additionally, all development in the City is required to comply with City and state recycling regulations. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant.
Table XIX-4
Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Land Uses Size Solid Waste
Generation Rate1
Total (tpd)
Existing Use
Hotel
137 rooms 2 lbs/day/room 0.13
Proposed Uses
Residential
Hotel
Restaurant
Retail
Bar
Event
Space
129 units
175
rooms10,330
sf
800 sf
10,590 sf
4 lbs/day/unit
2 lbs/day/room
5 lbs/day/1,000 sf
5 lbs/day/1,000 sf
5 lbs/day/1,000 sf
5 lbs/day/1,000 s
f
0.25 0.17
0.02 0.002
0.02 0.13
Subtotal 0.59
Less Existing (0.13)
Net Increase 0.46
tpd = tons per day sf = square feet lbs = pounds
1 Source: CalRecycle, https://www2.calrecycle. ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates.
T
able XIX-5
Estimated Cumulative Solid Waste Generation
Land Uses Size Solid Waste
Generation Rate1
Total
(tpd)
Multi-Family Residential 2,211 du 4 lbs/day/unit 4.4
Commercial 4,497,083 sf 5 lbs/day/1,000 s f 11.2
Total Related Projects 15.6
Plus Project 0.46
Total 16.06
tpd = tons per day du = dwelling unit lbs = pounds sf = square feet 1 CalRec ycle.
4200 Century Project PAGE 4-226 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 e) Would t he project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact.
The Project would be required to comply with the City’s recycling requirements. No Project impacts related to this issue would occur.
Solid waste management in the state is primarily guided by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which emphasizes resource conservation through the reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste. AB 939 establishes an integrated waste management hierarchy consisting of (in order of priority): 1) source reduction; 2) recycling and composting; and 3) environmentally-safe transformation and land disposal. In addition to AB 939, Senate Bill (SB) 1374 requires jurisdictions to divert and recycle demolition and construction waste materials.
In response to these state laws, the City has implemented measures for mandatory recycling, including Chapter 7, Article 7 (Construction and Demolition Recycling Program), which requires applicants of “covered projects” to prepare and implement a waste management plan for recycling of construction and demolition waste, and Commercial and Multi-Family Recycling requirements for any business that generates four cubic yards or more of waste per week and for multi-family communities with five or more units.
67 Additionally, the City subsidies the cost of compost bins for residents that are available through the City’s waste hauler.
As with all development in the City, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s recycling measures. Thus, the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project.
Cumulative Impacts
All development in the City is required to comply with the City’s recycling requirements. No cumulative impacts related to this issue would occur.
67 “Covered project” means all new construction initiated by January 1, 2017 or later; non-residential remodeling, addition, and alteration projects; all demolition projects, grading projects that include land clearing debris, and generally all City-sponsored construction, demolition, and renovation projects. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-227 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Substantiall
y impair an adopted emergency respon se
plan or e
mergency evacuation plan?
b.
Due to slope, prevailin g winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose projec t
occup
ants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontroll
ed spread of a wildfire?
c.
Require the installation or maintenance of associat ed
infrast
ructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emerge ncy
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exa
cerbate 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 sl ope
instabilit
y, or drainage changes?
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan??
b) Due to sl
ope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Requires
the installation or ma intenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or ot her 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 drainag e changes?
No Impact. Checklist Q
uestions XX(a) through XX(d) do not apply to the Project, because the Project Site is not located near or within a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire severity zones. The Project Site is located approximately 20 miles from the nearest state- 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-228 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 designated high-fire zone, which is in the Puente Hills east of the City. 68 Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur as a result of the Project.
Cumulative Impacts
None of the related projects are located near or within a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire severity zones. No cumulative impacts related to this issue would occur.
68 California Office of the State Fire Marshal, Fire Ha zard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire- hazard-severity-zones/#explorefhsz, accessed on January 27, 2023. 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-229 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Does the project have t he potential to substantia lly degrade
the quality of the environment, substantiall y
redu
ce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, caus e a
fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustain ing
level
s, threaten to eliminate a plant or anima l
comm
unity, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California hi
story or prehistory?
b.
Does the project have impacts that are individua lly
limited, but cumulatively consi
derable? (“Cumulatively
con
siderable” means that the incremental effects of a
proje
ct are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projec ts, the effects of other curre
nt projects, and the effects of proba ble future
proje
cts)?
c.
Does the project have environmental effects which wi ll cau
se substantial adverse effects on human beings ,
either di
rectly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish o
r wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sus taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less T
han Significant With Incorporated. For the reasons stated in this Initial Study, the Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. With implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCHEO-1, the Project would not have the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No other mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have imp
acts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other curren
t projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 4200 Century Project PAGE 4-230 City of Inglewood
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Less Than Significant Impact. For the reasons stated in this Initial Study, the Project would not result in any significant impacts would not have the potential to contribute to significant cumulative impacts. No mitigation measures are required.
c) Does th
e project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less T
han Significant With Mitigation. As discussed in response to Checklist Question XIII a), with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZARDS-1, the Project’s potential airport hazard impact would be less than significant. Additiona lly, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, the Project’s construction noise impact would be less than significant. Further, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1, the Project’s VMT impact would be less than significant. For the reasons stated in the remaining portions of the IS/MND, the Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No other mitigation measures are required.
4200 Century Project PAGE 5-1 City of Inglewood Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 INITIAL STUDY 5 PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Lead Agency City of Inglewood 1 West Manchester Boulevard, 4th Floor Inglewood, CA 90301 Christine Rivera, Planner Project Applicant 4200 QOF LLC 4200 West Century Boulevard Inglewood, CA 90304 Gregory Peck Architect Callison RTKL, Inc 333 South Hope Street, C200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 CEQA Consultant CAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Chris Joseph, Owner/Principal Kerrie Nicholson, Principal Andrea Schultz, Head of Operations Sherrie Cruz, Senior Graphics Specialist
4200 Century Project PAGE 5-2 City of Inglewood Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2024 Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise Consultant DKA Planning 1513 W. Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite D Torrance, CA 90501 Doug Kim, Principal Arborist Carlberg Associates 828 Fifth Street, Suite 3 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Geotechnical Consultant Geotechnologies, Inc. 439 Western Avenue Glendale, CA 91201 Environmental Consultant Ara Environmental Services 12 Hunter Irvine, CA 92620 Arman Behtash, President Traffic Consultant Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers 20931 Burbank Boulevard, Suite C Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Jason A. Shender, Transportation Planner III David S. Shender, Principal
Appendix A
Tree Report
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2
C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E I N V E N T O R Y R E P O RT 4 2 0 0 W E S T C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D
L O S A N G E L E S , C A 90304
S U B M I T T E D T O :
4 2 0 0 Q O F L L C
4 2 0 0 W E S T C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D
I N G L E W O O D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 3 0 4
P R E P A R E D BY:
C Y C A R L B E R G
A S C A R E G I S T E R E D C O N S U L T I N G A R B O R I S T #4 0 5 I S A C E R T I F I E D A R B O R I S T # W E 0575A
I S A Q U A L I F I E D T R E E R I S K A S S E S S O R C A U F C C E R T I F I E D U R B A N F O R E S T E R # 0 1 3
T R E E I N V E N T O R Y R E P O R T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER LETTER ........................................................................................................................................... 1
TABLE 1 – TREE INVENTORY DATA ......................................................................................................... 3
EXHIBIT A – AERIAL IMAGE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY .......................................................................... 8
EXHIBIT B – REDUCED COPY OF TREE LOCATION EXHIBIT ................................................................ 9
EXHIBIT C – TREE PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................ 10
HEALTH AND STRUCTURE GRADE DEFINITIONS ................................................................................ 15
ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 17
RESUME ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
February 13, 2022
4200 QOF LLC
4200 West Century Boulevard
Inglewood, California 90304
c/o Joe Faust, President, Dakota Development Group
Re: 4200 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90304 – City of Inglewood Tree Report
Dear Mr. Faust,
This letter addresses our office’s site visit on December 7, 2021 and February 10, 2022 to the property located at 4200 West Century Boulevard in Inglewood, California. Carlberg Associates was retained to visit the property, inventory protected private property trees that meet the criteria set forth by the City of Inglewood’s Municipal Code (Chapter 12, Article 32 – Tree Preservation) as well as any City rights-of-way trees associated with the property. Section 12-113 of the code defines protected trees as:
(A) Trees having a minimum trunk diameter of eight inches measured fifty-four inches above the ground.
When measuring a multi-trunk tree, the diameters of the largest three trunks shall be added together. (B) Street trees or other required trees such as those required as a condition of approval, Use Permit, or other zoning requirement, regardless of size.
(C) All memorial trees dedicated by an entity recognized by the City, and all specimen trees that define a neighborhood or community
(D) Trees of the following species that have reached a minimum of four inches diameter trunk size:
Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), western dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), blue oak (Quercus douglassii), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), valley oak (Quercus lobata), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), California bay (Umbellularia californica). (E) A tree or trees of any size planted as a replacement for a protected tree.
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / QOF L L C
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 2
The table on the following pages sets forth the data for the 59 inventoried trees and palms:
▪ 22 private property trees
▪ 29 private property palms
▪ 7 rights-of-way palms
▪ 1 offsite tree on the property to the west whose canopy overhangs the subject property
Palms are in the grass family and are not considered woody plants. Since palms do not generally increase in trunk diameter as they mature, they are measured using ‘Brown Trunk Height’, the distance between grade and the base of the newest emerging spear. We did not classify the 29 palms as protected trees. By virtue of the size of their trunk diameters, the 22 private property trees are considered ‘protected.’
