INGLEWOOD General Plan Review

PHASE 1 REPORT Prepared for: Woodie Tescher, USC Sol Price School of Public Policy PPD 620: General Plans February 27, 2018 CONTRIBUTORS Project Manager: Taylor Kay Copy Edit: Davina Myers and Taylor Kay Booklet Design & Production: Jessica Reyes

Part A-Assessment of Existing General Plan • Sahag Yedalian • Taylor Kay • Austin Anderson • Sean Veal

Part B-Community Profile and Issues

Existing Land Uses • Natalie Hernandez • Lauren Colonna • Andrew Esmailian • Jessica Reyes

Economics and Demographics • Anders Engnell • Davina Myers

Mobility • Dylan Coyle • Andrew Ramaglia

Part C-Work Plan • Taylor Kay • Anders Engnell

Front Cover Image: https://calisphere.org/clip/500x500/c45da4134e85c901437abcba49e18930 TABLE OF CONTENT

PART A: GENERAL PLAN

GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCTION 1

RECENT LEGISLATION 5

OPPORTUNITIES 12

COMMUNITY ISSUES 14

BEST PLANNINGPRACTICES 24

CONSISTENCY 26

PLAN ORGANIZATION 38

PLAN ACCESS 43

PART B: COMMUNITY PROFILE

CATEGORIZATION OF LAND USE TYPES 46

KEY DISTRICTS 48

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 53

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 57

DEMOGRAPHICS 59

ECONOMY 62

MOBILITY 66

PART C: WORK PLAN

WORK PLAN 79

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

PART A GENERAL PLAN City of Inglewood General Plan Timeline. The above dates demonstrate when each of the existing elements was last amended or updated (City of Inglewood 2016).

2 1 INTRODUCTIONGENERAL AND HISTORY PLAN

THE CITY OF INGLEWOOD

The City of Inglewood is a 9.15 square-mile city that was incorporated February 8,1908. It is inland city located in Los Angeles County. It is located south of Los Angeles City, east LA City’s Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Westchester neighborhood and south of it’s Ladera Heights neighborhood. It is one of the northern South Bay cities, neighboring Hawthorne, Gardena, and El Segundo. Inglewood also neighbors the unincorporated LA County territory known as Lennox. It is bound by 64th Street to the north, portions of West Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue to the east, portions of Imperial Highway and the 105 Freeway to the south, and portions of Prairie Ave, La Cienega Boulevard and Portal Ave to the west.

THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN HISTORY

State of California requires that each city or county adopt a general plan that must be: • Adopted by legislative act by a legislative body • Comprehensive (geographically and topically) • Long range/term (have a 20-30 year horizon) • Externally and internally consistent (OPR, 2016).

The City of Inglewood General Plan contains seven (7) of the eight (8) elements required by the state of California. At present, the General Plan does not contain any optional elements. It is not certain when the first version of the Plan, nor the individual elements, were originally adopted. It’s elements are organized as follows:

Phase 1: General Plan Review 3 1. Housing:

The Housing Element was most recently updated and adopted in 2014, as required by the California Department of Housing and community Development. It provides policies for a “comprehensive housing program” for the 2013 to 2021 period.

Year State of California began requiring this element: 1967

2. Circulation:

The Circulation Element was most recently updated and adopted in 1992. It is an analysis of existing and future traffic, transportation, and circulation needs.

Year State of California began requiring this element: 1955

3. Conservation:

The Conservation Element was most recently updated and adopted in 1997. It provides a long- range plan for conservation of its natural resources: water, soil, natural gas, oil, and air.

Year State of California began requiring this element: 1970

4. Land Use:

The Land Use Element was most recently amended in 2016. Prior versions were amended in 1973, 1980, 1986, and 2009. It contains policies to direct growth within the city and identify where those land uses will be concentrated on public and private lands.

Year State of California began requiring this element: 1955

5. Noise :

The Noise Element was most recently updated and adopted in 1987. It provides policies to mitigate the relationship between land use and environmental noise.

Year State of California began requiring this element: 197

6. Open Space:

The Open Space was most recently updated and adopted in 1995. It makes long-term arrangements to balance urbanization with park and recreation space.

Year State of California began requiring this element: 1970

7. Safety:

The Safety element was most recently updated and adopted in 1995. It frames policies to protect the city and its community against natural and man-made disasters.

Year State of California began requiring this element: 1975

4 WHY CONDUCT A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE NOW?

As the past home of the Los Angeles Lakers and the future home of the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers and potentially the Los Angeles Clippers, the city is continuing its self-designated legacy as the “City of Champions.” Yet--with Transit Oriented Development plans, Active Transportation Plans, the Inglewood Forward Campaign, and more--city administration, the community, and public and private partners are also expanding that identity with forthcoming projects and initiatives promoting economic development, sustainability, and quality of life. With an updated General Plan, these could proceed in a more concerted fashion, rather than in silo.

Additionally, at present, the General Plan mostly speaks to an Inglewood of yesterday, and does not comprehensively address major planning issues affecting urban cities today such as climate change, affordable housing,environmental justice, health, smart growth, and more.

Recently adopted state legislation is also ushering an extensive General Plan update. (Several laws have been passed pertaining to general plans, climate change must be addressed in the Safety Element, an eighth Environmental Justice Element is now required, and an Air Quality element is recommended). As the City looks to update its General Plan, the new iteration of this Plan will need to link the city’s heritage to its aspirations for its future in an evergreen fashion. This is the preliminary evaluation and recommendations of how to do so.

2 SINCERECENT INGLEWOOD’S LEGISLATION LAST COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

With the exception of its Housing and Land Use Elements, City of Inglewood’s elements were last updated at various points in the 1990s. As such, several laws have been passed in the areas of climate change, housing, and disadvantaged communities that will need to be addressed in the subsequent General Plan update.

CA’S CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION

In the area of climate change, thirteen pieces of legislation have been passed by the CA legislature and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger and Brown. The two governor’s have committed State of CA to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 5 RECENT LEGISLATION (CONTINUED)

Governor Brown has identified five pillars as part of his vision for CA’s Integrated Plan for Climate Change: • 50% reduction in vehicle petroleum usage • 50% electricity generated from renewable energy • 2x the energy efficiency in buildings by integrating renewable power, energy efficiency, water and waste reduction, and developing cleaner heating fuels • Positioning farms, forests, wetlands, etc for carbon sequestration • Reduction of “short-lived climate pollutants”: methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases • Updating Safeguard CA: an integrated climate change inventory, adaptation, and resilience strategy (CA ARB, n.d.).

SCAG’S Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and an Alternative Planning Governor’s Climate Change Pillars. The five areas of the economy Strategy (APS). In accordance with SB 375, SCAG’s SCS and APS was accepted Governor Brown identified in his 2015 inaugural address to meet the by CA Air Resources Board via EO in June 2016. (SCAG, 2016). goals of EO B-30-15. (CA Air Resources Board, n.d.)

Generally, the legislation requires cities, counties, and regional metropolitan planning organizations to participate in state climate change adaptation efforts. For Inglewood, this means developing plans, policies and programs for:

• An Active Transportation Plan (ATP) promoting safety, mobility, non-motorized automobile trips, and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) • Streamlining the CEQA process by limiting reviewable topics • Permitting renewable energy in coordination since utilities must include renewable energy in their portfolio • Reducing barriers to near zero-emission, renewable energy, and transportation options for disadvantaged communities • Decreasing the amount of passenger vehicle use in coordination with Southern CA Association of Governments’ (SCAG), Sustainable Communities Stategy (SCS), and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) • Update the the Safety Element to include resilliency strategies and the Circulation Element to include Complete Street strategies • Utilize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an indicator of traffic impacts instead of vehicle delay and Levels of Service (LOS). 6 (For a full list of legislation and references, see Appendix A). Studies Commissioned as Part of SB 350. These scope of these studies demonstrate the state’s intentionality of linking state priorities (i.e. disadvantaged communities, climate change) through policy. (CA Energy Commission, 2016).

INGLEWOOD’S RESPONSE: CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION

While the City has has not yet updated its Elements to meet the requirements of the above Climate Change legislation, Inglewood made some changes in response to state climate change priorities.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (ECAP) City Council adopted ECAP in March of 2013. The following subject matter will have to be integrated into and expanded upon within the Conservation element, the Environmental Justice Element (see section on Disadvantaged Communities below), and the Housing Element, in the next update: • Emissions Inventory: Expands the City’s 1990, 2005, 2007 GHG inventory to include an inventory of 2010 emissions. The ECAP includes a year of 2010 inventory of electricity and natural gas consumed. • Emissions Reduction Target/Goal: Establishes a 2020 emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 levels and a 2035 emission reduction goal of 32.5 percent below 2005 levels. • Emission Reduction Strategies: The ECAP contains energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies. Particular attention is provided to budget-neutral measures that will reduce the community-wide energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the statewide emissions targets identified in the ARB’s Scoping Plan and Executive Order S-03-05. • Implementation Program: Identifies the timeline for implementing each strategy, relative cost, and any additional analysis and/or legislative action needed. • Streamlined CEQA Review: The ECAP serves as a tiering document for the streamlined review of project-level greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA for projects proposed within the City’s jurisdiction (City of Inglewood, 2013).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 7 RECENT LEGISLATION (CONTINUED)

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ATP) and TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) The City is currently in the process of drafting an ATP that provides space for other modes of transportation outside of the personal vehicle on streets. This includes plans to incorporate bicycles, pedestrians, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) conformities, and Safe Routes to School. Likewise, the City has adopted Transit Oriented Development (TOD) specific plans and undergone General Plan amendments to establish, more walkable, transit oriented communities around forthcoming metro stations (City of Inglewood, 2016; City of Inglewood, n.d.)

For a more detailed look at where Inglewood stands in relation to current legislation on this subject matter, refer to the in-depth analysis of the Circulation Element on page 66 on this report. In the update, these plans and their policies will need to be revised and established in more detail in order to be incorporated into the General Plan.

CA’S HOUSING LEGISLATION Seventeen bills have been passed and signed by the governor to to address CA’s housing crisis. The legislation shifts significant responsibility to cities, but also provides new avenues for housing funding.