Please feel welcome to contact me at our Santa Monica office if you have any immediate questions or concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Cy Carlberg, Registered Consulting Arborist
Principal, Carlberg Associates
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 3
TABLE 1 – TREE INVENTORY DATA
Tree # Common Name Botanical Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet
(DBH)*
in inches
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(N/E/S/W)
in feet
Health
Structure
Protected
(Yes/No/ROW) Comments
1 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 35 BT, 45
BT 50 5/5/5/5 A A No
multi-trunk, dead fronds can be
removed, only tree located in the
front of property
2 Spanish dagger Yucca gloriosa 11.4, 16.6,
14.6 16 2/6/3/5 B B- Yes MPE, pruned for building clearance, canopy has limited growing space
3 fern pine Afrocarpus falcatus 12.7 30 10/5/8/12 B B Yes MPE, pruned for building clearance, canopy has limited growing space
4 Spanish dagger Yucca gloriosa 10.7 15 1/1/1/1 C C Yes MPE, pruned for building clearance,
canopy has limited growing space,
multiple pruning cuts has left little live
growth
5 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 9.3 12 1/3/1/12 A- B- Yes pruned for building clearance, hedge cut, most of canopy extends to the W
6 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 55 BT 60 5/5/5/5 A A No can remove dead fronds 7 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 50 BT 55 6/6/6/6 A A No can remove dead fronds 8 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 18 BT 25 8/8/8/8 B B No can remove dead fronds 9 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 45 BT, 45
BT 50 5/5/5/5 A- B No can remove dead fronds
10 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 45 BT, 20
BT, 35 BT 50 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 4 Tree # Common Name Botanical Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet
(DBH)*
in inches
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(N/E/S/W)
in feet
Health
Structure
Protected
(Yes/No/ROW) Comments
11 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 20 BT 25 7/7/7/7 B B No can remove dead fronds 12 weeping fig Ficus benjamina 6.8, 7.8, 7 15 7/8/7/8 A B Yes hedge cut, shaded out 13 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 20 BT 25 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 14 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana
12 BT, 20
BT 25 6/6/6/6 A B No can remove dead fronds
15 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 20 BT 25 8/8/8/8 A A No can remove dead fronds 16 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 18 BT 25 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 17 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 18 BT 25 5/5/5/5 A A No can remove dead fronds 18 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 16 BT 22 8/8/8/8 A A No can remove dead fronds 19 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 40 BT 45 5/5/5/5 A A No can remove dead fronds 20 king palm Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 18 BT 25 9/9/9/9 A A No can remove dead fronds 21 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 50 BT 55 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 22 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 30 BT 35 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 23 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 40 BT 45 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 5 Tree # Common Name Botanical Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet
(DBH)*
in inches
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(N/E/S/W)
in feet
Health
Structure
Protected
(Yes/No/ROW) Comments
24 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 20 BT 25 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 25 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta
16 BT, 20
BT, 30 BT,
35 BT
40 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds
26 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 35 BT 40 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 27 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 40 BT 45 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 28 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 40 BT, 25
BT 45 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds
29 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 25 BT, 40
BT 45 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds
30 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 35 BT 40 5/5/5/5 B B No can remove dead fronds 31 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 35 BT 40 5/5/5/5 A- A- No can remove dead fronds 32 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta 35 BT, 30
BT 40 5/5/5/5 A- B No can remove dead fronds
33 umbrella tree Schefflera actinophylla 6.4, 5.1, 3 16 10/10/6/9 A- B Yes MPE, HOB, codoms at base, pruned
for building clearance, vine growing
up trunk
34 weeping fig Ficus benjamina 2.7, 4, 4,
4.6 15 7/7/7/7 A B+ Yes hedge cut, codoms at base, MPE, vine growing up trunk
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 6 Tree # Common Name Botanical Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet
(DBH)*
in inches
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(N/E/S/W)
in feet
Health
Structure
Protected
(Yes/No/ROW) Comments
35 umbrella tree Schefflera actinophylla
7.6, 5.6,
3.2, 3.5,
4.8, 3.3, 1.5
18 9/12/10/12 A B Yes vine growing up trunk, codoms at
base, EG, MPE, HOB
36 corkscrew willow Salix matsudana 21.5 18 10/9/10/9 C- C- Yes topped, MPE, HOB, EG, all EG, bark
checking, water stressed, deadwood
and decay throughout, in decline
37 paper mulberry Broussenetia
papyrifera 14.3, 12.7 18 9/9/9/9 B- C Yes topped, all EG, SS, good new bud growth
38 paper mulberry Broussenetia
papyrifera 15.5, 12.2 18 10/10/10/10 B- C Yes topped, all EG, SS, good new bud growth
39 mimosa
Albizzia julibrissin
9.5, 10,
16.9, 14.6 30 16/25/22/21 C C- Yes
topped, MPE, HOB, EG, large vines
intertwined between the 4 trunks and
growing into upper canopy, excessive
dieback and deadwood, limited
growing space, cavities, pruned for
line clearance, trunk growing against
fence, some good new bud growth off
sprouts at old limb cuts
40 jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 13.8 35 18/27/28/28 B B Yes MPE, EG, HOB, pruned for building
clearance, some exposed roots,
shaded out by adjacent pine
41 Canary Island
pine Pinus canariensis 25.6 45 21/20/19/20 B+ B+ Yes
leans SW, exposed roots, driveway
uplift, MPE, HOB, EG, minor dieback,
minor browning in lower canopy,
water stressed
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 7 Tree # Common Name Botanical Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet
(DBH)*
in inches
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(N/E/S/W)
in feet
Health
Structure
Protected
(Yes/No/ROW) Comments
42 pygmy date palm Phoenix roebelenii BT-15' 20 8/8/8/8 B B- No shaded out by adjacent pine, needs
water, some dead fronds, bottom of
trunk a bit uprooted and leaning
43 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT-45' 50 6/6/6/6 A A No
some dead fronds, bottom of trunk
growing over planter box and over
concrete on E side
44 jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 16.9 35 25/30/15/0 B+ C Yes MPE, HOB, EG, pruned for building
clearance, moderate dieback, two
large hangers in canopy over structure
building 406, one large broken limb
(still attached - needs to be removed),
trunk leans E
45 jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 13.2 40 0/16/19/5 B B Yes MPE, HOB, EG, pruned for building
clearance, trunk leans SE, minor
dieback, some exposed roots with
damage, small GR, water pocket at
codoms at 6 feet
46 jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 10.4 35 0/18/23/0 B+ B- Yes MPE, HOB, EG, pruned for building
clearance, trunk leans SE, large limb
failures
47 white mulberry Morus alba 11.2 18 2/6/7/0 C C- Yes
limited growing space, topped, MPE,
HOB, all EG, fair new bud growth,
canopy hitting structure on one side
and trunk against adjacent property
wall to the W, sparse, behind building
700, debris and stack of tiles piled up
at base against trunk
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 8 Tree # Common Name Botanical Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet
(DBH)*
in inches
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(N/E/S/W)
in feet
Health
Structure
Protected
(Yes/No/ROW) Comments
48 common guava Psidium guajava 2, 2.3, 2.7,
2.7, 2.4, 2.2 16 7/3/11/12 B B Yes
shaded out by adjacent jacarandas,
MPE, minor mechanical damage at
base, growing into canopy of adjacent
jacaranda
49 white mulberry Morus alba 15 20 5/10/12/12 C- C- Yes limited growing space, topped,
growing against 2 separate structure
walls, MPE, all EG, HOB, behind
buildings 900 and 406
50 brush cherry Syzygium australe 10.2 28 8/8/14/13 A A- Yes pruned for building clearance, MPE,
EG, exposed roots, growing into
canopy of adjacent brush cherry,
active northern mockingbird nest in
canopy (as of 2.10.2022 - pair nest
building)
51 brush cherry Syzygium australe 5, 5.2 18 7/6/4/9 B B Yes pruned for building clearance, MPE,
EG, exposed roots, shaded out and
growing into canopy of adjacent brush
cherry, one additional brush cherry
adjacent to N not of size
OS52 Canary Island
pine Pinus canariensis ~22 50 17/28/19/18 A A- Yes - OS overhangs property approximately 20 feet NE
ST1 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT 50 55 5/5/5/5 A A Yes - ROW Right of Way - protected street tree ST2 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT 50 55 5/5/5/5 A A Yes - ROW Right of Way - protected street tree
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 9 Tree # Common Name Botanical Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet
(DBH)*
in inches
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(N/E/S/W)
in feet
Health
Structure
Protected
(Yes/No/ROW) Comments
ST3 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT 50 55 5/5/5/5 A A Yes - ROW Right of Way - protected street tree ST4 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT 50 55 5/5/5/5 A A Yes - ROW Right of Way - protected street tree ST5 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT 50 55 5/5/5/5 A A Yes - ROW Right of Way - protected street tree ST6 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT 50 55 5/5/5/5 A A Yes - ROW Right of Way - protected street tree ST7 Mexican fan
palm Washingtonia robusta BT 50 55 5/5/5/5 A A Yes - ROW Right of Way - protected street tree
DBH – Diameter at breast height. A forestry term used to describe a tree’s trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade. Often used as a representation of tree height.
HOB – History of breakage
MBA – Multiple branch attachments
ROW – Right of Way tree
ST – Street tree
BT – Brown trunk (height). Because palms rarely increase in trunk diameter as they mature, they are measured by their ‘Brown Trunk Height’, the distance between grade and the base of the newest emerging spear.
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 10
EXHIBIT A – AERIAL IMAGE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
(BORDERED IN RED – Source: Bing Maps) Not to Scale
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 11
EXHIBIT B – REDUCED COPY OF TREE LOCATION EXHIBIT
(NOT TO SCALE)
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 10
EXHIBIT C – TREE PHOTOGRAPHS
Tree 1
Tree 2
Tree 3 Tree 4
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 11
Tree 5 Tree 6
Trees 7-20 (L to R)
Trees 21-30 (L to R)
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 12
Tree 31 Tree 32
Tree 33 Trees 34, 35 (R, L)
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 13
Tree 36 Tree 37
Tree 38 Tree 39
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 14
Tree 40 Trees 41(L), 43(R)
Tree 42 Trees 44-46 (R-L)
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 15
Tree 47 Tree 48
Tree 49 Trees 50(R), 51(L)
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 16
Tree OS52 Tree OS52
Trees ST1-ST3 (R-L)
Trees ST4-ST7 (R-L)
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 17
HEALTH AND STRUCTURE GRADE DEFINITIONS
Health and structure ratings of the trees are based on the archetype tree of the same species through a subjective evaluation of its physiological health, aesthetic quality, and structural integrity.
Overall physiological condition (health) and structural condition were rated A-F:
Health
A. Outstanding – Exceptional trees of good growth form and vigor for their age class; exhibiting very good to excellent health as evidenced by normal to exceptional shoot growth during current season, good bud development and leaf color, lack of leaf, twig or branch dieback throughout the crown, and the absence of decay, bleeding, or cankers. Common leaf and/or twig pests may be noted at very minor levels.
B. Above average – Good to very good trees that exhibit minor necrotic or physiological symptoms of stress and/or disease; shoot growth is less than reasonably expected, leaf color is less than optimal in some areas, the crown may be thinning, minor levels of leaf, twig, and branch dieback may be present, and minor areas of decay, bleeding, or cankers may be manifesting. Minor amounts of epicormic growth may be present. Minor amounts of fire damage or mechanical damage may be present. Still healthy, but with moderately diminished vigor and vitality. No significant decline noted.
C. Average – Average, moderately good trees whose growth habit and physiological or fire-induced symptoms indicate an equal chance to either decline or continue with good health into the near future. Most of these trees exhibit moderate to significant small deadwood in outer crown areas, decreased shoot growth and diminished leaf color and mass. Some stem and branch dieback is usually present and epicormic growth may be moderate to extensive. Cavities, pockets of decay, relatively significant fire damage, bark exfoliation, or cracks may be present. Moderate to significant amounts of insect or disease symptoms may be present; the tree may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the lifespan of the tree. Tree may be in early decline.
D. Below Average/Poor - trees whose growth habit and physiological or fire-induced symptoms indicate significant, irreversible decline. Most of these trees exhibit significant dieback of wood in the crown, possibly accompanied by significant epicormic sprouting. Shoot growth and leaf color and mass is either significantly diminished or nonexistent throughout the crown. Cavities, pockets of decay, significant fire damage, bark exfoliation, and/or cracks may be present. Significant amounts of insect or disease symptoms may be present; the tree may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it has negatively impacted the lifespan of the tree. Tree appears to be in irreversible decline.
F. Dead or in spiral of decline – this tree exhibits very little to no signs of life.
Structure
A. Outstanding – Trees with outstanding structure for their species exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a sturdy form or architecture that resists failure under normal circumstances. The spacing, orientation, and size of the branches relative to the trunk are quintessential for the species and free from defects. No outward sign of decay or pathological disease is present. Some trees exhibit naturally inherent branching defects, like multiple, narrow points of attachment from one point on the trunk, which would preclude them from achieving an “A” grade.
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 18
B. Above average - Trees with good to very good structure for their species. They exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a relatively sturdy form or architecture that resists failure under normal circumstances, but may have some mechanical damage, over-pruning, or other minor structural defects. The spacing, orientation, and size of the branches relative to the trunk are still in the normal range for the species, but they exhibit a minor degree of defects. Minor, sub-critical levels of decay or pathological disease may be present, but the degree of damage is not yet structurally significant. Trees that exhibit naturally inherent branching defects, like multiple, narrow points of attachment from one point on the trunk, would generally fall in to this category. A small percentage of the canopy may be shaded or crowded, but not in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the structural integrity or lifespan of the tree.
C. Average - Trees with moderately good structure for their species, but with obvious defects. They exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a less than sturdy form or architecture, which reduces their resistance to failure under normal circumstances. Moderate levels of mechanical damage, over-pruning, or other structural defects may be present. The spacing, orientation, and size of some of the branches relative to the trunk are not in the normal range for the species. Moderate to significant levels of decay or pathological disease may be present that increase the likelihood of structural instability.
Influences such as an excessive trunk lean, slope erosion, root pruning, or other growth-inhibiting factors may be present. A moderate to significant percentage of the canopy may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the structural integrity or lifespan of the tree. Risk of full or partial failure in the near future appears to be moderately elevated.
D. Well Below Average/Poor - Trees poor structure for their species and with obvious defects. They exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a significantly less than sturdy form or architecture, significantly reducing their resistance to failure under normal circumstances. Significant levels of mechanical damage, over-pruning, or other structural defects may be present. The spacing, orientation, and size of many of the branches relative to the trunk are not in the normal range for the species.
Significant levels of decay or pathological disease may be present that increase the likelihood of structural instability. Influences such as an excessive trunk lean, slope erosion, root pruning, or other growth- inhibiting factors may be present. A significant percentage of the canopy may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the structural integrity or lifespan of the tree. Risk of full or partial failure in the near future appears to be advanced.
F. Severely Compromised – trees with very poor structure and numerous or severe defects due to growing conditions, historical or recent pruning, mechanical damage, history of limb or trunk failures, advanced and irreparable decay, disease, or severe fire damage. Trees with this rating are in severe, irreparable decline, or are barely alive. Risk of full or partial failures in the near future may be severe.
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 19
ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Trees contribute greatly to our enjoyment and appreciation of life. Nonetheless, they are subject to the laws of gravity and physiological decline. Therefore, neither arborists nor tree owners can be reasonably expected to warrant unfailing predictability or elimination of risk.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk.
The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Risk assessments were neither requested nor performed on any of the trees for this project.
F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 2 / Q O F LLC
4 2 0 0 W C E N T U R Y B O U L E V A R D, L O S A N G E L E S – C I T Y O F I N G L E W O O D T R E E R E P O R T P A G E 20
CY CARLBERG
CARLBERG ASSOCIATES
828 Fifth Street, Suite 3 • Santa Monica • California • 90403 [email protected] • o: 310.451.4804 • www.cycarlberg.com
Education B.S., Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 1985 Graduate, Arboricultural Consulting Academy, American Society of Consulting Arborists, Chicago, Illinois, February 2002
Graduate, Municipal Forestry Institute, Lied, Nebraska, 2012
Experience Consulting Arborist, Carlberg Associates, 1998-present Manager of Grounds Services, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 1992-1998 Director of Grounds, Scripps College, Claremont, 1988-1992
Certificates Certified Arborist (#WE-0575A), International Society of Arboriculture, 1990 Registered Consulting Arborist (#405), American Society of Consulting Arborists, 2002 Certified Urban Forester (#013), California Urban Forests Council, 2004 Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, International Society of Arboriculture, 2011
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Ms. Carlberg is experienced in the following areas of tree management and preservation:
• Tree health and risk assessment
• Master Planning
• Historic landscape assessments, preservation plans, reports • Tree inventories and reports to satisfy jurisdictional requirements • Expert Testimony
• Post-fire assessment, valuation, and mitigation for trees and native plant communities • Value assessments for native and non-native trees
• Pest and disease identification
• Guidelines for oak preservation
• Selection of appropriate tree species
• Planting, pruning, and maintenance specifications
• Tree and landscape resource mapping – GPS, GIS, and AutoCAD • Planning Commission, City Council, and community meetings representation
PREVIOUS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
Ms. Carlberg has overseen residential and commercial construction projects to prevent damage to protected and specimen trees. She has thirty-five years of experience in arboriculture and horticulture and has performed tree health evaluation, value and risk assessment, and expert testimony for private clients, government agencies, cities, school districts, and colleges. Representative clients include:
The Huntington Library and Botanical Gardens The City of Claremont The Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens The City of Beverly Hills The Rose Bowl and Brookside Golf Course, Pasadena The City of Pasadena Walt Disney Concert Hall and Gardens The City of Los Angeles The Art Center College of Design, Pasadena The City of Santa Monica Pepperdine University Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District Loyola Marymount University San Diego Gas & Electric
The Claremont Colleges (Pomona, Scripps, CMC, Harvey Mudd, Claremont Graduate University, Pitzer, Claremont University Center) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart and Sullivan (attorneys at law) Latham & Watkins, LLP (attorneys at law) Getty Trust – Eames House Architectural Resources Group Historic Resources Group AHBE Landscape Architects
Moule and Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists
AFFILIATIONS
Ms. Carlberg serves with the following national, state, and community professional organizations:
• California Urban Forests Council, Board Member, 1995-2006 • Street Tree Seminar, Past President, 2000-present
• American Society of Consulting Arborists Academy, Faculty Member, 2003-2005; 2014 • American Society of Consulting Arborists, Board of Directors, 2013-2015 • Member, Los Angeles Oak Woodland Habitat Conservation Strategic Alliance, 2010-present
Appendix B
Lighting Report
1 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
4200 Century Blvd. Digital
Signage Impact Analysis
May 10, 2024
PREPARED FOR
Dakota Development, LLC
5900 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90036
PREPARED BY
The Lighting Design Alliance, Inc.
2830 Temple Ave
Long Beach, CA 90806
2 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Contents
1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 4 3 – SITE SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 7 4 – PROJECT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 11 5 – CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15 6 – APPENDIX A: EXISTING SIGNS ....................................................................................... 16 7 – APPENDIX B: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS .......................................................................... 33 8 – APPENDIX C: PHOTOMETRICS ....................................................................................... 43 9 – APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ 44
3 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In coordination with Standard Vision (designer of t he proposed digital signage system), Lighting Desig n Alliance (“LDA”), has conducted a study which evalu ates the proposed large-scale LED digital displays (“Digital Displays”) to be installed on a new proposed mixed-use development (“Project”) located at 4200 Century Blvd. in Inglewood, California (“Project Site”)
The primary objectives of the lighting study are to:
1. Establish a baseline for the existing ambient lighting conditions on the Project Site, including existing signage.
2. Calculate the light level contributions from the proposed Digital Displays onto adjacent sensitive use properties.
3. Analyze the visual impact that the proposed Digital Displays may have on adjacent sensitive use properties, which may include unwanted light trespass and glare potential.
4. Make recommendations to mitigate any potential negative impacts.
Specifically, this study reviews the Project with r espect to potential light trespass and glare at adj acent sensitive use properties near the Project Site. The sensitive use properties have been identified due to their close proximity to the Project and possible direct view of the Digital Displays. Because light intensi ty diminishes rapidly in relation to distance, more di stant receptors would receive much lower illuminanc e, and would therefore be less affected by the Project.
The study’s assessment of exterior lighting issues is focused on two key subjects: light trespass and glare.
Light trespass
1 is the artificial light that falls on an adjacent property, measured in terms of illuminance (the unit of measurement for illuminance is foot-candles [‘fc’] or, in metric units, lux). Glare 2 is evaluated by measuring the luminance (the unit of measurement is footlamberts or, in metric units, candelas per square meter/ [cd/ m 2], also known as ‘nits’) at the source of light, su ch as a digital sign, in comparison to the surrounding adjacent luminance; glare may occur whe n either the luminance is too high or the range of brightness in a visual field is too large (e.g., when a bright light source, such as a flood light or street light, is viewed against a dark sky and may be uncomfortable to look at).
The study’s methodology includes an assessment of relevant codes, standards, recommended practices, and regulations, including but not limited to the Calif ornia Code of Regulations, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA), and the California V ehicle Code. In addition, the study takes into consideration the specific design and operational characteristics of the proposed Digital Displays.
After completing multiple site surveys, performing photometric calculations, and analyzing the results, the proposed Digital Displays were determined to produc e such a low ambient lighting contribution at the identified sensitive receptor locations that it would be extremely difficult to perceive any noticeable visual difference in lighting levels. Accordingly, this study has determined that the proposed digital displays would not result in potential light trespass or glare impacts on the adjacent sensitive use properties. The following sections describe the findings and recommendations in greater detail.
1 IESNA Handbook, 10 th Edition, 19.3: Light Pollution and Trespass, page 19.7 2 IESNA Handbook, 10 th Edition, 4.10: Glare, page 4.25
4 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project’s proposed Digital Displays are to be located at 4200 W Century Blvd, in the City of Inglewood, CA. The Project Site is surrounded by both residential and commercial properties such as: single family residences, multi-family residenc es, restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, hotels, motels, retail, etc.
5 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Site Map
The above detailed site
map is included for
reference only, showing
the commercial and
residential zones in color-
coded blocking diagrams.
The areas shown in Red
designate commercial
properties, the areas in
Blue designate residential
properties, and the area in
Green designates the
proposed Project Site.
6 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
The Project’s Digital Displays would include three primary components: the East facade (Digital Display A) with a curved 3,548 sqft digital display, the West façade with a 3,848 sqft digital display (Digital Display B), and the North façade with (16) double-sided fin s (243 sqft of digital display at each face of the fins) (Digital Display C).. Each digital display element (A, B, and C) is described below.
Proposed Digital Display ‘A’
The image to the left depicts the large, curved
display spanning the East façade of the building,
with an overall profile of 28’-6” x 124’-6”.
(3,548 sqft)
Proposed Digital Display ‘B’
The image to the right depicts the large, flat disp lay spanning the West façade of the building, with an
overall profile of 45’-0” x 85’-6”.
(3,848 sqft)
Proposed Digital Display ‘C’
The image to the left depicts the series of (16)
double-sided “fin” displays along the North façade
of the building; each face of the fins has an overa ll
profile of 4’-6” x 54’-0”.
(243 sqft, per face of display)
7 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
3 – SITE SURVEY
As the Project Site is located in a relatively dens e and increasingly active area of the City of Ingle wood, there are existing brightness and glare contributors that exist both currently on the Project Site as well as throughout the commercial district surrounding it. LDA has performed multiple surveys of the Project Site and its adjacent commercial and residential neighborhoods along Century Blvd. The primary goal of these surveys was to establish a baseline for the existin g ambient lighting conditions at the Project Site, specifically:
1. Identify ‘sensitive receptor’ properties. These inc lude commercial and residential buildings in close proximity to the Project Site, which may h ave direct views of the proposed Digital Displays and/or experience the potential for either unwanted light trespass or glare from the displays.
2. Document existing vertical and horizontal illuminan ce levels at adjacent commercial and residential properties, to use as an overall baseline for the Project Site’s ambient light levels.
3. Document existing luminance levels and glare contri butors in proximity to the Project Site and its adjacent neighborhoods, to analyze the rela tionship between the identified sensitive receptors and any potential source of glare (i.e. headlights, streetlights, pedestrian light poles, building-mounted floodlights, digital signage, backlit signage, flood-lit signage, etc.).
*refer to Appendix D for definitions of lighting terminology (i.e. illuminance, luminance, etc.)
3.1 – Sensitive Receptor Properties:
The site map on the following page indicates in RED a selection of existing residential and commercial properties which are likely to have a partial view or full direct view of the Project’s proposed Digit al Displays.
Residential properties represent the majority of the Sensitive Receptors for the purpose of this analysis, due to the consideration that they are often occupied after typical business hours (8am - 5pm). Other commercial spaces were also reviewed to ensure that the proposed digital displays would not present a significant risk for disability of discomfort glare, or any other potential visual distraction. The distance from the Project to each Sensitive Receptor location is noted on the site map, with distances ranging between 130-ft up to 550- ft from the Project site.
8 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
3.2 – Existing Illuminance Levels:
Measuring the existing vertical and horizontal illu minance levels at various locations in proximity to the Project Site is an essential step to establish exis ting ambient light levels. The existing Project Sit e and its surrounding neighborhoods are currently affected by a complex assortment of site conditions which contribute to the overall ambient light levels, inc luding but not limited to existing street lighting poles, pedestrian lighting poles, building-mounted floodli ghts, building storefront and interior lighting, illuminated signage (including digital displays, ba cklit signage, and flood-lit signage), as well as t he constant and dynamic contribution from vehicular headlights from traffic in all directions.
LDA’s site survey was conducted using an
illuminance/light meter from Konica Minolta – Chrom a
Meter CL-200A. All horizontal illuminance recordings in this study were measured at approximately 36” above the ground level, with the meter in a horizontal orient ation.
All vertical illuminance recordings in this study w ere measured at approximately 5’-6” above the ground level, with the meter facing directly toward the Project’s
proposed digital display locations. The unit of
measurement used is footcandles (fc).