To summarize the the legislation as it relates to the City of Inglewood, the City may: • Be required to rezone property in order to meet its share of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) • Find other locations for housing when a developer of a proposed development is not able to develop the original number of units identified in the Housing Element • Only designate housing where it actually intends for it to be built and approved • Require developers to provide a certain percentage of affordable units, if incentives and alternatives are provided • Streamline entitlement processes • Allow developments by-right that meet state-set criteria, are near transit, lower parking requirements • Allow property owners to construct or convert existing structures into accessory dwelling units (ADUs)

On the developer and property owner end: • Affordable housing tenants must be notified three years before their rent restriction is set to expire (assists cities in maintaining inventory of affordable housing stock and protects tenants) • Construction companies must be paid union level wages

8 The State is also providing funding for affordable housing through tax on real estate transactions, a (potential voter-approved) bond, and cities or counties where a Workforce Housing and Opportunity Zone has been established. However, the State is also becoming more strict with housing allocations: Cities not meeting their share of regional housing can be referred to the Attorney General and potentially fined. (For a full list of legislation and references, see Appendix A).

INGLEWOOD’S RESPONSE: HOUSING LEGISLATION

HOUSING ELEMENT and TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) City of Inglewood last updated its Housing Element in 2014 for the 2013-2021 period, as required by the state. As a result, all of the previously mentioned state laws are not included in the present version. These, along with any other laws passed in the next two years will warrant inclusion in the next Housing Element update for 2021-2029.

Additionally, Inglewood’s aforementioned TOD plan(s), passed in 2016, rezoned property to allow more locations for housing and to provide for increases in density, decreased setbacks, and reduced parking (City of Inglewood, n.d.). These are essential first steps toward City of Inglewood meeting its regional share of housing. However, it is recommended to have an economist evaluate if the existing City policies are enough to lure the development community in and help the City meet its share of regional housing.

CA’S DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES LEGISLATION

The State has made equity a state-wide priority. This is because Governor Brown has linked the topic with his Integrated Plan for Climate Change. To start, the state defined a disadvantaged community (DAC) as one which has an annual median household income of “less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income.” CalEnviroScreen is a tool developed that visually overlays DAC data over visual maps. As a result of this legislation, Inglewood will have to: Address how lack of investment in certain areas of the City (i.e. access to sidewalks, adequate waste processing, adequate parks) is tied to inequality. Include an Environmental Justice element upon updating or adopting two or more elements. (For a full list of legislation and references, see Appendix A).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 9 INGLEWOOD’S RESPONSE: LEGISLATION FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES

Like many cities in the region and the state, Inglewood must address disadvantaged communities through its policymaking and next general plan update. This will involve threading language throughout the existing elements to address these communities and adding an Environmental Justice element to the plan.

SB 535 and AB 1550 Disadvantaged Communities Map. Populations living within Inglewood’s Census Tracts are characterized as disadvantaged per SB 535 and AB 1550 criteria (OEHHA, n.d.)

Other Helpful General Plan Resources. Helpful Resources containing data and guidelines pertinent to CA’s legislative direction (OPR, 2017; US EPA and CA Department of Water Resources 2011; CA Natural Resource Agency 2018; GIF, 2018).

10 CLOSING NOTES OF INTEREST For a full list of the legislation summarized above, please see Appendix A. These pieces of legislation will be important to cover in Inglewood’s forthcoming General Plan update. In addition to these specific pieces of legislation, the following serve as helpful resources to stay abreast on legislation, current research and the state’s recommendations: • The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) 2017 State of California General Plan Guidelines: A guide for to assist cities and counties in preparing their general plans (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017). There is also a Data Mapping Tool provided by the office (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, n.d.). • Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning: A toolkit to help policymakers identify and prioritize regional water resource management (US EPA and CA Department of Water Resources 2011). • Safeguarding California, 2018 Update: CA Natural Resource Agency’s state climate adaptation strategy in response to climate change, as identified above in EO S-13-08 (CA Natural Resource Agency 2018). • Cal-Adapt: A database of data compiled in CA’s research and scientific fields developed by UC Berkeley’s Geospatial Innovation Facility and commissioned by CA’s Energy Commission (Cal-Adapt, 2018).

Other Helpful General Plan Resources. Helpful Resources containing data and guidelines pertinent to CA’s legislative direction (OPR, 2017; US EPA and CA Department of Water Resources 2011; CA Natural Resource Agency 2018; GIF, 2018).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 11 3 OPPORTUNITIES CURRENT OPPORTUNITIES FACING INGLEWOOD

New opportunities are available to Inglewood as significant developments become reality in the next five years.

REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY In 2020, the Metro is expected to complete it’s light rail that passes through Inglewood, bringing three new metro stops to the City (City of Inglewood, n.d.). This will expand the regional connections the city has to neighboring cities and to other places. This creates mobility and economic opportunity for residents and the city and addresses state GHG reduction efforts and interests in creating connectivity.

PROFESSIONAL SPORTS VENUES Franchises of monetary generators such as the National Football Association (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA) have selected Inglewood as the location for brand new stadiums. The revitalization of the Hollywood Park Area, which shares a homebase with the football stadium, will include new retail, housing, and mixed-use development (Tinoco, 2017).

The new NFL stadium will house the Los Angeles Chargers and the Los Angeles Ram. The development includes a 6,000 seat entertainment venue, a sizeable plaza, commercial space, residential space, and retail space (Hawthorne, 2018).

Murphy’s Bowl LLC, has agreed to build a new stadium for the Clippers of the NBA in Inglewood. The Clipper stadium includes seating for 18,000-20,000 spectators, offices, and practice facilities. Although the design and features of the stadium are still being discussed, one of the more unique features is a streetcar/ monorail that will link LA Metro’s Crenshaw Line with the NBA and NFL stadium. Another component of this plan is an increase in signage, which is a revenue generator for the City (Barragan, 2017).

12 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT a historic performance venue, also reopened, Additionally, along some of its major providing a hub for arts and culture events and commercial corridors, the City boasts large- performances (Miracle Theater, n.d.). The City scale regional shopping centers along of Inglewood Playhouse also recently reopened Crenshaw Blvd, Imperial Hwy, and Century for workshops and performances (Inglewood Blvd, that draw in Inglewood residents and Playhouse, n.d.) residents from neighboring jurisdictions, such as Hawthorne. Those include the Village at PEOPLE Century, Crenshaw/ Imperial Shopping Center, At the center of all of these developments and Century Plaza. They house a variety of is the community that calls Inglewood anchor and secondary tenant retail uses home. The recently launched Inglewood including Target, Costco, Home Depot, grocery Forward Campaign highlights just some of stores, restaurants, eateries, apparel, crafts, the youth, professional, religious, civic, and financial institutions, and more (Google, 2017). economic leaders in City of Inglewood (City of Inglewood, 2017). (A more detailed look at The city also houses key industries such as the socio-demographic characteristics of the a Carmax and a Hyundai Dealership; Marvin population can be found in the Economic and Engineering Group, a aerospace industry Demographics Section latter in this document). consulting firm; El Camino Fire Academy; two breweries and a slew of other local restaurants The City is presently positioned as a gold mine that are favorites in the LA community (i.e. of land use, economic development opportunity Three Weavers, Fiesta Martín, Randy’s Donuts, and social and human capital. Luckily, to help Dulan’s Soul Food Kitchen, Stuff I Eat) (Google, coordinate parts of that, the Economic and 2017). The city is also home to significant Community Development Department has minority owned businesses. (Inglewood, n.d.) added Economic Development (EDD) to its list of Divisions. The EDD works closely with ARTS AND RECREATION the Inglewood Chamber of Commerce to Art and Arts Education opportunities have bring business needs to life. The challenge is also become more commonplace in the City. bringing it all together in a coordinated fashion. There is an annual Open Studios Tour, where The General Plan and cooperation of City local artists open up their live-work spaces Departments and City Administration, if well- or studios for the public (Inglewood Open executed, can achieve that. Studios, n.d.). There is also a forthcoming school and performance space for LA Philharmonic’s (LA Phil) Youth Orchestra in Downtown Inglewood (Chandler, 2017). The Miracle Theater (previously the Ritz Theater),

Phase 1: General Plan Review 13 4 COMMUNITY ISSUES AND TOPICS NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESSED

The existing general plan has been updated at different points in time and stages in the City and community’s development. In order to prepare for the next update, below are some topics of interest that will need to be addressed in the new version of the General Plan.

HEALTH

WALKABILITY AND BIKING

When considering the topic of health, circulation and mobility have to be considered.. Inglewood’s current General Plan fails to address pedestrian accessibility within Inglewood and walkability. This includes having a walkscore. A walkscore indicates where pedestrians can walk, play, shop, or learn. Residents with walkable neighborhoods tend to weigh less. Obesity is a big deal in Inglewood so this is important to factor into Inglewood’s new plan (OEHHA, n.d.). This means incorporating a pedestrian network.

The existing General Plan also discusses bicycles being broken down into 3 categories. These 3 categories include Type I, II, III. However, the types are not listed with distances or measurements. Traffic flow for these areas are also not listed. Thus in the next version of the General Plan, and in the City’s current drafting phase of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) focusing on modeling existing and future projections of traffic is vital, as doing so is a huge dictator of safety and indicator of health.

TRANSIT

Being able to move around the city is an important part of health that cannot be taken lightly. As the City moves forward, data for public transit is important to gather. SCRTD buses are discussed with the General Plan but it is important to expand on where transit is going from here.

14 The most recent General Plan Land Use Element amendment in 2016 also orchestrated in local transit and added policies to provide transit connections (i.e. Policy 3.5) (CIty of Inglewood, 2016). While the land use changes are exhaustive, especially in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan, the Land Use and Circulation Element will need to be updated to a) provide a more efficient transit network and b) more clearly and seamlessly connect the passenger rail and other forms of public transit with districts and land uses that Inglewood desires to promote (i.e. Downtown TOD Goal 1-6 and Fairview Heights TOD Goal 1-6) (City of Inglewood, n.d.)

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RECREATION Parks for health benefits need to be included. The Open Space Element has done a good job of placing them but there isn’t enough adequate information concerning each park (City of Inglewood, 1995). A helpful thing would be to make a table indicating the function of each park:

• Ashwood Park • Grevillea Park • Center Park • Lockhaven Center • Centinela Adobe Park • North Park • Circle Park • Queen Park • Darby Park • Rogers Park • Edward Vincent Park • Siminski Park

The listing of the parks in the previous plan also failed to say whether they’re ADA compliant. This needs to be inventoried and planned for in the next version.

Lastly, non-city operated and owned recreation (private) facilities as well as spaces commonly used for temporary open and/or recreational events should be accounted for in the next update. These can serve in tandem with city efforts at creating open space, and identify trends in open space, recreation, and economic development opportunities. Examples include batting cages, arcades, and private health clubs or studios.