9 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
3.3 – Existing Luminance Values and Glare Sources:
In addition to the illuminance study, another critical component to the existing ambient lighting evaluation is the measurement of existing brightness and glare contributors from existing buildings and signage i n close proximity to the Project Site. This step involved taking luminance measurements (measured in ‘nits’, or cd/m
2) of the various brightness contributors for both the brightest of light sources (i.e. streetlights), as well as the darkest of ambient light sources (the n atural nighttime sky). Luminance is a photometric measurement of the luminous intensity of a surface and is determined by measuring the amount of light coming off a surface within a given area. The lumin ance value indicates how much luminous power will be detected by an eye looking at the surface from a particular viewing angle and distance. This is an indicator of how bright the surface will appear, an d if it will be a contributor to glare. Generally, if two objects are emitting the same amount of light, the larger-sized object will be perceived as brighter than the smaller object, and it may therefore present a grea ter perception of glare. The relative background an d visual contrast must also be considered. If the object is very large in the viewer’s field of view but not as bright as smaller sources, the large object would be considered as “glary”.
The impact of glare within the field of view at any observer position is dependent on a variety of fac tors, including brightness of an object, brightness of an adjacent surface, size of an object, duration of t ime, viewing angle, and ambient lighting conditions. Lum inance measurements of the existing site conditions (including existing signage examples) were recorded from a nearby proximity to the Project site, and these measurements were used to create a framework to def ine the extent of glare from an object into three ( 3) categories, based primarily on that object’s measured brightness.
Estimated Glare Range, Based on Luminance Measurements (nits):
• High Glare -- Luminance exceeding 1,000 nits.
• Medium Glare -- Luminance between 500 – 1000 nits.
• Low Glare -- Luminance lower than 500 nits
All luminance measurements were taken using a 1-1/2 degree luminance/spot meter from Minolta – Luminance Meter LS-110, which measures in cd/m².
All measurements were taken from the ground level ( from the viewpoint of pedestrian and vehicular traffic). Note that the measurements were taken using a specific date and time and used a specific lumina nce meter. A different luminance meter may have a margin of error of +/- 5 % difference and as images on static and digital signage are updated. T he different images and color sequences produced by digital signage can pre sent very different luminance measurements.
10 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
3.4 – Site Survey Results:
The table at the right summarizes the primary
sources of glare observed along Century Blvd.,
as well as an average of the various spot
illuminance measurements recorded during the
site survey.
The site map on the following page depicts the
primary examples of existing signage lighting
along Century Blvd. This includes existing
digital displays, backlit signs, and externally
flood-lit signs.
Refer to Section 4 – Project Analysis for an overal l evaluation of the measured ambient light levels, Appendix A for detailed measurements at the identified glare contributors / signage locations, and Appendix B for detailed measurements at the identified Sensitive Receptors.
Location Luminance
(nits) Illuminance (fc)
Large
Streetlight 20800 nits 1.8 fc Avg
Small
Streetlight 5200 nits 1.2 fc Avg
Between
Streetlights N/A 0.18 fc Avg
Intersections
(Avg-High) N/A 3.3 fc Avg
(5.8fc max)
Intersections
(Avg-Low) N/A 1.5 fc Avg
(3.7fc max)
11 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Each table below summarize the luminance measurements recorded at each type of existing signage lighting condition ( LED screen , Flood lit , and Back lit).
4 – PROJECT ANALYSIS
4.1 – Applicable Regulations And Reference Standards
Exterior lighting, including lighting associated with illuminated signage, is regulated through the California Code of Regulations as well as the California Vehicle Code. In addition, the OAAA recommends a maximum illumination threshold for digital signage. While local jurisdictions may also adopt regulations addressing lighting and illumination, the City of Inglewood has not done so.
4.1.1 Outdoor Advertising Association of America
The Outdoor Advertising Association of America references a maximum 1.0 footcandle threshold for light trespass contributions over the existing ambient light level.
4.1.2 California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), also known as the California Building Standards Code, includes various lighting-related regulations relevant to the Project, as described below.
4.1.2.1 2019 California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6
Section 140.8 (Maximum Allowed Lighting Power) of this part of Title 24 regulates the wattage that any internally illuminated sign can produce. Specifically, Section 148 requires that all exterior light emitting diode (LED) sign power supplies have an efficiency of 80% or greater and have a maximum allowed lighting power of less than 12 watts per square foot during the daytime and 5 watts during the nighttime.
LED Screen Signs
Sign Luminance
(Nits)
Illuminance
(fc)
A 420 N/A
B 146 N/A
C 245 1.9
Back Lit Signs
Sign Luminance
(Nits)
Illuminance
(fc)
Existing 215 5.8
G 46 N/A
H 37 N/A
I 144 N/A
J 111 N/A
K 460 3.8
L 263 4.7
M 300 N/A
N 5 N/A
O 150 N/A
P 287 N/A
Flood Lit Signs
Sign Luminance
(Nits)
Illuminance
(fc)
D 46 N/A
E 37 N/A
D 50 N/A
12 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Title 24 Wattage limits affecting exterior internally illuminated signs nod integral electronic displays Watt/sq. ft at
full white
Brightness at Full White
(candelas/sq. meters)
Hours on
per day
Total watt-hours per
day per sq. ft. of sign
Daytime Usage
(7am to 7pm)
12 3500* 12 144
Nighttime Usage
(7pm to 2am)
5 1500* 7 35
Total watt-hours per
day per sq. ft. of sign
179
The proposed Digital Displays consist of arrays of unfiltered LEDs, which means the Project must comply with these standards, and may not exceed 12 watts per sq. ft. during the daytime (at max. output at a white-light setting) and may not exceed 5 watts per sq. ft. during the nighttime (at max. output at a white-light setting)
4.1.3 California Vehicle Code, Division 11
Division 11 of the California Vehicle Code includes Sections 21466 and 21466.5, which address light sources adjacent to a roadway that may impair a driver:
Section 21466: “No person shall place or maintain or display upon or in view of any highway any light in such position as to prevent the driver of a vehicle from readily recognizing any official traffic control device.”
Section 21466.5: “No person shall place or maintain or display, upon or in view of any highway, any light of any color of such brilliance as to impair the vision of drivers upon the highway. A light source shall be considered vision impairing when its brilliance exceeds the values listed below:
The brightness reading of an objectionable light source shall be measured with a 1 1/2-degree
photoelectric brightness meter placed at the driver’s point of view. The maximum measured brightness of the light source within 10 degrees from the driver’s normal line of sight shall not be more than 1,000 times the minimum measured brightness in the driver’s field of view, except that when the minimum measured brightness in the field of view is 10 foot-lamberts(FL) or less, the measured brightness of the light source in foot-lambert shall not exceed 500 plus 100 times the angle, in degrees, between the driver’s line of sight and the light source.”
4.2 – Project Design Features
Standard Vision (the manufacturer of the Digital Displays) has identified the below project design features of the proposed Digital Displays:
• Maximum Brightness: 150-600 nits (nighttime) and 6,500 nits (daytime). The Digital Displays shall be fully dimmable from 100% to 0%, with a target brightness of 600 nits at nighttime, which may be further reduced to a level of 150 nits. These target values are for the brightest color setting – White light – and would be reduced for any dark background or colored settings.
• Transition and Refresh Rates: The Digital Displays shall provide a smooth transition between day/night settings in relation to sunset time (i.e., begin dimming the system 45- minutes prior to sunset each day, to gradually tran sition the system into its darker nighttime setting.). Static images shall not be ref reshed at a rate of any less than once every 8- seconds.
13 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
• Viewing Angle: The LEDs are to have a 140-degree viewing angle – defined by 50% intensity at 70 degrees off of center in both horizontal & vertical angles.
• Hours of Operation: The Digital Displays shall operate under the following schedule:
• Nighttime Setting = 1-hour prior to sunrise, until 45-minutes after sunrise o (Recommended 150-600 nits)
• Daytime Setting = 45-minutes after sunrise until 45-minutes before sunset o (Recommended 6500 nits)
• Nighttime Setting = 45-minutes before sunset until 2:00am o (Recommended 150-600 nits)
4.3 – Light Trespass Analysis, Pertaining to Site
Light trespass is evaluated first at the identified sensitive receptor locations, then at the adjacent property lines across any major street and/or intersection. Reviewing both sets of locations allows for a great er understanding of the required light levels to ensur e no disruption to existing conditions. The amount of light falling on an adjacent surface (‘illuminance’) from the proposed signage locations is to be determined by the angle to, and distance from the source. This change in both angle and distance creates a non-linear relationship between the brightness perceived and a mount of illuminance measured as a given location.
With the source being large (e.g., 3,848 square feet for the largest of the proposed Digital Displays) and the relative distance from viewers being small (5 feet and greater), standard methods of measuring light trespass becomes challenging. Accordingly, a Project-specifi c methodology was used to approximate a calculation showing light trespass on both horizontal and vertical surfaces (see Appendix C). Without the general assumption that the light source distance is greater than 5 times the size of the source (roughly 3.6 miles from the largest signage location and over 1200 feet from the smallest signage location), an accurate general assumption cannot be made. Instead, LDA recorded the existing conditions for both horizontal and vertical illuminance as well as the existing and surrounding luminance levels at various points around the Project Site. These measurements act as the maximum threshold for the sign brightness at any given time to comply with the OAAA maximum allowable illuminance threshold.
Based on the proposed sign calculations in Appendix C, the maximum light trespass from the proposed sign will be 2.3fc roughly 16ft from the building’s façade and the average light trespass in a 300ft radius from the proposed sign will be 0.9fc. After surveying each sensitive receptor in relation to the proposed signs light trespass calculation, the highest measurement of light trespass will be on SR #7 reading at
0.6fc. The average light trespass measurement from all SR locations is 0.12fc. Both of these measurements are still well below the 1.0fc maximum light trespass measurement as described by the OAAA.
4.4 – Glare Analysis, Pertaining to Site
To assess potential glare impacts, LDA measured the brightness of the nighttime sky (0.22 nits), darker walls from surrounding buildings (0.2-5.8 nits), and other surfaces with moderately higher luminance levels (10-80 nits). When compared only to the surrounding dark sources, the low nighttime setting of the proposed Digital Displays at 150 nits would result in higher luminance levels that could potentially be considered a source of glare. However, when considering the brighter sources existing in the area (ranging from 200-11,000 nits) the proposed Digital Displays would not be considered a source of glare.
14 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
As the Project Site’s ambient light levels are relatively high, being in an urban environment, the lowest values of luminance are not appropriate to be used as the baseline values for comparing overall brightness ratios but are to be considered in the overall average luminance ratios and environmental setting.
In relation to Century Blvd., one of the main facto rs in determining potential glare effects would be the relation of the proposed Digital Displays to existi ng illuminated signs and other nearby light sources (streetlights, headlights, etc.). To relate the proposed Digital Display’s luminance to the luminance levels associated with existing illuminated signs along Century Blvd, a "Low” range of glare would be a reading of 0-500 nits, a "Medium” range would be a reading of 500-1000 nits and a "High” range would be a reading of 1000+ nits. The existing illuminated signs’ aver age luminance readings along Century Blvd. all fall within the "Low” range (i.e., 5-460 nits). The proposed Digital Displays will fall well in line with the “Low” to “Medium” range given the maximum nighttime brightness will be 150-600 nits, resulting in an estimated average brightness of 375 nits. A similar comparison against other existing sources (car headlights at 1,300- 5,800 nits, street poles at 5,200-20,800 nits, faça de illumination at 4-53 nits, flood lights on surro unding properties 1,780-8,367 nits and even major intersec tions at 1.5-3.5 fc or 5.14-11.99 nits), the Digita l Displays would continue to fall within the “Low” to “Medium” contrast range in evening environments.
As stated in CVC Section 21466.5, a driver’s 10-deg ree field of view would be building facades along Century Blvd., which were measured as having an average of 5 nits (or the equivalent of ~1.5FL, to convert to the unit of measurement used by the CVC). 1.5FL times the maximum measured brightness as permitted by the CVC (x1000), would be 1500FL (~5,145 nits). The proposed Digital Displays’ maximum brightness will read at 600 nits and therefore will not exceed the allowable 5,145 nits maximum brightness under CVC Section 21466.5.
4.5 – Recommended Mitigation Measures
To ensure no adverse lighting-related impacts occur as a result of the Digital Displays, the following mitigation measures are suggested. With incorporation of these measures, potential lighting-related impacts would be less than significant.
• Sign shall have a default mechanism that causes the sign to revert immediately to a black screen if the message board face malfunctions that would result in the display wholly or partly appearing to flash.
• The refresh rate of the message on a sign, exclusiv e of any change in whole or in part of the sign image, shall be no more frequent than one refresh e vent every eight seconds, with an instant transition between images.
• Sign shall be installed with an automatic dimming t echnology to adjust the brightness of the sign relative to ambient light so that at no time the sign shall exceed a brightness level of 1.0-footcandles above ambient light for both daytime and nighttime conditions. • Before sign operation, applicant shall prepare a lighting verification report demonstrating that signs will operate in compliance with all identified specifications.
15 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
5 - CONCLUSION
The existing ambient lighting conditions along Cent ury Blvd and in the area surrounding the Project ar e high enough that the relatively low illuminance (fc) contributions from the proposed Digital Displays will be negligible. The expected illuminance contributio ns (refer to Appendix C for photometrics) are well within the 1.0 footcandle maximum contribution allowed per OAAA requirements. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, potential i lluminance-related impacts would be less than significant.
The existing signage examples observed along Centur y Blvd are comparable in luminance (nits) to the proposed brightness of the Project’s Digital Displays, with maximum brightness of 150-600 nits (average of 375 nits) during the nighttime setting. These va lues are consistent with Century Blvd.’s current si gn brightness levels (ranging from 5-460 nits) and fall within the “Low” to “Medium” contrast range in evening environments. The Digital Displays therefore do not present a significant glare opportunity for vehicles or for adjacent properties /sensitive receptors.
With implementation of the identified project design features and mitigation measures, including the ability to be fully dimmable to 0%, with 150-nits being the lowest brightness setting recommended to maintain appropriate visibility standards, as well as the re quirement to provide slow scene transitions between daytime and nighttime settings as well as gradual motion settings, the Digital Displays would not provide a distraction for drivers, in compliance with California Vehicle Code requirements. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
16 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
6 – APPENDIX A: EXISTING SIGNS
Existing Sign at Project Site Location
Existing Sign at Project Site Description
• Backlit Double Sided LED Sign
• Located on Proposed Project Site
• Displayed on Century Blvd visible to traffic flowing east and west. • Current Location Foot Candle reading - 5.8 fc on ground
Existing Sign
Luminance Measurements
Flood Lit Nits
General 215
17 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign A
Existing Sign A Description
Double Sided Digital LED Screen Billboard
Approximately 900 ft from proposed project
Displayed over Century Blvd visible to traffic.
flowing east and west
Sign A
Luminance Measurements
Color Nits
Red 58
Orange 397
Yellow 130
Green 70
Blue 18
Pink 95
Flesh 112
White 420
Average 162.5
18 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign B
Existing Sign B Description
Single Sided Digital LED Screen Billboard
Approximately 1,600 ft from proposed project
Displayed on Prairie Ave, Visible to traffic traveling either direction.
Sign B
Luminance Measurements
Color Nits
Red 40
Orange -
Yellow 100
Green 50
Blue 92
Pink 42
Flesh 122
White 146
Average 84.5
19 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign C
Existing Sign C Description
Double Sided Digital LED Screen Billboard with backlit accent strip Multiple locations surrounding The SoFi Stadium
Sign locations ranging from approximately 1,600 - 2,500 ft from proposed project.
Sign C
Luminance Measurements
Color Nits
Red 70
Orange 102
Yellow 134
Green 50
Blue 82
Pink 142
Flesh 126
White 245
Average 118.9
20 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign D
Existing Sign D Description
Double Sided Flood Lit Static Billboard
Approximately 1,300 ft from proposed project
Displayed on Hawthorne Blvd, Visible to traffic traveling either direction.
Sign D
Luminance Measurements
Flood Lit Nits
General 46
21 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign E
Existing Sign E Description
Single Sided Floodlit Billboard
Located off Century for one way of traffic flow viewing. Sign location approximately 650 ft from proposed project
Sign E
Luminance Measurements
Flood Lit Nits
General 37
22 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign F
Existing Sign F Description
Flood Lit Static Billboard
Approximately 2,000 ft from proposed project
Displayed on Prairie Ave, Visible to traffic traveling either direction
Existing Sign G
Sign F
Luminance Measurements
Flood Lit Nits
General 50
23 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign G Description
Double Sided Backlit LED Sign
Visible to traffic both ways on Century Blvd and Hawthorne Blvd Sign locations ranging from approximately 1,200 ft from proposed project.
Sign G
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 215
24 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign H
Existing Sign H Description
Double sided backlit sign
Displayed on Century Blvd. visible to traffic on both sides. Approximately 330 ft from proposed project
Sign H
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 280
25 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign I
Existing Sign I Description
Double Sided Backlit LED Sign
Fixed to building facade visible to traffic flowing both ways on Century Blvd Sign locations approximately 130 ft from proposed project
Existing Sign J
Sign I
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 144
26 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign J Description
Double Sided Backlit LED Sign
Displayed on Prairie Ave, Visible to traffic traveling either direction. Approximately 300 ft from proposed project
Sign J
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 111
27 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign K
Existing Sign K Description
Single Sided Backlit LED Sign
Fixed to building facing Century Blvd visible to traffic flow in both directions. Sign locations ranging from approximately 850 ft from proposed project. Flood Light on building reads 1780 nits.
Building Façade reads 4 nits.
Sign K
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 460
28 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign L
Existing Sign L Description
Flood Lit Static Billboard
Approximately 800 ft from proposed project
Displayed on Prairie Ave, Visible to traffic traveling either direction. Flood light on property – 8367 nits
General lighting on property – 4.7 nits
Sign L
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 263
29 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign M
Existing Sign M Description
Single Sided Backlit Sign
Fixed to building facade facing Century Blvd visible to traffic flowing in both directions. Sign locations ranging from approximately 950 ft from proposed project.
Sign M
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 300
30 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign N
Existing Sign N Description
Backlit Single sided Sign
Fixed to structure that is made of multiple back lit signs. Approximately 1,400 ft from proposed project
Sign N
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 5
31 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign O
Existing Sign O Description
Single Sided Backlit LED Sign
Positioned towards Century Blvd. visible to traffic flow both directions. Sign locations ranging from approximately 1,425 ft from proposed project.
Sign O
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 150
32 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Existing Sign P
Existing Sign P Description
Back lit Individual Signs
Approximately 1,650 ft from proposed project
Displayed on Prairie Ave, Visible to traffic traveling either direction.
Sign P
Luminance Measurements
Backlit Nits
General 287
33 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
7 – APPENDIX B: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The above site map indicates in RED a selection of existing residential and commercial properties which are likely to have a partial or full direct view of the Project’s proposed Digital Displays. These sen sitive receptor locations are described in detail on the following pages to report the measured ambient illuminance and sample luminance values at each property. Refer to report Section 3 – Site Survey, and Section 4 – Project Analysis for additional information.
34 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 1:
4228 W 101st St
This residence is a one-story property that has a potential view of the proposed LED digital signage. From the ground level, only the very top of the proposed digital signage would be visible. Considering the distance, the property is from the project site, an d considering there is a full city block of single story residential and commercial buildings between the two the light levels will not be of concern.
The residence is located roughly 340 feet away from the front façade.
The existing horizontal footcandle level taken at the sidewalk in front of the property was 1.0 footcandles with the vertical illuminance measuring 0.2 FC. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no potential assumed light contribution at the property (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.0fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #1
4200 W Century
35 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 2:
4250 W 101st St
This residence is a single-story property that has a view of a portion of the proposed LED digital signage.
From the ground level, given the proposed project will be ~ 12 stories high this residence will have a view of the proposed sign. There will not be a significant amount of light onto this SR considering the distance the property is away from the project site and considering there is a full city block of single story residential and commercial buildings between the two.
The residence is located roughly 380 feet away from the front façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewal k in front of the property was 0.5 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no potential assumed light contribution at the property (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.0fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #2
4200 W Century
36 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 3:
4307 W Century Blvd.
This motel is a two-story property that has a view of a portion of the proposed LED digital signage. From the ground level, the proposed signage would be vis ible. Looking at the vantage point from the second floor, both the fins across the front façade and the large LED screen would be visible.
The residence is located roughly 365 feet away from the front façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewal k in front of the property was 0.3 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no potential assumed light contribution at the property (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.1fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #3
4200 W Century
37 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 4:
1231 Myrtle Ave
This residence is a two-story property that has a view of the front façade fins of the proposed LED digital signage. From the ground level, most of the fins w ould be visible, given we there is a second level t hat LDA was not able to access the view of the proposed signage would be greater.
The residence is located roughly 330 feet away from the front façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewal k in front of the property was 0.4 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no more than a potential assumed light contribution of
0.2 footcandles to the property. (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.0fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #4
4200 W Century
38 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 5:
511 E 99th St
This residence is a three-story apartment complex t hat has views of the proposed LED digital signage.
From the ground level, given there are other single story commercial and residential building there would be no visibility. LDA did not have access to the second and third level. It is presumed there would be slight visibility of the front façade fins from each level.
The residence is located roughly 550 feet away from the front façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewal k in front of the property was 0.2 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no more than a potential assumed light contribution of
0.1 footcandles to the property. (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.0fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #5
4200 W Century
39 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 6:
512 E 99th St
This residence is a two-story residence that has a potential view of the proposed LED digital signage. From the ground level, only the very top of the proposed digital signage was visible. Since there is a second floor to the property that we did not have access to, we assume that from the upper level, there would be slightly more of the signage visible from that level, but no t a significant amount considering the distance the property is away from the project site and considering there a large row of tree between the residence and the proposed sign.
The residence is located roughly 300 feet away from the primary corner façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewalk in front of the property was 0.14 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no potential assumed light contribution at the property (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.0fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #6
4200 W Century
40 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 7:
4141 W Century Blvd
This residence is a single-story property that will have a view two of the proposed LED digital signs. From the ground level, given the proposed project will be ~ 12 stories high this residence will have a view of the proposed sign. This residence will have a view of both the front façade find and the corner facades curved sign.
The residence is located roughly 150 feet away from the front and corner façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewal k in front of the property was 0.5 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no potential assumed light contribution at the property (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.6fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #7
4200 W Century
41 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 8:
4127 W Century Blvd
This residence is a two-story residence that has a potential view of the proposed LED digital signage. From the ground level, both the front and corner façade signage will be visible. Since there is a second floor to the property that we did not have access to, we ass ume that from the upper level, there would be sligh tly more of the signage visible from that level, but no t a significant amount considering the distance the property is away from the project site,
The residence is located roughly 300 feet away from the primary corner façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewalk in front of the property was 0.14 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no potential assumed light contribution at the property (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.4fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #8
4200 W Century
42 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptor 9:
4127 W Century Blvd
This residence is a single-story residence that has a potential view of the proposed LED digital signa ge.
From the ground level, both the corner curved façade signage will be visible.
The residence is located roughly 130 feet away from the primary corner façade.
The existing footcandle levels taken at the sidewal k in front of the property was 0.2 footcandles. At this distance away from the project site, there would be no potential assumed light contribution at the property (See Appendix C).
When considering the OAAA and CA-Title 24 Standards for light trespass and glare, the light contribution from the proposed signage to this sensitive recepto r location will comply with the thresholds. There will not be enough light trespass to note, the light tre spass calculation (See Appendix C) reads 0.0fc whic h is well below the 1.0fc threshold. When referencing the overall visible area to the signage area, the glare will be minimal. Given the light trespass reading of 0.0fc this SR will fall into the “Low” glare threshold.