HEALTH CARE AND PREVENTION When considering this section it is important to identify and list all primary care and clinician locations for residents of Inglewood. Since inglewood has such a young populatio and has been identified as having DACs within its boundaries, it is important to identify whether Inglewood has an adequate number of hospitals and clinics within the area for residents (OEHHA, n.d.).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 15 COMMUNITY ISSUES (CONTINUED)

HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS Many of the residents suffer diabetes and hypertension that could be controlled with the availability of more fresh food (OEHHA, n.d.). The General Plan does not discuss the kind of food available to residents of Inglewood and needs to do so. Data needs to be gathered on grocery stores (corporate and local), food establishments, and the number of fast food locations within the city. In an effort to provide more food sources, the city needs to additionally look at existing programs and the potential for the following alternative food sources outside of brick and mortar establishments: • Temporary food sources (i.e. Farmer’s Markets) • State laws for food preparation (i.e. cottage food) • Trends in the food industry (i.e. food Sources of Healthy Food: Inglewood’s Farmer’s Market. Inglewood’s monthly trucks, street vending, food delivery farmer’s market provides residents with access to locally grown and prepared, fresh food (Kaplan 2015). services, food co-ops and communal, industrial kitchens)

CLEAN AIR AND WATER

However, the City adopted the Inglewood Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP) in March of 2013 to address AB 32 requirements. ECAP is a roadmap for achieving the state’s goal for GHG emission reduction targets and encourages the City to grow in a more sustainable manner. As aforementioned in the legislation section, in the The ECAP contains information on emissions inventory, emissions reduction target/goal, implementation programs, and streamlined CEQA review. GHG emissions have a negative impact on health, a connection which needs attention in the update.

In addition to clean air, water also has a definite impact on whether a community is considered healthy. Ideal sustainability, water percolation, water recycling, and stormwater recollection methods should be addressed in the next update. The Green Boulevards (La Brea Avenue,

16 Florence Avenue, Manchester Boulevard and Prairie Avenue) identified in he TOD plan have designs with green dividers that separate protected bike lanes from traffic lanes. These green dividers will serve as bioswales that permit runoff from streets, parking lots and nearby structures to be cleaned and infiltrate into groundwater supplies or an underdrain as necessary. These boulevards add significant greenery to the planning areas and lessen localized air pollution.

LIVABILITY

DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Neighboring individuals from “Silicon Beach” have already begun to search for affordable housing in Inglewood because of its central location to the rising tech community in adjacent beach cities. The forthcoming housing developments could translate into displacement for many community members due to the influx of people attracted to the stadium and other economic opportunities. On the housing policy end, per California Department of Housing and Community development requirements, Inglewood has updated its Housing Element. Affordable housing topics addressing some of the most vulnerable members of the population (i.e. veterans, seniors, first time buyers) are identified in objectives and policies, but the Housing Element does not adequately address affordable housing for the low to moderate range. Additionally, more attractive incentives to develop housing outside of the state density bonus law should be explored. At present, Inglewood is largely built, yet overcrowding and the housing crisis faces all cities within LA County. Housing alternatives need to be explored to determine their fit in the city: i.e. adaptive reuse of formerly commercial or industrial buildings, accessory dwelling units, and housing co-ops, need to be evaluated. (Also see information on hotels and short term rentals below).

For purposes of nomenclature, the city faces displacement juxtaposed with gentrification. While gentrification can revitalize an area, it can also be harmful to current residents who will not be able to acclimate as quickly as the city will be transforming. The general plan update must address these equity issues.

BUILDING STOCK AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Inglewood’s building stock is aged, as described in the Housing Element (City of Inglewood, 2014). Development standards (i.e. setbacks, parking, height) today are stricter than they were back when a lot of the existing housing was built. This is indicative of a very complex cyclical relationship: the development community’s risk in redeveloping property under today’s zoning code due to loss in buildable area, means less rentable space. Thereby they opt to maintain the existing buildings, but because rents cannot be raised due to aged building stock, they face an inability to have funds to repair the buildings without giving rents an uptick and forcing people out who cannot afford it so buildings are maintained in an unsatisfactory undesirable condition that

Phase 1: General Plan Review 17 COMMUNITY ISSUES (CONTINUED) does not match the city’s economic climate nor provide adequate housing for people. Secondly, despite rents being slightly low due to the quality of the housing stock, City median income is low and housing programs largely exist only for special needs and very low income groups rather than the working population so the housing stock is characterized by a rent burdened population living in overcrowded conditions. Thirdly, the city faces a black market of rental units (illegal conversions) due to the former, meaning people are also not living in safe housing conditions. Finally, it means that since the buildings are not being repaired, building materials used in the early half of the 20th century to building these buildings has since been deemed to contain harmful chemicals, which also contributes to unsafe living conditions for Inglewood residents. All of these need to be carefully considered in the updated Plan.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

EDUCATION AND JOBS Education and jobs are cornerstones to communities. They provide quality of life in that they help people gain self esteem and contribute to society. Inglewood does not have any indicators on education or the job market within the city itself. In the realm of education, in the next version of the Plan, the name of schools and their locations should be included. In addition, data on types of employment available within Inglewood should be included as well. Additionally, job training, certification, or resource centers should also be identified.

18 Data that tells a story. Select Issues pertinent to the community that inform key policies should be consolidated into digestible graphics (Deloitte 2014).

Another major part of economic development is an analysis of the business mix, economic performance of existing uses, wages and salaries, as well as retail sales and revenue. Inglewood needs to explore resident and business community skills and what kind of employment is needed in order for Inglewood to flourish. To start this evaluation, the update will need to state what kind of employment opportunities are available and what is the economic forecast for years to come. This means analyzing demographics and figuring out whether anticipated growth plays a factor. Inglewood also needs to indicate population demographics, group quarter population (i.e. group living arrangements, apartment complexes), households, and households by population. It will also be important to tie multi-modal transportation movement in with jobs to identify how the working population commutes to and from work in the am, pm, and lunch hours.Some methods exist that can help present the data in a precise way. One example is use of the Location Quotient (LQ’s), which compares Inglewood’s concentrations of an industry with those of the nation. Other methods can also be helpful, such as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Walkscore. More generally, this data can be dense and varying so below are some sample charts compiled from the Census Bureau by Data USA about Inglewood’s economic/economic development factors that can inspire future presentations of this data (Deloitte, 2014).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 19 COMMUNITY ISSUES (CONTINUED)

PARKING Parking has increasingly become an component of the economic development toolkit. It determines whether visitors come to a City, whether lot coverage is maximized, and depending on the zoning code, if a business can locate within a city. City of Inglewood’s parking regulations, outlined in the Municipal Code (IMC) (CIty of Inglewood, n.d.) are significantly impeding the aforementioned three areas. This should be considered in the update.

HOTEL STOCK AND HOTEL ALTERNATIVES (SHORT TERM RENTALS) The existing hotel stock in City of Inglewood primarily consists of 2-,3-, and 4-star hotels (Expedia, n.d.). With the hundreds of thousands of visitors it plans to attract with its forthcoming entertainment projects, it may want to consider easing the IMC restrictions on hotel development and remodeling, which are very exhaustive and convoluted. If the hotels, are not up to par, visitors to town may take their lodging dollars elsewhere to Westchester, Marina Del Rey or Culver City, for example. Likewise, short term rentals have been extensively successful on the internet. At present, short term rentals are not accounted for in the General Plan nor the IMC. Visitors also often look to websites advertising these for cheaper alternatives to hotels. Unregulated, these can lead to civil disputes among neighbors, wasted public safety service use (i.e. calls to the Police Department), and theft. In general, not acting swiftly in either one of these areas can cause the City to lose out on millions of dollars in revenue. These should be accounted for in the General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” It involves both “fair treatment” as well as “meaningful involvement” in governmental policies and processes. As mentioned earlier when the state legislation regarding climate change was outlined, per SB 1000, the future General Plan update will have to incorporate an Environmental Justice element.

Inglewood is bordered by two major freeways (the 105 and 405) and is underneath the LAX flight path, which alone gives it enough air pollution to be identified as an environmental justice area or disadvantaged community designated by CalEnviroScreen 3.0. CalEnviroScreen is the state’s environmental and community health screening tool that helps identify priority areas for attention and funding, and is one of the methodologies used to identify disadvantaged communities (DACs) under SB 1000.

20 Inglewood’s Disadvantaged Communities, A Closer Look. Inglewood’s 32 Census Tracts have been identified as disadvantaged communities (DACs) under the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 assessment. (OEHHA 2017).

Out of the 32 census tracts in Inglewood, five of them score in the 90th percentile overall for pollution and socioeconomic burden when comparing with census tracts statewide. The remaining census tracts still score relatively high with 16 being in the 75th percentile (OEHHA, n.d.). The Inglewood scores are attributed to significant levels of pollution in the traffic and diesel particulate matter categories, as well as high asthma rates (18/32 census tracts are in the 90th percentile), high housing burden, low birth weights and low education levels. See Inglewood CalEnviroScreen map with the red and dark orange census tracts being the more polluted/ socioeconomically burdened areas. Inglewood will need to compile most of the aforementioned data and combine it with a focus on access, health, sustainability, resilience, and community engagement. This is largely due to the existing conditions summarized above.

TRANSPARENCY AND CIVIL ENGAGEMENT Closely related to the topic of environmental justice, is the municipality’s relationship with its constituents, elected official relationships with their constituents, and civic engagement. Once the NFL and NBA arrive, city administrative priorities will be focused on revenue and sales; community impact will be an afterthought. Despite the great benefits of the rail, the extension of the new rail still may miss the mark of connecting people to the stadium, new amenities, and major landmarks. While serving newcomers and visitors who will be flocking to new developments, the community must be considered and how projects will affect their surroundings. Civic engagement throughout the planning process is the crux of equitable development. These concerns must be carefully considered by elected officials, the planning department, and advocates of the development process. If these issues can be mitigated early in the process, the City of Inglewood will become a thriving city that establishes its presence in Southern California and nationally.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 21 COMMUNITY ISSUES (CONTINUED)

It is important to put policies into place to solidify the social contract and interdependence that city officials have with their resident and business community because the social, political, and economic environment are ever- changing. It helps to serve as a reminder on both sides that the public sector exists to serve the community’s needs and interests.

Civic Engagement. Mayor Butts speaking to those in attendance at the Grand Opening of the Senior Center January 2018 (McGinnis, 2018).

TECHNOLOGY Innovations in technology have changed the world and undoubtedly affect cities. It will be fruitful for the City to address these in the next update in several areas.

ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSIT Cars, bikes, buses, and passenger rail are no longer the only modes of transportation. Inter-city shuttle fleets, sky trams, autonomous vehicles, shared bike, automated parking structures and parking technologies and more, along with existing innovations such as ride-share businesses, should be planned for in the new General Plan.