SR #9
4200 W Century
43 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
8 - APPENDIX C: PHOTOMETRICS
The Diagram above shows the light trespass from the proposed sign in 100ft increments. The GREEN
circle represents 100ft from the proposed sign, this calculation shows the sign will throw a maximum of
2.2fc at the boarder of a 100ft radius. The RED circle represents 200ft from the proposed sign, this calculation shows the sign will throw a maximum of 0.6fc at the boarder of a 200ft radius. The BLUE circle represents 300ft from the proposed sign, this calculation shows the sign will throw a maximum of
0.2fc at the boarder of a 300ft radius.
Overall, this calculation shows the maximum light trespass from the proposed sign will be 2.3fc roughly 16ft from the building’s façade and the average light trespass in a 300ft radius from the proposed sign will be .9fc.
44 4200 Century Blvd. Digital Signage Impact Analysis
9 - APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY
Candela, cd the SI unit of luminous intensity. One candela is one lumen per steradian (lm/sr). Formerly, candle.
Footcandle a unit of illuminance. One footcandle is one lumen per square foot (lm/ft2)
Glare the sensation produced by luminances within the visual field that are sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted to cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance or visibility.
Note: The magnitude of the sensation of glare depends on such factors as the size, position, and luminance of a source; the number of sources; and the luminance to which the eyes are adapted.
Illumination (or Illuminance), E The act of illumination or state of being illuminated. The unit of measure is footcandle (fc).
Light trespass The encroachment of light, typically across property boundaries, causing annoyance, loss of privacy, or other nuisance.
Luminous Flux The time rate of flow of luminous energy. The unit of luminous flux is the Lumen.
Lumen SI unit of luminous flux. Radiometrically, it is determined from the radiant power.
Photometrically, it is the luminous flux emitted within a unit solid angle (one steradian) by a point source having a uniform luminous intensity of one candela.
Luminance, L = d2 Φ | (d ωdA cos Θ) the quotient of the luminous flux at an element of the surface surrounding the point, and propagated in directions
Formerly, photometric brightness.
Luminance, I The solid-angular luminous flux density in a given direction. Luminous intensity indicates the ability of a light source to produce illumination in a given direction. Often referred to as Candlepower.
Nit candela per square meter (cd/m2); also, lumen per steradian-square meter [lm/(sr•m2)]. This unit is sometimes called the nit.
Obtrusive light direct or reflected light that, because of quantitative, directional or spectral attributes in a given context, causes annoyance, discomfort, distraction or a reduction in the ability to see.
Photometry The measurement of quantities associated with light.
Note: Photometry may be visual, in which the eye i s used to make a comparison, or physical, in which measurements are made by means of physical receptors .
Transmittance A measure of the amount of light transmitted through a material, expressed in a percentage.
Reflectance The ability of a surface to reradiate energy, expressed in a percentage.
Appendix C
Air Quality Technical Data
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 1 / 25
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 2 / 25
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 3 / 25
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 4 / 25
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 5 / 25
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 6 / 25
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 4200 West Century Boulevard Existing
Operational Y ear 2022
Lead Agency City of Inglewood
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 17.8
Location 4200 Century Blvd, Inglewood, CA 90304, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Inglewood
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4553
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.24
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Hotel 137 Room 1.98 61,000 1,000 — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 7 / 25
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Unmit. 10,938
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Unmit. 10,638
Average Daily (Max) —
Unmit. 10,725
Annual (Max) —
Unmit. 1,776
Exceeds (Daily Max) —
Threshold —
Unmit. —
Exceeds (Average Daily) —
Threshold —
Unmit. —
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 8 / 25
Mobile 6,545
Area 0.00
Energy 4,093
Water 63.3
Waste 141
Refrig. 95.4
Total 10,938
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Mobile 6,245
Area 0.00
Energy 4,093
Water 63.3
Waste 141
Refrig. 95.4
Total 10,638
Average Daily —
Mobile 6,332
Area 0.00
Energy 4,093
Water 63.3
Waste 141
Refrig. 95.4
Total 10,725
Annual —
Mobile 1,048
Area 0.00
Energy 678
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 9 / 25
Water 10.5
Waste 23.4
Refrig. 15.8
Total 1,776
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Hotel 2,805
Total 2,805
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Hotel 2,805
Total 2,805
Annual —
Hotel 464
Total 464
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 10 / 25
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Hotel 1,288
Total 1,288
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Hotel 1,288
Total 1,288
Annual —
Hotel 213
Total 213
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Hearths 0.00
Consumer Products —
Architectural Coatings —
Total 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Hearths 0.00
Consumer Products —
Architectural Coatings —
Total 0.00
Annual —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 11 / 25
Hearths 0.00
Consumer Products —
Architectural Coatings —
Total 0.00
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Hotel 63.3
Total 63.3
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Hotel 63.3
Total 63.3
Annual —
Hotel 10.5
Total 10.5
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Hotel 141
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 12 / 25
Total 141
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Hotel 141
Total 141
Annual —
Hotel 23.4
Total 23.4
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Hotel 95.4
Total 95.4
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Hotel 95.4
Total 95.4
Annual —
Hotel 15.8
Total 15.8
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 13 / 25
Equipment Type CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Total —
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Total —
Annual —
Total —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Total —
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Total —
Annual —
Total —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Total —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 14 / 25
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Total —
Annual —
Total —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Total —
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Total —
Annual —
Total —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Total —
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Total —
Annual —
Total —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 15 / 25
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) —
Avoided —
Subtotal —
Sequestered —
Subtotal —
Removed —
Subtotal —
— —
Daily, Winter (Max) —
Avoided —
Subtotal —
Sequestered —
Subtotal —
Removed —
Subtotal —
— —
Annual —
Avoided —
Subtotal —
Sequestered —
Subtotal —
Removed —
Subtotal —
— —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 16 / 25
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 884 884 884 322,660 7,498 7,498 7,498 2,736,770
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Hotel —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 10
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 17 / 25
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
0 0.00 91,500 30,500 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Hotel 1,917,137 532 0.0330 0.0040 4,007,820
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Hotel 3,475,247 14,025
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 75.0 —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 18 / 25
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 19 / 25
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.03 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.60 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 20 / 25
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 21 / 25
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 29.9
AQ-PM 77.8
AQ-DPM 44.3
Drinking Water 39.5
Lead Risk Housing 99.4
Pesticides 67.1
Toxic Releases 93.1
Traffic 64.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 22 / 25
Groundwater 26.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 28.3
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 52.7
Cardio-vascular 49.0
Low Birth Weights 92.4
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 97.5
Housing 76.3
Linguistic 94.0
Poverty 82.7
Unemployment 58.4
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 10.59925574
Employed 23.22597203
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 0.705761581
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 74.47709483
Transportation —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 23 / 25
Auto Access 16.74579751
Active commuting 80.84178109
Social —
2-parent households 41.24214038
Voting 13.5249583
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 4.516874118
Park access 47.1448736
Retail density 65.18670602
Supermarket access 94.25125112
Tree canopy 21.55780829
Housing —
Homeownership 26.45964327
Housing habitability 6.659822918
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 7.339920441 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 18.09316053
Uncrowded housing 2.643397921
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 10.92005646
Arthritis 67.1
Asthma ER Admissions 38.8
High Blood Pressure 62.1
Cancer (excluding skin) 93.3
Asthma 19.7
Coronary Heart Disease 34.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 29.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 10.1
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 24 / 25
Life Expectancy at Birth 18.8
Cognitively Disabled 46.5
Physically Disabled 76.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 46.6
Mental Health Not Good 7.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 7.3
Pedestrian Injuries 93.9
Physical Health Not Good 7.3
Stroke 26.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 61.9
Current Smoker 10.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 10.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 8.1
Elderly 93.3
English Speaking 13.1
Foreign-born 86.5
Outdoor Workers 8.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 14.0
Traffic Density 68.2
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
4200 West Century Boulevard Existing Detailed Report, 6/26/2024 25 / 25
Hardship 97.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 10.7
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 80.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 17.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Hearths Assumes 10 gas-fired fireplaces in common areas Operations: Vehicle Data Linscott Law & Greenspan, Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, 4200 Century; May 2024 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 1 / 88
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2022) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2022) - Mitigated
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 2 / 88
3.3. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
3.4. Demolition (2023) - Mitigated
3.5. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
3.6. Site Preparation (2023) - Mitigated
3.7. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
3.8. Grading (2023) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (Below Grade Parking) (2023) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (Below Grade Parking) (2023) - Mitigated
3.11. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2023) - Unmitigated
3.12. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2023) - Mitigated
3.13. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2024) - Unmitigated
3.14. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2024) - Mitigated
3.15. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2023) - Unmitigated
3.16. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2023) - Mitigated
3.17. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2024) - Unmitigated
3.18. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2024) - Mitigated
3.19. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2025) - Unmitigated 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 3 / 88
3.20. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2025) - Mitigated
3.21. Architectural Coating (2023) - Unmitigated
3.22. Architectural Coating (2023) - Mitigated
3.23. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
3.24. Architectural Coating (2024) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 4 / 88
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 5 / 88
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 6 / 88
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 7 / 88
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 8 / 88
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 9 / 88
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 10 / 88
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 4200 West Century Boulevard Future
Construction Start Date 11/21/2022
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency City of Inglewood
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 17.8
Location 4200 Century Blvd, Inglewood, CA 90304, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Inglewood
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4553
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.24
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 11 / 88
Apartments Mid Rise 118 Dwelling Unit 0.39 123,600 0.00 0.00 349 — Condo/Townhouse 11.0 Dwelling Unit 0.07 23,200 0.00 0.00 33.0 — Hotel 175 Room 0.42 132,020 0.00 — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
54.8 1000sqft 0.17 54,770 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
915 Space 0.93 295,000 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-9 Use Dust Suppressants
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 18.3 56.9 82.7 0.19 14.4 5.33
Mit. 18.3 56.9 82.7 0.19 14.4 5.33
% Reduced — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 18.6 60.3 78.5 0.18 12.6 4.61
Mit. 18.6 60.3 78.5 0.18 12.6 4.61
% Reduced — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 12 / 88
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.6 28.6 49.6 0.08 7.99 2.59
Mit. 10.6 28.6 49.6 0.08 7.99 2.59
% Reduced — — — — — —
Annual (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.93 5.22 9.05 0.02 1.46 0.47
Mit. 1.93 5.22 9.05 0.02 1.46 0.47
% Reduced — — — — — —
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0
Unmit. No No No No No No
Mit. No No No No No No
Exceeds (Average Daily) — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0
Unmit. No No No No No No
Mit. No No No No No No
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
2023 5.40 56.9 72.4 0.19 14.4 5.33
2024 18.3 30.5 82.7 0.08 12.5 3.59
2025 2.42 13.6 32.2 0.04 5.02 1.45
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2022 1.93 19.2 18.5 0.03 1.46 0.91
2023 18.6 60.3 78.5 0.18 12.6 4.61
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 13 / 88
2024 18.2 31.5 73.8 0.08 12.5 3.59
2025 2.40 13.9 29.1 0.04 5.02 1.45
Average Daily — — — — — —
2022 0.19 1.85 1.78 < 0.005 0.14 0.09
2023 3.68 28.6 37.6 0.08 7.33 2.59
2024 10.6 20.9 49.6 0.05 7.99 2.31
2025 0.67 3.91 8.37 0.01 1.39 0.40
Annual — — — — — —
2022 0.03 0.34 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.02
2023 0.67 5.22 6.87 0.02 1.34 0.47
2024 1.93 3.81 9.05 0.01 1.46 0.42
2025 0.12 0.71 1.53 < 0.005 0.25 0.07
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
2023 5.40 56.9 72.4 0.19 14.4 5.33
2024 18.3 30.5 82.7 0.08 12.5 3.59
2025 2.42 13.6 32.2 0.04 5.02 1.45
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2022 1.93 19.2 18.5 0.03 1.46 0.91
2023 18.6 60.3 78.5 0.18 12.6 4.61
2024 18.2 31.5 73.8 0.08 12.5 3.59
2025 2.40 13.9 29.1 0.04 5.02 1.45
Average Daily — — — — — —
2022 0.19 1.85 1.78 < 0.005 0.14 0.09
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 14 / 88
2023 3.68 28.6 37.6 0.08 7.33 2.59
2024 10.6 20.9 49.6 0.05 7.99 2.31
2025 0.67 3.91 8.37 0.01 1.39 0.40
Annual — — — — — —
2022 0.03 0.34 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.02
2023 0.67 5.22 6.87 0.02 1.34 0.47
2024 1.93 3.81 9.05 0.01 1.46 0.42
2025 0.12 0.71 1.53 < 0.005 0.25 0.07
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 25.3 10.6 139 0.25 22.7 5.92
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.1 11.3 102 0.24 22.6 5.89
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 23.8 11.4 124 0.24 22.4 5.84
Annual (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.33 2.08 22.6 0.04 4.08 1.06
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0
Unmit. No No No No No No
Exceeds (Average Daily) — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0
Unmit. No No No No No No
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 15 / 88
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 13.3 9.77 110 0.25 22.6 5.84
Area 12.0 0.43 28.3 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
Total 25.3 10.6 139 0.25 22.7 5.92
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 13.1 10.7 102 0.24 22.6 5.84
Area 7.88 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
Total 21.1 11.3 102 0.24 22.6 5.89
Average Daily — — — — — —
Mobile 13.0 10.8 104 0.24 22.3 5.78
Area 10.7 0.18 19.4 < 0.005 0.03 0.02
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
Total 23.8 11.4 124 0.24 22.4 5.84
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 16 / 88
Annual — — — — — —
Mobile 2.38 1.97 19.1 0.04 4.07 1.05
Area 1.95 0.03 3.53 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
Total 4.33 2.08 22.6 0.04 4.08 1.06
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 13.3 9.77 110 0.25 22.6 5.84
Area 12.0 0.43 28.3 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
Total 25.3 10.6 139 0.25 22.7 5.92
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 13.1 10.7 102 0.24 22.6 5.84
Area 7.88 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 17 / 88
Total 21.1 11.3 102 0.24 22.6 5.89
Average Daily — — — — — —
Mobile 13.0 10.8 104 0.24 22.3 5.78
Area 10.7 0.18 19.4 < 0.005 0.03 0.02
Energy 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
Total 23.8 11.4 124 0.24 22.4 5.84
Annual — — — — — —
Mobile 2.38 1.97 19.1 0.04 4.07 1.05
Area 1.95 0.03 3.53 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Water — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — —
Total 4.33 2.08 22.6 0.04 4.08 1.06
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2022) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.86 18.5 17.3 0.02 0.85 0.78
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 18 / 88
Demolition — — — — 0.32 0.05
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.18 1.78 1.67 < 0.005 0.08 0.08
Demolition — — — — 0.03 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.32 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Demolition — — — — 0.01 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 0.95 0.00 0.16 0.04
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.68 0.20 < 0.005 0.12 0.03
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
3.2. Demolition (2022) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 19 / 88
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.86 18.5 17.3 0.02 0.85 0.78
Demolition — — — — 0.32 0.05
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.18 1.78 1.67 < 0.005 0.08 0.08
Demolition — — — — 0.03 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.32 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Demolition — — — — 0.01 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 0.95 0.00 0.16 0.04
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.68 0.20 < 0.005 0.12 0.03
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.02 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 20 / 88
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
3.3. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.74 17.0 16.9 0.02 0.76 0.70
Demolition — — — — 0.32 0.05
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.13 1.24 1.23 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Demolition — — — — 0.02 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.23 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Demolition — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.87 0.00 0.16 0.04
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.52 0.18 < 0.005 0.11 0.03
Average Daily — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 21 / 88
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
3.4. Demolition (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.74 17.0 16.9 0.02 0.76 0.70
Demolition — — — — 0.32 0.05
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.13 1.24 1.23 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Demolition — — — — 0.02 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.23 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Demolition — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 22 / 88
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.87 0.00 0.16 0.04
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.52 0.18 < 0.005 0.11 0.03
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
3.5. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.54 15.1 13.7 0.02 0.72 0.66
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.50 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 23 / 88
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.10 0.02
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Site Preparation (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.54 15.1 13.7 0.02 0.72 0.66
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.50 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 24 / 88
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.10 0.02
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.78 17.5 16.3 0.02 0.83 0.77
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 2.78 1.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 25 / 88
Off-Road Equipment 1.78 17.5 16.3 0.02 0.83 0.77
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 2.78 1.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.59 5.86 5.44 0.01 0.28 0.26
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.93 0.45
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.11 1.07 0.99 < 0.005 0.05 0.05
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.17 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.82 0.00 0.13 0.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.37 24.3 8.69 0.13 5.51 1.65
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.69 0.00 0.13 0.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.35 25.2 8.76 0.13 5.51 1.65
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.01
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.12 8.55 2.91 0.04 1.83 0.55
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.01 < 0.005
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 26 / 88
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.02 1.56 0.53 0.01 0.33 0.10
3.8. Grading (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.78 17.5 16.3 0.02 0.83 0.77
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 2.78 1.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.78 17.5 16.3 0.02 0.83 0.77
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 2.78 1.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.59 5.86 5.44 0.01 0.28 0.26
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.93 0.45
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.11 1.07 0.99 < 0.005 0.05 0.05
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.17 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 27 / 88
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.82 0.00 0.13 0.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.37 24.3 8.69 0.13 5.51 1.65
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.69 0.00 0.13 0.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.35 25.2 8.76 0.13 5.51 1.65
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.01
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.12 8.55 2.91 0.04 1.83 0.55
Annual — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.01 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.02 1.56 0.53 0.01 0.33 0.10
3.9. Building Construction (Below Grade Parking) (2023) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.37 3.04 3.15 0.01 0.13 0.12
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 28 / 88
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.55 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.39 1.55 24.1 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.12 3.70 1.86 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.56 6.64 0.00 1.18 0.28
Vendor 0.03 1.20 0.58 0.01 0.26 0.08
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.21 0.00 0.22 0.05
Vendor 0.01 0.22 0.11 < 0.005 0.05 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (Below Grade Parking) (2023) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 29 / 88
Off-Road Equipment 0.37 3.04 3.15 0.01 0.13 0.12
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.55 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.39 1.55 24.1 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.12 3.70 1.86 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.56 6.64 0.00 1.18 0.28
Vendor 0.03 1.20 0.58 0.01 0.26 0.08
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.21 0.00 0.22 0.05
Vendor 0.01 0.22 0.11 < 0.005 0.05 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2023) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 30 / 88
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.27 2.21 2.30 < 0.005 0.09 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.40 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.39 1.55 24.1 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.12 3.70 1.86 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.81 20.5 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.11 3.86 1.88 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.41 4.84 0.00 0.86 0.20
Vendor 0.03 0.87 0.42 < 0.005 0.19 0.06
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.16 0.04
Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 0.03 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 31 / 88
3.12. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2023) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.27 2.21 2.30 < 0.005 0.09 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.40 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.39 1.55 24.1 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.12 3.70 1.86 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.81 20.5 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.11 3.86 1.88 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.41 4.84 0.00 0.86 0.20
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 32 / 88
Vendor 0.03 0.87 0.42 < 0.005 0.19 0.06
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.16 0.04
Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 0.03 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.55 4.54 4.86 0.01 0.18 0.16
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10 0.83 0.89 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.32 1.41 22.3 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.52 1.73 0.02 0.84 0.26
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 33 / 88
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.31 1.67 18.8 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.66 1.77 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.63 0.80 9.53 0.00 1.84 0.43
Vendor 0.04 1.78 0.84 0.01 0.40 0.12
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.15 1.74 0.00 0.34 0.08
Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 0.07 0.02
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Building Construction (Above Grade Parking) (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.55 4.54 4.86 0.01 0.18 0.16
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 34 / 88
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10 0.83 0.89 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.32 1.41 22.3 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.52 1.73 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.31 1.67 18.8 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.66 1.77 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.63 0.80 9.53 0.00 1.84 0.43
Vendor 0.04 1.78 0.84 0.01 0.40 0.12
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.15 1.74 0.00 0.34 0.08
Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 0.07 0.02
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2023) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 35 / 88
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.31 2.53 2.63 0.01 0.11 0.10
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.46 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.39 1.55 24.1 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.12 3.70 1.86 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.81 20.5 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.11 3.86 1.88 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.46 5.54 0.00 0.99 0.23
Vendor 0.03 1.00 0.48 0.01 0.21 0.07
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 1.01 0.00 0.18 0.04
Vendor 0.01 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 0.04 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 36 / 88
3.16. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2023) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.19 9.81 10.2 0.02 0.41 0.38
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.31 2.53 2.63 0.01 0.11 0.10
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.46 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.39 1.55 24.1 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.12 3.70 1.86 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.37 1.81 20.5 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.11 3.86 1.88 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.46 5.54 0.00 0.99 0.23
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 37 / 88
Vendor 0.03 1.00 0.48 0.01 0.21 0.07
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 1.01 0.00 0.18 0.04
Vendor 0.01 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 0.04 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.17. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.97 8.11 8.68 0.02 0.32 0.29
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.18 1.48 1.58 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.32 1.41 22.3 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.52 1.73 0.02 0.84 0.26
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 38 / 88
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.31 1.67 18.8 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.66 1.77 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 1.12 1.43 17.0 0.00 3.28 0.77
Vendor 0.08 3.18 1.50 0.02 0.71 0.22
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.26 3.11 0.00 0.60 0.14
Vendor 0.01 0.58 0.27 < 0.005 0.13 0.04
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.18. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 0.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.97 8.11 8.68 0.02 0.32 0.29
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 39 / 88
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.18 1.48 1.58 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.32 1.41 22.3 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.52 1.73 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.31 1.67 18.8 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.66 1.77 0.02 0.84 0.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 1.12 1.43 17.0 0.00 3.28 0.77
Vendor 0.08 3.18 1.50 0.02 0.71 0.22
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.26 3.11 0.00 0.60 0.14
Vendor 0.01 0.58 0.27 < 0.005 0.13 0.04
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.19. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 0.30
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 40 / 88
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 0.30
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.30 2.50 2.80 0.01 0.09 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.46 0.51 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.27 1.28 20.5 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.34 1.64 0.02 0.84 0.24
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.25 1.42 17.4 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.08 3.49 1.65 0.02 0.84 0.24
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.43 5.11 0.00 1.07 0.25
Vendor 0.02 0.98 0.46 0.01 0.23 0.07
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.19 0.05
Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.04 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 41 / 88
3.20. Building Construction (Hotel/Apartment) (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 0.30
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 0.30
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.30 2.50 2.80 0.01 0.09 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 0.46 0.51 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.27 1.28 20.5 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.09 3.34 1.64 0.02 0.84 0.24
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 1.25 1.42 17.4 0.00 3.86 0.90
Vendor 0.08 3.49 1.65 0.02 0.84 0.24
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.43 5.11 0.00 1.07 0.25
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 42 / 88
Vendor 0.02 0.98 0.46 0.01 0.23 0.07
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.19 0.05
Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.04 0.01
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.21. Architectural Coating (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.15 0.93 1.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.03
Architectural Coatings 12.3 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Architectural Coatings 0.60 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Architectural Coatings 0.11 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 43 / 88
Worker 0.82 1.08 12.3 0.00 2.32 0.54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.11 0.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.02 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.22. Architectural Coating (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.15 0.93 1.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.03
Architectural Coatings 12.3 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Architectural Coatings 0.60 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 44 / 88
Architectural Coatings 0.11 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.82 1.08 12.3 0.00 2.32 0.54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.11 0.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.02 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.23. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Architectural Coatings 12.3 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 45 / 88
Architectural Coatings 12.3 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.50 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coatings 6.71 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Architectural Coatings 1.22 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.79 0.85 13.4 0.00 2.32 0.54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.78 1.00 11.3 0.00 2.32 0.54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.43 0.55 6.50 0.00 1.25 0.29
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.19 0.00 0.23 0.05
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 46 / 88
3.24. Architectural Coating (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Onsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Architectural Coatings 12.3 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Architectural Coatings 12.3 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.50 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coatings 6.71 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Architectural Coatings 1.22 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.79 0.85 13.4 0.00 2.32 0.54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.78 1.00 11.3 0.00 2.32 0.54