THE INTERNET, OPEN DATA, CYBERSECURITY, AND COMMUNICATIONS With the rapid success of the internet, expectations about government transparency and information sharing have come as measures of good governance and public service. As a city undergoing a lot of development and hoping to stay competitive, yet maintain its uniqueness, an effective communications strategy that incorporates today’s technology should be explored. Examples include city maintenance reporting apps, emergency alert systems, online permitting systems, online databases and maps, online newsletters, and by the minute social media updates.

SUSTAINABILITY Outside of air and water concerns, much has been done legislatively and privately to make the urban environment more green. Inglewood just needs to get on board. From drought tolerant landscaping, to seismic retrofitting, to solar panels, to recycled building materials, to windmills, to building insulation, to recycling and composting, to specialized lighting fixtures and natural light, these are technological and architectural advances that help create healthier, living buildings and built environments needing to be championed in the next version of the General Plan.

22 Inglewood’s Historic Places. Inglewood has several historic developments, including The Miracle Theater (1937), The Academy Theater (1939), Randy’s Donuts (1952) (The Miracle Inglewood, n.d.; Gnerre 2012; Meyers Turner, 2012).

LANDMARKS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, CULTURAL HERITAGE

Finally, despite the promise of revitalization spurred by the new projects, consequences could be beneficial while concurrently detrimental to the city, community, and character of the city. With the coming mega-developments, the city must be cautious of the impact imparted on residents and fabric of the area. Construction of new infrastructure threatens the vitality of Inglewood’s history if preservation efforts are not considered. This could include architectural features of buildings and homes or landmarks of historical significance. In fact, Inglewood demolished a historically famous racetrack and casino and hospital to make heed for its Hollywood Park Specific Plan and Harridge Development Group projects, respectively. There are landmark developments, distinct neighborhoods, and examples of community heritage and cultural diversity within the City that should be identified and preserved as the city moves forward. Fusing vestiges of Inglewood’s story with modern improvements will be require careful consideration and evaluation.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 23 5 BEST PLANNINGPRACTICES

New Urbanism & Smart Growth Transit Oriented Development

A prime opportunity to promote sustainable land Transit Oriented Communities are the tools uses lies within the plans to dramatically change that implement New Urbanism. TOD’s utilize the City of Inglewood. Denser communities public transit as the nucleus for this type of within walking distance to retail, commercial infill development. The construction of rail activities, jobs, and housing represent ideal lines to Inglewood serves as an opportunity urban infill. More specifically, transitions to for new communities within Inglewood. Each this type of metropolitan development is New new community would be a node of infill where Urbanism. Inglewood would see a shift that people can live in housing near the rail (both new encourages new urbanism approaches to and existing stock); explore retail options for development that encourage mixed-use projects groceries, errands and other needs; have public within the city, diverging from the traditional transit access to commute to work; and offer a suburban feel of single-family dwellings. reliable means to seek entertainment whether

Urban infill will also contribute to the health of it be taking a streetcar ride to the stadium or the residents. The demographics of Inglewood walking outside their residence for other forms are comprised of Latino and African Americans of entertainment. who traditionally are prone to certain health The key of development among transit is to issues due to poor diets, lack of exercise, provide services that residents will need within and limited open space to participate in walking distance or a brief train ride to the next healthy lifestyles. Concepts of density and community center or node. Naturally, these environmentalism in new urbanism promote communities will facilitate the increase in healthy lifestyles where residents have easier housing stock, offer walkable sidewalks with access to walkable streets, sidewalks, and greener landscaping, that is also aesthetically bike lanes. Ideally, automobiles can be used pleasing and protective of pedestrians and at lower rates as a result of the proximity of bicylists using bike lanes. Designs of buildings housing, employment, and amenities. Reduction will be inviting to promote use of amenities but in automobile uses will promote cleaner air should simultaneously stay within the character quality and lessen toxic emissions. Following of Inglewood neighborhoods and pay homage to the idea of new urbanism will allow the city to the history of the city. This is where form-based serve as a model of urban infill benefits that codes become important, since they ensure utilizes major development to also serve the neighborhood compatibility. needs of residents, businesses, the city, and the environment.

24 Mixed-Use Development from automobiles and provide the freedom shop, A sizeable portion of Inglewood is comprised of live, and work with a piece of mind. The ease single family housing. Although, it is important to POD’s will promote usage of infill nodes which preserve single family dwellings in the city, other will benefit the Inglewood’s economy, community, sections of Inglewood will thrive through mixed and character. use development, be that vertical or horizontal. Equity and Inclusion

Structures that blend retail, commercial and Development in Inglewood will attract a new housing uses, represent the ideals of new wave of people who will frequent the community, urban infill as well as serve as a contributor to become permanent residents, or enjoy brief the successful planning of TOD’s. Mixed use visits. It is imperative to evaluate the impact that development will be quintessential for revitalizing newcomers and new development will have on a stagnant downtown. Moreover, the new current residents of Inglewood communities. housing and commercial locations required to Community engagement will be a necessity as accommodate the new stadiums will promote the city evolves, to ensure that negative impacts new housing, invigorate the local economy, and on existing residents is ameliorated as much fluidly connect the various aspects of the city in as possible. From a land-use perspective, new avoiding abrupt transitions from the quaint nature structures must not displace Inglewood residents of single family areas, to the boisterous activities whether it be physically or through the rising at the proposed stadiums. costs of living from newcomers and improved Pedestrian Oriented Districts amenities. Community input should be gathered

The conglomeration of Transit Oriented Districts, to provide items that residents would like to see in Mixed use development, and complementary neighborhoods. Effects of inevitable gentrification urban infill projects associated with the new and displacement processes should be treated venues, will encourage pedestrian oriented with a social consciousness. Albeit, this is not an districts in Inglewood. These walkable areas easy; yet it is is a requisite for an equitable city. would be beneficial for retail, encourage health A quick glance at these concepts may warrant a through walking, and allow the city to promote thought that the TOD plans address these topics its culture and history in these spaces. POD’s already. However, the hard to follow format and will enhance areas such as downtown to vague policies of the TOD specific plans and promote important historical areas of the city. elements of the General Plan, such as the Land Limiting vehicular traffic in historic areas will Use Element and Circulation element have not limit wear-and-tear on the current and improved convinced developers that their pro formas will infrastructure—allowing the preservation of pencil out. There is still too much uncertainty select areas with historical significance. These about the TOD concepts can pan out in walkable areas will also enable residents and Inglewood. A couple of case studies and sample visitors to fully enjoy the proximity of amenities best practices guides may help alleviate these in designated districts that protect pedestrians concerns and catalyze development.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 25 6 CONSISTENCY INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY

State of California requires that General Plans be internally and externally consistent, meaning that the respective elements and any other plans, especially land use plans, adopted by the City should not have contradictory policies (OPR 2017). This means that both text and diagrams of these plans must correlate. Internal and external consistency are crucial determinants of whether the General Plan is considered legitimate by the state, the court system, and the community. An analysis of the existing consistency is provided below as a starting point for considerations in the next General Plan update.

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

CONSISTENCY WITHIN ELEMENTS

The state specifies broadly what each element must contain and gives cities the agency to organize and tailor the information to best fit the community.

Land Use - The Land Use Element’s internal requirements include: • (Population) Density and (Intensity) of housing, business, industry • Open space, agricultural land, watershed, natural resources, and recreation • Recreation facilities and opportunities • Educational facilities • Public buildings and grounds • Future solid and liquid waste facilities • Greenways • Timberland Preserve Zone lands • Areas subject to flooding, as identified by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Water Resources, or Flood Insurance Rate maps • Categories of public and private uses of land, especially protected lands (OPR 2017). 26 Land use and other related state requirements can be met in variety of ways, especially by including provisions regarding minimum and maximum number of dwelling units per acre for residential uses; floor air ratio (FAR) for commercial and industrial uses; maximum lot coverage and maximum building height; lot sizes; density bonuses; cluster zoning; planned unit/assembly developments (PADs); TOD; and form based codes (regulations of building and infrastructure form) (OPR 2017).

Inglewood’s present Land Use Element addresses these categories in its text and visual media, but policies and implementation strategies should adopt a more intentioned trajectory in the next update.

Circulation Element

Today’s circulation elements must not only speak to mobility, but also to connectivity of places and uses, services, and employment (nodes) and modes of transportation as well as the interconnectedness of transportation and land use. They must include: • Major thoroughfares • Transportation routes • Terminals • Military airports and ports

• Public facilities and utilities (OPR 2017).

In addition to providing an inventory of the transportation network, the Circulation element must also identify funding sources, plans for maintenance, and plans for future expansion, especially how existing gaps will be addressed (OPR 2017).

Outside of the transit network, public facilities and utilities, such as the following, must also be accounted and planned for: water, sewers, storm-water systems, telecommunications and broadband, electric vehicle charging, electricity, natural gas, and other renewable energy sources (OPR 2017).

Inglewood’s Circulation Element is very inwardly focused. Although it does refer to Freeways that pass through its boundaries and acknowledges the airport on its maps, the attention paid to providing more connection among these uses, and even with uses that are mentioned, is not extensive. Aside from these points, however, the content within the element does correlate.

Housing Element

On the four, five, or eight year timeline that CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has placed a city or county on, a Housing element must contain information regarding:

Phase 1: General Plan Review 27 CONSISTENCY (CONTINUED)

• Review of the previous element • Housing needs assessment • Inventory and analysis of adequate sites • Analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints • Housing policies and programs

• Quantified objectives (OPR 2017).

In addition to the above Housing elements must also identify: • Adequate sites • Programs aiding development of housing for extremely low, low, and moderate income levels

• Methods to conserve the existing housing stock that is affordable (OPR 2017).

Inglewood’s most recent element meets this consistency criteria but could benefit from more specific policies in the the next update, especially ones catering ot the workforce housing demographic category.

Conservation Element

The Conservation Element must include an inventory, provide maintenance and growth plans, and identify funding mechanisms for the following where applicable to that jurisdiction: • Water and hydraulic force • Forests • Soils • Rivers and other waters • Harbors and fisheries • Wildlife

• Minerals and other natural resources (OPR 2017).

It is, at best, a plan that outlines balance between conservation and growth, and consciously considers land use and developments relation to these natural resources (OPR 2017).

Regarding consistency in this element, Inglewood’s Conservation Element discusses all pertinent sources requiring conservation, except soil. Soil quality, remediation, and cleaning, especially in light of state regulations for more infill development, will be an important focus area in this element during the update process.

Open Space Element

The Open Space element must contain analysis and plans regarding open space for: • Natural • Managed production of resources

28 • Outdoor recreation • Public health and safety • Military support

• Tribal resources (OPR 2017).