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 47 / 88
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.43 0.55 6.50 0.00 1.25 0.29
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.19 0.00 0.23 0.05
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 48 / 88
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 49 / 88
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 50 / 88
Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 51 / 88
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.40 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.03
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Consumer Products 7.14 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.73 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 4.10 0.25 28.3 < 0.005 0.04 0.03
Total 12.0 0.43 28.3 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Consumer Products 7.14 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.73 — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 52 / 88
Total 7.88 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Annual — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Consumer Products 1.30 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.13 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.51 0.03 3.53 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 Total 1.95 0.03 3.53 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Consumer Products 7.14 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.73 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 4.10 0.25 28.3 < 0.005 0.04 0.03
Total 12.0 0.43 28.3 < 0.005 0.06 0.05
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Consumer Products 7.14 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.73 — — — — —
Total 7.88 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Annual — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Consumer Products 1.30 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.13 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.51 0.03 3.53 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 53 / 88
Total 1.95 0.03 3.53 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 54 / 88
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 55 / 88
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 56 / 88
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 57 / 88
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 58 / 88
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 59 / 88
Apartments Mid Rise — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
— — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 60 / 88
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 61 / 88
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 62 / 88
Total — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 63 / 88
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 64 / 88
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 65 / 88
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 11/21/2022 1/31/2023 6.00 62.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/1/2023 2/14/2023 6.00 12.0 — Grading Grading 01/25/2023 06/15/2023 6.00 122 —
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Building Construction 05/18/2023 9/26/2023 6.00 113 —
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Building Construction 09/27/2023 7/23/2024 6.00 258 —
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Building Construction 09/13/2023 4/29/2025 6.00 510 Includes interior core/stairways/elevators
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/11/2023 8/20/2024 6.00 218 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 66 / 88
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 67 / 88
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 68 / 88
Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction
(Below Grade Parking)
Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
(Above Grade Parking)
Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 69 / 88
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 3.79 30.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 185 30.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
— — — —
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Worker 295 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Vendor 92.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 177 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
— — — —
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 70 / 88
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Worker 295 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Vendor 92.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
— — — —
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Worker 295 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Vendor 92.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 3.79 30.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 71 / 88
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 185 30.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
— — — —
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Worker 295 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Vendor 92.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction (Below Grade
Parking)
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 177 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
— — — —
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Worker 295 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Vendor 92.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction (Above Grade
Parking)
Onsite truck — — HHDT
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 72 / 88
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
— — — —
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Worker 295 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Vendor 92.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction
(Hotel/Apartment)
Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 297,270 99,090 282,008 93,598 2,431
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,465 —
Grading — 112,813 1.98 0.00 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 73 / 88
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Hotel 0.00 0%
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 0.00 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.93 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2022 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2023 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 3,951 3,951 3,951 1,442,115 31,608 31,608 31,608 11,536,920 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 74 / 88
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 3,951 3,951 3,951 1,442,115 31,608 31,608 31,608 11,536,920
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 118
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 11
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 75 / 88
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 118
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 11
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 76 / 88
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
297270 99,090 282,008 93,598 2,431
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 432,568 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,310,607 Condo/Townhouse 50,514 532 0.0330 0.0040 264,334
Hotel 1,847,449 532 0.0330 0.0040 3,811,642
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 525,394 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,344,262 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,088,972 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 77 / 88
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 432,568 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,310,607 Condo/Townhouse 50,514 532 0.0330 0.0040 264,334
Hotel 1,847,449 532 0.0330 0.0040 3,811,642
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 525,394 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,344,262 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,088,972 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 4,398,308 0.00
Condo/Townhouse 410,012 0.00
Hotel 4,439,185 4,000
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 21,995,712 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 4,398,308 0.00
Condo/Townhouse 410,012 0.00
Hotel 4,439,185 4,000
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 21,995,712 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 78 / 88
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 87.2 —
Condo/Townhouse 8.24 —
Hotel 95.8 —
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 312 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 87.2 —
Condo/Townhouse 8.24 —
Hotel 95.8 —
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 312 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 79 / 88
10.02.502.50< 0.0052,088R-410ACondo/Townhouse Average room A/C & Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 80 / 88
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 81 / 88
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 82 / 88
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.03 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.60 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 83 / 88
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 84 / 88
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 29.9
AQ-PM 77.8
AQ-DPM 44.3
Drinking Water 39.5
Lead Risk Housing 99.4
Pesticides 67.1
Toxic Releases 93.1
Traffic 64.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 26.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 28.3
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 52.7
Cardio-vascular 49.0
Low Birth Weights 92.4
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 97.5
Housing 76.3
Linguistic 94.0
Poverty 82.7
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 85 / 88
Unemployment 58.4
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 10.59925574
Employed 23.22597203
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 0.705761581
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 74.47709483
Transportation —
Auto Access 16.74579751
Active commuting 80.84178109
Social —
2-parent households 41.24214038
Voting 13.5249583
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 4.516874118
Park access 47.1448736
Retail density 65.18670602
Supermarket access 94.25125112
Tree canopy 21.55780829
Housing —
Homeownership 26.45964327
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 86 / 88
Housing habitability 6.659822918
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 7.339920441 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 18.09316053
Uncrowded housing 2.643397921
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 10.92005646
Arthritis 67.1
Asthma ER Admissions 38.8
High Blood Pressure 62.1
Cancer (excluding skin) 93.3
Asthma 19.7
Coronary Heart Disease 34.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 29.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 10.1
Life Expectancy at Birth 18.8
Cognitively Disabled 46.5
Physically Disabled 76.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 46.6
Mental Health Not Good 7.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 7.3
Pedestrian Injuries 93.9
Physical Health Not Good 7.3
Stroke 26.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 61.9
Current Smoker 10.6
4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 87 / 88
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 10.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 8.1
Elderly 93.3
English Speaking 13.1
Foreign-born 86.5
Outdoor Workers 8.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 14.0
Traffic Density 68.2
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 97.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 10.7
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 80.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 17.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 4200 West Century Boulevard Future Detailed Report, 6/21/2024 88 / 88
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Developer information Construction: Dust From Material Movement Assumes 75,000 CY of export, with first ten inches topsoil = 5,208 CY @ 56% swell factor = 8,125 CY . Remaining 69,792 CY dry clay @ 50% swell factor = 104,688.
Source: US Department of Transportation Determination of Excavation and Embankment Volumes; https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/pddm/dpg/earthwork-design Construction: Trips and VMT 30 mile one-way distance to Scholl Canyon landfill Operations: Hearths Assumes condos have gas fireplaces
Operations: Water and Waste Water Consultant assumption
Appendix D
Energy Calculations
Diesel MPG Source: EMFAC2021 (VMT/Fuel ConsumptionGasoline MPG Source: EMFAC2021 (VMT/Fuel Consumption) Existing Annual VMT:
Fleet Mixauto 91%2,490,461gas (mpg)23.09107,858.84other 9%246,309diesel (mpg)8.0530,597.43138,456.27 Fleet Mixauto 91%10,498,597gas (mpg)23.09454,681.56other 9%1,038,323diesel (mpg)8.05128,984.20583,665.768,800,150 Fleet Mixauto 91%8,008,137gas (mpg)23.68338,181.44other 9%792,014diesel (mpg)9.4383,988.71422,170.15 phase trips length (miles)Daystotal MilesMPGGallonsDemolition 12.518.56214,33823.09620.94Site Preparation 7.518.5121,66523.09 72.11Grading 1018.512222,57023.09977.48Building Construction29518.58814,808,05823.09208,231.16Architectural Coating17718.5218713,84123.0930,915.59240,817.28 phase trips length (miles)daystotal MilesMPGGallonsDemolition 0 10.26208.05 0.00Site Preparation 0 10.21208.05 0.00Grading 0 10.212208.05 0.00Building Construction92.810.2881833,9198.05103,592.47Architectural Coating0 10.221808.05 0.00103,592.47 phase trips length (miles)daystotal MilesMPGGallonsDemolition 5.92306211,0118.051,367.85Site Preparation 0 201208.05 0.00Grading 11620122283,0408.0535,160.25Building Construction0 2088108.05 0.00Architectural Coating0 021808.05 0.0036,528.10 240,817.28140,120.57
Phase EquipmentUnitsHoursHPLoad FactorAve. Daily Load FactorDaysHP HoursDemolitionconcrete/Industrial Saws1 8 330.73 0.612214,107.10Rubber Tired Dozers1 83670.4 0.612285,966.08Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes3 8 840.37 0.612218,200.45Site PreparationGraders 1 81480.41 0.6123,495.17tractors/Loaders/Backhoes2 7 840.37 0.6121,566.43rubber Tired Dozers1 83670.4 0.6128,455.68GradingGraders 1 62470.4 0.612243,392.96Rubber Tired Dozers1 81480.1 0.61228,666.88Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes1 7 970.37 0.612218,390.04Building Constructioncranes 1 63670.29 0.6881337,553.39forklifts 1 6 820.2 0.688152,014.24generator sets 1 8 140.74 0.688143,810.37tractors/Loaders/Backhoes1 6 840.37 0.688198,573.33welders 3 8 460.45 0.688187,536.16Architectural CoatingAir Compressors1 6 370.48 0.621813,938.05Total835,666.32181,903.88Total Diesel422,721.16Total fuelFuel Usage41,783.32 Water Usage for fugitive dust control during constructionWater application rate = 3,020 gallons/acre/dayEach gallon of delivered potable water in Southern California is associated with 0.009727 kWhr of electricity). 241.56729511.27095.955442
Grading 122 days x .1.98 acres x 3,020 gallons = 729,511.2 gallons x 0.009727 = 7,095.95 kWhr Total On-Road GasTotal On-Road Diesel
Fuel2,736,770
Project Annual VMT:11,536,920
Worker Fuel (Gasoline, on-road)
Equipment assumptions are provided in the CalEEMod output files for the Project and fuel usage estimate of 0.05 gallons of diesel fuel per horsepower-hour is from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-3E.
Haul Fuel (Diesel, on-road)
Construction Equipment (Diesel, off-road)
Net Project Annual VMT:
HP = hoursepower. Gallons of diesel fuel per HP-hour - 0.05.
Vender Fuel (Diesel, on-road)
Appendix E
Geotechnical Data
www.geoteq.com
January 12, 2022
File No. 22223
Dakota Development
131 Spring Street
New York, New York 10012
Attention: Joe Faust
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment
Mixed-Use Development
4200 West Century Boulevard, Inglewood, California
Dear Mr. Faust:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the time of preparation of this report, the development team was in the process of securing entitlements from government agencies. The purpose and intent of this document is to evaluate the geological site characteristics applicable to the proposed development including potential environmental impacts to the surrounding area as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The following geotechnical assessment includes findings from geotechnical investigations performed within and in the vicinity of the site, laborator y testing of onsite soils, engineering analysis, review of published geologic data, and review of available geotechnical engineering information.
The geotechnical evaluation presented herein is not intended for submission to a building official for building permit purposes. A comprehensive , site-specific, geotechnical investigation will be required as the design process proceeds. The geotechnical investigation would be based on subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Such an investigation will be required by the building official and is a condition of development approval.
2.0 PROJECT SCOPE
Preliminary information regarding the proposed development was obtained by review of plans prepared by CallisonRTKL Architects, dated July 19, 2021. The proposed development consists of a thirteen-story, mixed-use structure which includes a single subterranean parking level extending approximately 16 feet below existing ground surface . The proposed mixed -use development is anticipated to provide 333,500 square feet o f recreational and entertainment amenities, hotel and condominium accommodations including a 295,000 square feet parking facility providing above and below grade parking options.
Preliminarily column loads for the proposed development are estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,500 kips. Wall loads are estimated to range between 25 and 35 kips per lineal foot. Grading will consist of excavations extending from 18 to 22 feet below ground surface for construction of the proposed subterranean parking level including foundation elements and elevator pit enclosures. The enclosed Plot Plan – Proposed Development and Cross-Sections A-A’ and B-B’ illustrate the architectural details and features anticipated for the proposed development.
January 12, 2022
File No. 22223