The City’s Open Space Element inventories public space as required by the state, but this version did not contain elements addressing public health in a direct way. Non-public recreation and non-traditional forms of recreation are also not identified in the current version. Due to state regulations, that will be a point of interest in the next version.

Noise Element

The contents of a Noise Element should speak to existing and future noise levels and mitigation measures from and for: • Highways and freeways • Primary arterials and major local streets • Passenger and Freight Rail • Rapid Transit • Commercial and Military Aviation • Industrial uses

• Other stationary noise sources (OPR 2017).

Noise contours must be provided that have been identified using either Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) or Day-Night Average Level (Ldn). Cities and counties must also engage in analysis of whether those are compatible with the community’s organization (OPR 2017).

Through its text and graphics, the existing land use element discusses transportation and other sources of noise, the relationship between sources of noise and land use, and control mechanisms for noise. With more noise-intense uses (i.e. NFL football stadium) and their related increased traffic, the City will have to evaluate its noise impacts in more depth for the forthcoming update.

Safety Element

The Safety Element requires cities and counties to address: • Seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, and ground failure • Tsunami, seiche, and dam failure • Slope instability that can lead to mudslides and landslides • Subsidence • Liquefaction • Other seismic and geologic hazards

Phase 1: General Plan Review 29 CONSISTENCY (CONTINUED)

• Flooding • Wildland • Urban fires

• Climate change (OPR 2017).

In preparation of this plan, cities and counties must review and consult with these agencies prior to adoption of their Safety Element: the CA Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the Office of Emergency Services. Additionally, due to the passing of SB 379, jurisdictions must include plans for climate change adaptation and resilience in their Safety Element updates: including historic hazards records, at-risk areas, emergency response facilities, plans, and shelters, and more (OPR 2017).

The present safety element addresses all of these areas, but it is strongly recommended that its maps and related text, such as “Sites of Critical Facilities” and “Evacuation Routes and Potential Blockages” maps be reevaluated to compare with current conditions in the city (OPR 2017).

It is important to note that various sources of legislation require new climate change policies, programs, and actions to be included in the Safety Element of city and county general plans henceforth. However, for obvious reasons related to the internal and external consistency of general plans, climate change should not only be addressed in this element.

Environmental Justice

The newly required Environmental Justice Element must contain identification of gaps and policies to correct: • Health risks • Pollution exposure • Public facilities, use and quality • Food access • Safe and sanitary homes • Physical activity • Civic Engagement

• Needs of Disadvantaged Communities (OPR 2017).

As this was not a required element, prior to last year when it became effective, City of Inglewood does not contain an Environmental Justice element at present. This will be a keen point of interest in the next update. It will require a policy and implementation timeline that involves many city departments and divisions, including but not limited to: Planning, Housing, Code Enforcement, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, etc.

30 CONSISTENCY AMONG ELEMENTS

In addition to consistency within each element (or category depending on how a city chooses to organize its General Plan), the state also requires that those elements be consistent with one another. Of Inglewood’s seven General Plan elements, the following have sections which address whether the subject element is consistent with the other elements: • Housing • Circulation • Conservation • Open Space

• Safety

Unlike those above, the Land Use and Noise Element do not have sections dedicated to this topic. However, these latter two seem to be the starting point of rationale from which all the other elements stem.

Some examples of how the internal consistency applies are provided below. This is not an exhaustive internal consistency analysis, but it serves to highlight what types of consistencies among the elements need to be looked for and addressed.

Internal and External Consistency Table. This is a table put together by OPR which demonstrates where topics should be addressed/ what an element should contain internally topic-wise, and how that relates to other elements (OPR, 2017.)

Phase 1: General Plan Review 31 CONSISTENCY (CONTINUED)

Land Use and Circulation Element Consistency. Excerpts from the elements (Land Use Element p. 63, Circulation Element p. 11) showing high density housing concentrated close to the civic center and major arterials (City of Inglewood, 2016; City of Inglewood, 1992).

THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT: HIGH DENSITY HOUSING AND MAJOR ARTERIALS

The Land Use Element aims to concentrate high density housing close to the civic center and major arterials (City of Inglewood, 2016). The major arterials, as defined by the Circulation Element are, running north and south, La Cienega Boulevard, Hawthorne Boulevard/La Brea Avenue, Prairie Avenue, and Crenshaw Boulevard, and running east and west, Centinela Avenue, Florence Avenue, Manchester Avenue, Arbor Vitae Avenue, Century Avenue, and Imperial Avenue (City of Inglewood, 1992). Per the General Plan Land Use map, Medium Density and TOD, Inglewood’s highest density designations, are concentrated center-City where those major arterials connect. Therefore, the General Plan demonstrates consistency in this case.

THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT: LAND USES AND CIRCULATION

The General Plan Land Use Map and 2009 Land Use Element amendment refer to the former Hollywood Park Racetrack and how it will be redeveloped henceforth as a different use (City of Inglewood, 2016). The Circulation element, however, still refers to the land as a racetrack (City of Inglewood, 1992). Another map refers to the Hollywood Park Racetrack, Northrop, Daniel Freeman Hospital, and The Forum Sports Arena, which are all uses that have been redeveloped, adapted, or no longer exist (City of Inglewood, 1992). The Circulation Element document also refers to the railroad crossings, which have since been adapted as light passenger rail (City of Inglewood, 1992). The Land Use element includes a brief mention of this transition to light rail, but the former is out of date on this topic, creating inconsistencies(City of Inglewood, 2016).

32 Land Use and Circulation Element Inconsistency. Excerpts from the elements (Land Use-2009 and 2016 Amendments, Circulation Element-p.17 and p. 23) showing that the Circulation element still refers to land uses no longer in effect within the City (City of Inglewood, 2016; City of Inglewood, 1992).

THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND STATE- REQUIRED SITE DESIGNATION

Per the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), City of Inglewood has to provide identification of developable sites for residential development in order to meet its share of the SCAG RHNA assigned by the state. Where properties have been identified in the Housing Element, they either have a residential land use designation or another land use designation (i.e. HPSP area, Downtown TOD area, Commercial/Residential) in the Land Use Element that allows for residential and are developable as a Planned Assembly Development (PAD), which demonstrates consistency (City of Inglewood, 2014; City of Inglewood, 2017).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 33 CONSISTENCY (CONTINUED)

Land Use and Housing Element Consistency. An excerpt from p.6-3 of the Housing Element showing housing sites identified for RHNA purposes are compatible with the Land Use Element map (City of Inglewood, 2014; City of Inglewood, 2017).

THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE NOISE ELEMENT: NOISE CONTOURS AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

The Noise element identifies traffic and aircraft noise contours and provides an analysis of where certain uses are compatible or incompatible with the noise levels in that area (City of Inglewood, 1987). Per the noise contour maps and the General Plan Land Use Map, with the exception of the Downtown and Fairview Heights TOD, residential has been concentrated off of major arterials and away from louder noise contours (City of Inglewood, 1987). However, in reference to the note of Downtown and Fairview Heights TOD, while likely addressed in the EIR mitigation measures for TOD, the Noise Element has not been updated since 1987 and, therefore, does not speak to how the noise is proposed to be mitigated in these areas where the Noise Element advised residential development be discouraged (City of Inglewood, 1987).

In sum, the General Plan appears to be mostly internally consistent, with the exceptions noted above. The issues appear to arise in consistency amongst the elements (i.e. Land Use Element versus Noise Element), but not within the elements themselves (i.e. Land Use element text and graphs). The former will need special attention in the update. Equally importantly, at present, the General Plan is not user-friendly for readers making its difficult to verify this information. Users have to click or flip back and forth between PDF files ranging in size from 40 pages to 200 or more pages. (For an analysis and recommendations on the format of the elements, please see the section on the current organization of the General Plan later in this document). The future General Plan will need to make the connections amongst the elements clearer, potentially incorporating methods outlined at the end of this document. 34 Land Use and Noise Element Inconsistency. An excerpt from the Noise Element (Exhibits 1A, 6) when compared with the Land Use Map (Left) showing the inconsistency between the Land Use element, especially with the recent adoption of TOD, and the Noise Element (City of Inglewood ,1987; City of Inglewood, 2017).

EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY

THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND THE ZONING MAP

There are some places where the general plan land use designation map and the zoning map conflict.

For example in the portion of the City north of Centinela Avenue, south of 64th Street, and west of La Brea Avenue, the General Plan land use designation is uniformly Low Density, but the zoning map land use designations in that area are R-1 (One-Family Zone), P-1 (Automobile Parking Zone), and R-3 (Multiple Family Zone). The P-1 and R-3 zones allow for a density of one unit per every 1,100 or one unit per every 1,400 square-feet of land area. The General Plan Land Use Element defined Low Density as one to six dwelling units per acre (or every 43,560 square-feet). At its densest capacity that would be a density of one dwelling unit per every 7,260 square-feet.

Similarly, in the southern region of the city, the area north of Century Boulevard, south of Arbor Vitae Street, west of La Brea Avenue, and east of the 405 Freeway, there are patches of C-2 (General Commercial) and R-3 (Multiple Family Zone) properties in an area uniformly designated as Low Density.

Adjacent to this above area is a portion of land along La Cienega Boulevard, west of the 405 Freeway that has a General Plan designation of Commercial but a zoning designation of M-1 (Light Manufacturing).

Additionally, there are portions of Prairie Avenue and Imperial Avenue that have a General Plan Land Use designation Commercial/Residential but a zoning designation of C-2 (General Commercial), which explicitly prohibits residential units. Phase 1: General Plan Review 35 CONSISTENCY (CONTINUED)

An area bound by Century Avenue to the north, 104th Street to the south, Prairie Avenue to the west, and Yukon Avenue to the east contains significant amounts of residential that have also been zoned as C-2 (General Commercial) and M-1L (Limited Manufacturing). While this makes these documents semi-consistent with each other, it is an incompatibility with the actual uses on the land, which imposes an unfair disadvantage on the property owners in that area.

The General Plan also designates the area along Irwin Avenue as commercial, but the zoning map provides no designation for the land there at all.

Lastly, the General Plan designation of Public/Semi-Public overlays on properties zoned for M-1 (Light Manufacturing), O-S (Open Space), and S-1 (Special Cemetary Zone). The Public/Semi- Public description in the General Plan is also vague and seemingly miscellaneous. If it does not contribute to the future of the identity of the city, it might be considered for removal. Further, Los Angeles County Fire has a fire station on a portion of the land zoned Open Space. This is conflicting and should be addressed in the update.

Land Use Map and Zoning Map Comparison. There are both consistencies and inconsistencies between these maps (City of Inglewood 2017; City of Inglewood 2017).

36 SPECIFIC PLANS, SPECIAL PLANS, AND OVERLAY ZONES

Inglewood has several existing specific plans and overlay zones. Two of them, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay plans for Downtown and Fairview Heights and the Hollywood Park Specific Plan (HPSP) were added to to the General Plan with General Plan amendments.

However, it has other land-use overlays not acknowledged in the General Plan. The overlays are also not presently on the General Plan Land Use Map nor the Zoning Map at the time of this writing. Those include: • Art Deco Overlay • Live Work Overlay • Medical Enterprise Overlay • Mixed Use Overlay

• Sign Overlay

At the time of this analysis, the City also has two additional overlay zones in their administrative draft stage: Westchester/Veterans TOD and Crenshaw/Imperial TOD. These will need to be accounted for within the General Plan documents as well when the update occurs.

Although not an overlay by name, the city also has an area designated as the Centinela Avenue Classic/Vintage, Collectible, and Luxury Car designation for properties along its Centinela Avenue, La Brea Avenue, and La Cienega corridors, which should be added or reevaluated for its value in the City’s vision of itself in the Plan update. More detailed information about these overlays can be found in the Key Districts and Neighborhoods Section.

Also, the previously mentioned Energy Climate Action Plan (ECAP) (adopted March 2013) and Active Transportation Plan (currently being drafted) will need to be integrated and developed more exhaustively for the General Plan update to ensure that the City goals, policies, objectives, and implementation strategies meet state legislation requirements.

NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS

Cities and counties must also consult with neighboring jurisdictions, including cities, counties, special districts, utility providers, regional agencies federal agencies, and if applicable, Native American Tribes. Thus, to name a few: As Inglewood is directly affected by the development of municipal jurisdictions adjacent to it, the Specific and General Plans of Los Angeles County (Lennox), Los Angeles City, and Hawthorne should be considered in the General Plan update. Additionally, the Land Use Element must be consistent with CA military land use compatibility plans (military land uses, aviation routes, and airspace) and CA airport land use compatibility plans, as demonstrated by the City’s relationship with the National Guard Facility located in Inglewood and the neighboring Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) (OPR 45-46). Cities must also assure compatibility with their metropolitan planning organization’s (MPO) RHNA/RHNP, RTP

Phase 1: General Plan Review 37 CONSISTENCY (CONTINUED) and SCS, such is the relationship between SCAG and City of Inglewood. Further, as its overarching MPO, any of SCAG’s plans will need to be coordinated with the City’s Plan update. Also, since the 405 and the 105 Freeways pass through the City, CalTrans plans for these roadways should also be factored into the future General Plan. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (LA Metro) is a key partner for rail, transit, and TOD plans which not only provide connections within the City but to other jurisdictions in the region as well. Inglewood needs to coordinate its General Plan with the plans of its utility and waste providers, such as Southern CA Edison and Consolidated Disposal Service. Finally, Inglewood contracts its fire services out to LA County Fire Department so their regional plan should also align with Inglewood’s policies and goals.

As demonstrated in this brief look at the General Plan in comparison and within the context of the zoning code, specific plans and overlay zones, and neighboring jurisdictions, the current version of the General Plan faces some external consistency issues at present. Methods outlined at the end of this document will be helpful for the next iteration of the plan.

7 PLAN ORGANIZATION CONTENT, WORDING, AND ORGANIZATION

The City of Inglewood has been changing. With those changes, some, but not all, of the required General Plan Elements have been updated and amended to better reflect the current City needs and address any issues. Below is an assessment of each Element within the Inglewood CIty General Plan.

HOUSING ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

CONTENT AND WORDING OF PLAN

This is the most up-to-date element of the Inglewood City General Plan. It has a solid breakdown and introduction into what the Housing Element contains. In its introduction, it outlines out a 200 plus-page thorough plan, which allows for a reader to become accustomed to “planning language”, and needed background information before diving into the details. The authors used easy to read tables and figures, which gives greater context to non-planners, and helps draw a clearer picture of the City.

38 The Housing Element section of the General Plan also has a great breakdown of the City’s current standing and needs, which helps give residents, who might not be aware of all the current City deficits and possibilities, a clearer picture. Overall, it contains simple and organized wording but could use more graphics to break the river of texts, and make the document more appealing to read.

POLICIES AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION

Inglewood has a clear and easy to read format for its policies and goals. Each policy point is straightforward and descriptive enough for non-experts to be able to comprehend the text.

Housing Element Cover Page. (City of Inglewood, 2014.) CIRCULATION ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

CONTENT AND WORDING OF PLAN

One of the least updated elements of the Inglewood General Plan, the Circulation Element, gives a breakdown of the roads, traffic, utility and connectivity infrastructure in the City. The Element’s policies are written in simple and clear terms, making it easier for the non-professional planner to understand. Each subsequent chapter or section builds upon the one preceding it, helping to paint a bigger picture.

The document has decent maps that help explain the concepts in the text, but it has a lack of images, making it harder for non-planners or non-engineers to completely visualize the plan.

POLICIES AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION Circulation Element Cover Page. (City of Inglewood, 1992). The policy and implementation goal section is not explicitly covered in the plan. The Circulation Plan has an easy to read breakdown of the existing circulation infrastructure information. However, it contains more suggestions and is more of a status update rather than an action plan for implementing change for the City.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 39 PLAN ORGANIZATION (CONTINUED)

CONSERVATION ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

CONTENT AND WORDING OF PLAN

The Conservation Element Plan for the City of Inglewood, was last updated and amended in 1997. It is a 42 page document that clearly breaks down the five categories within the Conservation Element Plan. It has an extensive, yet simple description and background of the status of the City, what resources the City of Inglewood has, how they can be affected, how they can be protected and utilized for both a positive and long lasting impact on the communities natural resources

Overall, the document has a simple and easy to read language but it could use more graphics and maps to help the explain Conservation Element Cover Page. (City of Inglewood, 1997). the concepts and plans in the document.

POLICIES AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION

Each section of the Conservation Element, has a breakdown of goals, things to keep in mind and ways to meet those goals. Some sections do have a layout of what should be done to improve the topic it covers, but other sections are merely informational and only give an update on what the City is doing.

LAND USE ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

CONTENT AND WORDING OF PLAN

The Land Use Element has been the most recently updated element of the General Plan. The document is over 140 pages and gives a great breakdown of the City. Their plan is well organized and has clear and simple language. But the layout seems to be in a chronological format, with newer items at the top and older ones on the pages after, which makes it difficult at first to fully understand the plan and process at first. It seemed like someone copied and pasted a new

Land Use Element Cover Page. (City of Inglewood, 2016.) document to the older one. Overall, it was very informative and extensive, but the lack of color, and illustration makes it difficult to keep a non-planner interested. 40 POLICIES AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION

Since the Land Use Element has been recently amended and updated. The policy and implementation goals are the first items you see on the Plan. The Land Use plan has a well thought out an extensive policy plan and ways to implement the policies it needs to succeed.

NOISE ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

CONTENT AND WORDING OF PLAN

The Noise Element of the General Plan, has been the least updated one. It’s last update was in 1987. Even though it has been over 30 years since the last update, the Noise Element is one of the portions of the Plan that’s really well thought out and broken-down. The wording is in layman’s terms and the lay out is a very well coordinated effort to inform people of the step by step process of improving this issue in the City of Inglewood.

Overall, the text is easy to understand and the document has an organized structure. And even though it has some graphics to help explain some of the concepts, this plan Noise Element Cover Page. (City of Inglewood, 1987.) does need an update and better diagrams to make it reader friendly.

POLICIES AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION

The policies and goals are clearly defined and organized in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The authors were conscious of the public’s need to understand and interpret the material. Overall, the Noise Element has identifiable policies set for the goals and does a great job in breaking down how to achieve each goal and policy.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 41 PLAN ORGANIZATION (CONTINUED)

OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

CONTENT AND WORDING OF PLAN

The Open Space Element was last updated in 1995. It is a 74 page document that dives into the parameters of Inglewood, in regards to open space. The layout is a well thought out and simply worded document which creates for a smooth progression of information and the “bigger picture.” It was simple to read and very informational. Black and white illustrations and maps are helpful, but it could use color, and less text.

POLICIES AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION

The Open Space Element has a great focused and prioritized list of policies and goals to achieve. It then does a breakdown Open Space Element Cover Page. (City of Inglewood, 1995). of the implementation of each policy and how/what funding sources can be used to fund the objective of the policy.

SAFETY ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

CONTENT AND WORDING OF PLAN

This element of the General Plan, was last updated and amended in 1995. The City has broken down the Safety Element into two parts with multiple sub-categories. The first part is for natural hazards and disasters and the second part is categorized as man made hazards and disasters. The Plan does well in establishing connections between the Safety Element and the other elements in the General Plan. The language and organization also makes it very easy to read for non-traditional General Plan readers.

POLICIES AND GOAL IMPLEMENTATION

The Safety Element also has a layout of the policies they’d like Safety Element Cover Page. (City of Inglewood, 1995.) to implement and work towards, but the plan doesn’t have an execution/action plan that shows how’d they meet the policy goals laid out.

42 8 PLAN ACCESS ACCESSIBILITY AND UTILITY

The existing general plan can be accessed publicly via the City website. Paper copies of each of the elements are also available at City Hall.

The online version can can be found either by clicking through to the Planning Division Section of the website where it is house or simply by searching “General Plan” in the City’s search bar. While the Land Use Map is provided on this section of the website, the Parks Map, the Zoning Map etc are located on a different sections of the website, under the GIS Division’s GIS Map Counter Services Section of the Website.

As mentioned before, the combination of the elements being separate PDF documents ranging in size from 40 to 200 plus pages, and the maps being located in a different location on the website makes the user experience most unfavorable.

Accessing and Using the General Plan. Demonstrations of the Location and Format of the General Plan online (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 43

PART B COMMUNITY PROFILE City of Inglewood Land Use Types. Map Credit: Lauren Colonna

46 1 CATEGORIZATIONLAND USESOF LAND USE TYPES

The current General Plan for the City of Inglewood identifies 12 distinctive land use designations (City of Inglewood, 2016; City of Inglewood, 2017). The recently adopted Fairview Heights and Downtown TOD districts, are surrounded by medium and low medium-density residential. The majority of low-density residential can be found on the eastern portion of the city. The key commercial corridors include Century Blvd, Arbor Vitae Blvd, and Manchester Blvd running east-west, and La Brea Ave, Prairie Ave, and Crenshaw Ave running north-side. The industrial land uses are primarily located on the eastern and southern portion of the city’s boundaries.

Recent development in the City of Inglewood has altered the city’s approach to land use. The introduction of the new Expo/Crenshaw Metro Line energizes the City to focus on transit-oriented development and has given more attention to connections to the existing Green Line metro stop accessed near LAX Airport, which is west of the City. The most significant change in the City is the investment at Hollywood Park, which has been designated as Major-Mixed Use and is being planned under the Hollywood Park Specific Plan. This will result in a former race track, casino, and sprawling parking lot, transitioning into a dense and lively land uses, of which are detailed in the following section: Key Districts and Neighborhoods.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 47 DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD/FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS

WESTCHESTER/VETERANS TOD

CRENSHAW/IMPERIAL TOD

Downtown and Fairview Heights TOD Districts, Westchester/Veterans TOD Districts, and Crenshaw/Imperial TOD Districts (City of Inglewood, n.d.). 2 KEY DISTRICTS DISTRICTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS

DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD TOD/FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS TOD The Fairview Heights and Downtown Transit Oriented Development plans were adopted in November of 2016 in response to the finalization of the Metro Crenshaw Line route. The two TOD plans cover the areas within approximately a half-mile radius of the new Downtown Inglewood Station, as well the western half of a half-mile radius around the Fairview Heights Station, which is within Inglewood’s city limits (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

SEVEN DISTRICTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN TOD (City of Inglewood, n.d.). 1. Historic Downtown – “a regional destination and gathering space for all in the City of Inglewood that links residents with the community’s past, present and future. The district will include public space, restaurants, entertainment, residential uses and limited hotel and office uses” 2. Civic Center – “remains the government and education center of the City, and the Luckman design is strengthened through improved connections along the east- west axis between the Civic Center and Historic Downtown, encouraging the Civic Center’s working and student population to visit the Historic Downtown.” 3. Fairview West – “a quality, affordable residential district linked to the Downtown Inglewood station through a welcoming pedestrian connection.” 4. Hillcrest – “retain its general character and phase out medical offices uses that were previously related to the soon to be demolished Daniel Freeman Hospital. The district will continue to be home to churches and neighborhood retail uses as well as residences.” 5. Queen Street – “largely zoned R-4 and has a large proportion of apartments. Under the plan, Queen Street will be a safe and affordable residential district linked to Downtown and transit.” 6. TechTown – “a vibrant technology business center that provides entrepreneurship and quality employment opportunities for Inglewood residents. Future uses will seek to be consolidated around creative office, research and development, light industrial and limited retail anchored by a sustainable open space corridor and Rogers Park.” 7. Beach Ave – “a unique neighborhood that stimulates small-scale creative production in the City and complements TechTown and Historic Downtown.” (City of Inglewood, n.d.). Phase 1: General Plan Review 49 KEY DISTRICTS (CONTINUED)

WESTCHESTER/VETERANS TOD The Westchester/Veterans TOD is planned around the Western/Veterans Crenshaw Line stop, and primarily consists of light industrial and commercial uses. It is currently in the administrative draft stage, and therefore not adopted. With the introduction of the new rail line, this area could benefit from clear pedestrian connections as the current uses are automobile-focused.

EIGHT DISTRICTS WITHIN WESTCHESTER/VETERANS TOD 1. Station Area- The vision is to create the area immediately surrounding the station to a vibrant arts-focused mixed-use district. This would build off of an art studio and brewery already existing in the area. 2. Airport Campus- Potential uses can be an office park, air cargo, or pollution mitigation use such as parks and gardens. 3. Airport Industrial District- This is an existing industrial district, which is to remain 4. Freeway Corridor District- With a frontage to the I-405 freeway, this district encourages hospitality and office uses. 5. Hyde Park Industrial Startup District- This consists of small warehouses to remain largely the same, with hopes that low rents will encourage entrepreneurship. 6. Business Park Industrial District- The existing business park district to remain. 7. Queen Street Residential District – This is an existing multi-family community that currently borders industrial uses to the north. The plan calls for resolving inconsistent uses, by adding more housing and park space. 8. Olive Street Residential District- Plan authors called for pedestrian friendly mixed-uses along the corridor.

CRENSHAW/IMPERIAL TOD Also in the planning stages is the Crenshaw/Imperial TOD plan. The TOD zone is surrounded by the existing Crenshaw/Green Line Metro stop along the I-105 freeway. This TOD is made up of 5 distinct districts, that are primarily single family homes, and commercial shopping centers, which have recently engaged in partially or total tenant improvements and remodeling processes . This area is expected to experience increased visitors with the forthcoming Hollywood Park and Stadium development, and could benefit pedestrian and bicycle connections. The hope is to promote the shopping and restaurant uses during game times.

50 KEY NEIGHBORHOODS:

HOLLYWOOD PARK One of Inglewood’s key neighborhoods and most exciting developments is at the 298 Acre Property located at 1050 South Prairie Ave aka the Hollywood Park Specific Plan Area (City of Inglewood, n.d.). In July 2009, a General Plan Amendment approved the site’s EIR and the Hollywood Park Specific Plan. Because of the Economic Recession, the project was delayed and did not start construction until 2014. It is expected to be completed in 2023.

Additionally, in 2015, a voter-ballot measure was passed to approve the “City of Champions Revitalization Initiative” which added 60 acres to the Hollywood Plan area (going from a 238 acres to a 298 acre site) and created space for an entertainment district and sports arena/stadium (Chiland, 2016; City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Details of the project include: • (Completed) demolition of the existing Hollywood Park racetrack/grandstand • (Completed) rehabilitation of the 120,000 square-foot Pavilion/Casino gaming facility • 25-acre park system with passive and active recreational opportunities • Construction of a new mixed-use development that contains approximately: • 2,995 Dwelling Units • 620,000 Square Feet of Retail Space • 75,000 Square Feet of Office/Commercial Space, • A 300-Room Hotel • 10,000 Square Feet of Community Serving Uses Hollywood Park Specific Plan. Renderings of the various land uses to be included in Hollywood Park (Howerton, n.d.; Chiland, n.d.).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 51 KEY DISTRICTS (CONTINUED)

OVERLAY ZONES

Additionally, although not neighborhoods, per say, Inglewood previously identified several overlay areas in its Zoning Code. Those include:

• Art Deco Overlay: This includes two stretches of property fronting Manchester Ave and Crenshaw Avenue in the far east of the City property fronting Manchester Ave to the far west sides of the City, constructed in Art Deco architectural style. • Design Review Overlay: This is a zone that subject certain uses in certain areas to architectural review by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to murals, properties in the Civic Center Zone, Commercial-Recreational and exterior modifications to properties in the TOD zones. • Live Work Overlay: An overlay zone scattered throughout the city, including TOD properties, that allows for half office/commercial use and half residential use within the same building envelope. • Medical Enterprise Overlay: This lays out even more specific design standards for properties located in the Residential-Medical Zone, which allows for multi-family residential and doctor’s offices in the central portion of the City just south of where the former Daniel Freeman Hospital (and future housing) site. • Mixed Use Overlay: An area allowing for various properties along Manchester to be developed with a residential and low-intensity use, such as office or retail. • Sign Overlay: An umbrella overlay that regulates signage in the Commercial-Recreational and Hollywood Park Specific Plan Zones. • Centinela Avenue Classic/Vintage, Collectible, and Luxury Car: designation for properties along its Centinela Avenue, La Brea Avenue, and La Cienega corridors (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

52 3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS KEY DISTRICTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS

UNITS In 2011 there were 39,362 dwelling units within the city limits, representing an increase of 1.9% since 2000 (714 units) (City of Inglewood, 2014). The Housing Element provides a chart depicting the net growth or decline of each type of dwelling unit found in the city:

Dwelling Unit Types 2000 vs. 2010. The table highlights the number of units present by housing type in 2000 and 2010 as well as the change within that decade (City of Inglewood, 2014).

The city experienced a dramatic fluctuation in the types of units available. For example, the stock of detached 1 unit structures increased by 11% and 2 unit structures increased by an astounding 44%, while 1 unit attached structures and 3-4 unit structures both declined by 20%, while the city lost 60% of its mobile homes (City of Inglewood, 2014).

The Housing Element itself states that the majority of the city’s land is built out, leaving little to no room for new developments (City of Inglewood, 2014). Additionally, the city tore down around 94 units that had been previously vacated due to airport noise impacts (City of Inglewood, 2014). An astute observer would be led to believe that a built out city could only increase its housing supply by subdividing existing land.

Past 2010, the city only approved 160 units through 2015, and a whopping 145 of those were 5+ unit structures approved only in the year 2011 (City of Inglewood, 2014). Some type of state legislation or city zoning change must inevitably be behind such an upswing in multifamily construction. Investigation into these trends, about the viability of subdividing land (i.e. small lot subdivisions) and trends in real estate development pro-formas and construction would be most helpful. Phase 1: General Plan Review 53 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS (CONTINUED)

RENTAL VS OWNERSHIP Currently about 63% of the city’s residents are renters and 37% are owners (City of Inglewood, 2014). With LA County’s overall homeownership rate hovering around 48%, Inglewood has a much lower rate of home ownership (City of Inglewood, 2014). In the United States, race has traditionally been the major determinant of homeownership rates in a society. But given that Inglewood’s population consists mainly of two minority groups (Blacks and Hispanics), the greatest variation in home ownership rates is instead seen through income levels, with higher-income households generally owning their homes and lower-income households generally renting.

The variation in housing consumption among income levels causes secondary effects on overcrowding and housing overpayment. Overcrowding refers to having more than 1.0 persons per room in a household, while overpayment refers to the allocation of more than 30% of take- home income to rent (50%+ of income devoted to rent signifies severe overpayment). Across the board, renters tend to live in more overcrowded homes, and tend to be more rent-burdened than homeowners.

GENERALIZED CONDITION

Unlike many Southern California cities, Inglewood was well built- out before the start of Post-WWII suburbanization. Concerns about state of good repair are thus a pressing matter for the city. Around 84% of Inglewood’s housing stock was built before 1980, and a staggering 53% was built before 1960, meaning that well over half city’s housing structures are almost 60 years old (City of Inglewood, 2014). As the housing element itself notes, housing stock incurs higher maintenance and repair costs as it progresses past 40 or 50 years of age (City of Inglewood, 2014).

Age of Housing Stock. This map highlights the when the City’s housing stock was constructed. (City of Inglewood, 2014).

54 NEEDS Overall, the Housing Element lists three major challenges relating to housing within the city: affordability, condition, and specialized needs (special needs for veterans, disabled, etc). The Housing Element lays out 7 Goals which are then subdivided into Objectives and then further into various policies that are to be implemented in pursuit of their respective goals and objectives.

THE 7 GOALS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Promote the construction of new housing and new housing opportunities. 2. Maintain the existing housing stock and neighborhoods by promoting the maintenance, rehabilitation, modernization, and energy efficient upgrades of existing housing as well as the beautification and security of residential neighborhoods. 3. Encourage the Production and Preservation of Housing for All Income Categories, particularly around high quality transit, including workers in the city that provide goods and services. 4. Increase opportunities for homeownership. 5. Provide housing assistance and supportive services to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households and households with special needs. 6. Protect the rights of persons to obtain housing and provide assistance to those persons facing displacement from their homes. 7. Encourage Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reductions.

Given that this plan was first brought forth in 2013 and adopted in 2014, some aspects of the element need revision to stay relevant in light of the current political and socio-economic climate. Though the City pursued a Specific Plan that accounts for the upcoming Rams stadium, any revision of the Housing Element must account for the following circumstances:

• Funding: Almost all of the objectives put forth by the city in pursuit of their Housing Element Goals have a monetary cost, and many of the funding sources that were identified in 2013 to fund these objectives face a precarious future. For example, Objective 5.a covers the City’s Section 8 program, which forecasts $15 million in funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ((City of Inglewood, 2014; Andrews, 2018). The most recent federal budget proposal released by the Trump Administration for FY2019 would decrease HUD’s budget by almost 20%. The updated Housing Element must account for the viability of the funding sources that the objectives are set to draw from. • Rent Control: Many residents in the city are currently pursuing a voter initiative to allow for rent control in the city (Chandler, 2018). Should this initiative pass, the California Apartment Association warns that this may discourage the development of new units and/or the upkeep of older units. Considering the advanced age of many of the existing units in the

Phase 1: General Plan Review 55 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS (CONTINUED)

city, this initiative may prove to be a bigger effect on development in Inglewood than it might have elsewhere, and any revamp of the Housing Element would need to take the initiative into consideration when considering the future growth of housing in the city (City of Inglewood, 2014). • Transit Oriented Development: Objective 7.a of the Housing Element calls for the promotion of Transit Oriented Development per the disbursement of a Metro Grant (Sharp, 2017). The three TOD districts, once all adopted, will shift the land use and neighborhood character of the properties within their boundaries. Any update to the Housing Element will undoubtedly need to account for not just the net increase of units, but also the effect that the mixed use, creative cluster, etc overlay zones will have on development patterns in the surrounding area, similar to how the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance preordained the transformation of the Downtown Arts District as we know it today. (LA Conservancy, 2018)

Concept Plan for Crenshaw/ Imperial TOD. Renderings of the desired land use mix for properties at Crenshaw and Imperial (City of Inglewood, 2014).

56 4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

CITY INVENTORY Current park and open space in Inglewood consists of 11 parks seen in the map. The current amount is below the state recommended average, which is three acres of usable parkland per 1,000 residents (Los Angeles County DPH, 2016). In the General Plan’s Open Space Element adopted by the City in 1995, creating park space was identified as a need, but the 1995 number of .8 acre of open space per 1,000 has stayed the same in recent park inventories (City of Inglewood, 1995).

Park Inventory. Locations and names of City of Inglewood’s existing parks. (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 57 PARKS & OPEN SPACE (CONTINUED)

INGLEWOOD & LENNOX GREENING PLAN

In December 2016, EW Consulting, Social Justice Learning Institute, SWA Group, and TreePeople put together an Urban Greening Plan for both City of Inglewood and its nearby unincorporated county of Lennox. Through a community planning process, they recommended: • Increasing tree canopy to 25% • Incorporating urban greening into new development and transit corridors • Incorporating water smart (drought tolerant/stormwater capture) plants and infrastructure into urban greening • Incorporating food and urban agriculture into urban greening to create access to healthy foods • Incorporating climate mitigation and adaptation • Engaging community residents in all processes and decisions • Exploring feasibility of establishing an initiative modeled after the City of Los Angeles’ 50 Parks Initiative (Tree People 2016).

The plan also identified eight sites for urban greening improvements or new creation of open space listed below and shown in the map:

1. Crenshaw-Imperial Branch Library (11141 Crenshaw Blvd) 2. 36111 West Imperial Highway Lot 3. Centinela Ave (Florence Ave to La Cienega Blvd) 4. Inglewood Ave (Florence Ave to Imperial Hwy) 5. Siminski Park (9717 S Inglewood Ave) 6. Queen Park (652 E. Queen Street) 7. Morningside High School (10500 S Yukon Ave) 8. Caroline Coleman Stadium (401 S Inglewood Ave) (Tree People 2016).

Inglewood Urban Greening Opportunities. Eight sites for urban greening improvements or new creation of open space. (Tree People 2016).

58 5 INGLEWOODDEMOGRAPHICS SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS

A VIBRANT CITY

Inglewood is home to a wealth of culture and variety. The population, on a stable uptrend since the early 1900s, consists of 111,012 persons (Inglewood US Census, 2010). The age distribution in the city reflects a younger, though wide-ranging population, which implies the need for amenities and services that cater to a range of ages (Inglewood US Census, 2010). 75% of the population are 18 years or older, while 13% are above the age of 62 (Inglewood US Census, 2010). The median age in Inglewood is 33.0 years, up from 29.6 in 2000 (Quickfacts, 2010). This is slightly younger than the median age of Los Angeles County as a whole, which is 35.1 years (Quickfacts, 2010). Familial bonds are strong, as there are 36,389 households in Inglewood, 68.8% of which are family households (Inglewood US Census, 2010). 35.1% of all households are home to children under the age of 18 (Inglewood US Census, 2010).

INGLEWOOD POPULATION AGE (2010 CENSUS DATA)

Inglewood Population Age Breakdown. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 59 DEMOGRAPHICS (CONTINUED)

INGLEWOOD HOUSEHOLD MAKEUP (2010 CENSUS DATA)

Inglewood Population Household Make-up. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

A CULTURAL MELTING POT RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION (2013)

The cultural composition of Inglewood is dramatically different than that of Los Angeles County as a whole. Inglewood is a city steeped deeply in African- American and Hispanic history and culture, where one can find panaderias and soul food across the street from each other. 42% of the city’s population is black, while the current proportion of African Americans in Los Angeles County as a whole is 8.1 percent (Inglewood TOD, 2015). Meanwhile, 3.4% of the population is white compared to 27.5% in Los Angeles County as a whole (City of Inglewood, n.d.). Moreover, around 50% of residents identify as Hispanic (Inglewood US Census, 2010) and 28.2% of residents are foreign born (Profile, 2017). In a cultural Inglewood Population Ethnicity Breakdown Compared with Los twist, 50.9% of all households speak a language other Angeles County. (City of Inglewood, n.d.). than English at home (Profile, 2017).

60 ASPIRING FOR BETTER EDUCATION

There is a prominent disparity between educational attainment in Inglewood versus the rest of Los Angeles County (City of Inglewood, n.d.). The number of persons without a high school diploma is significantly higher in Inglewood when compared to LA County (City of Inglewood, n.d.). Only 17.4% of the population in Inglewood has gone on to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher, a drastically low percentage in comparison to LA County’s 29.6% (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Levels of Educational Attainment. (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

THE HEART AND HEALTH OF INGLEWOOD

Many neighborhoods in Inglewood struggle to meet health goals. This is due to a variety of factors related to living in a more urbanized area. Increased pollution, fast food saturation, and a lack of open space/exercise areas all impact the community. 37.2% of the population of Inglewood are classified as obese (Body Mass of 30+). This is much higher than the county rate of 25.9% (SCAG, 2017). Further, only 31.8% of Inglewood residents are getting an appropriate amount of exercise (SCAG, 2017). The suggested amount of physical activity is 150 minutes of walking a week (SCAG 2017).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 61 6

THEECONOMY INGLEWOOD ECONOMY

ECONOMIC HISTORY

For its first three decades after incorporation in 1908, Inglewood was an agricultural basin in the Centinela valley (City of Inglewood, 2017). Along its southwest border, the Mines Airfield (the predecessor of LAX) linked Los Angeles County to the world and was a stomping ground for Charles Lindbergh and other aircraft hot shots in the late 1920s. Its proximity to Mines Airfield and the production frenzy of World War II made it a defense hub in the 1940s and 50s.

Today, health care, educational services, and transportation and warehousing are the backbone of the economy, representing 39.5% of the city’s employment altogether (US Department of Commerce, 2017). Centinela General Medical Center employs 1,743, by far the most in the city (Stanley, 2015). Led by a bulky UPS facility on Hillcrest Boulevard, there are also twice as many transportation and warehousing jobs in Inglewood compared to the standard for the regional economy (DATA USA, 2017).

Employment Opportunity Make-up. (US Department of Commerce, 2017).

62 Employment Inflow and Outflow. . (US Census, 2017).

THE INGLEWOOD EMPLOYEE

As is the LA County trend, few residents of Inglewood work in the city. Only 3,038 of 46,706 employed Inglewood citizens, or 5%, work in the city (US Department of Commerce, 2017). 16,000 of these out-of-city workers are in employed in Los Angeles or Santa Monica (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2017). Their out-of-city work is not lucrative: the median income floats around $44,000, 77% of the County regional income (Inglewood US Census, 2017). Combined with a poverty rate staked at 20.7%, the city is economically depressed by tax credit and empowerment zone standards, though recent city initiatives combined with the burgeoning Hollywood Park and Inglewood Stadium should boost the local economy.

There are many indicators that the economy is set to break through its traditionally depressed status. Unemployment dipped to 5.5% in December 2017, (Y Charts, 2017) down from a long- term average of 9.98% (albeit 1.5 ticks above California’s 4% unemployment rate). At City Hall, an Economic and Community Development Department opened a few years ago under the direction of Mayor James T. Butts (City of Inglewood, 2017). It may be short on economic initiatives - focusing primarily on building safety, code enforcement, housing, planning, and community development block grants - but promises a greater civic emphasis on job creation and economic growth. A one staff-person Economic Development Division was established in 2017, indicating that the city is moving forward with the latter.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 63 ECONOMY (CONTINUED)

Inglewood’s Top Employers in 2011. (SCAG. 2017.)

A BURGEONING STARTUP CULTURE

The business community chugs along above the average. An active Chamber of Commerce provides some training and resources for local enterprises and the city’s 130 new business starts in 2015 are a touch above the nation’s average of 128 per hundred thousand (Little, 2015). Fresh zoning and city-owned land open for conversion are potential draws for a TechTown north of Florence and West of La Brea, a few blocks from City Hall.

The Hollywood Park development, discussed in the next section, promises to be one of the largest in LA County history.

ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS IN INGLEWOOD Though a small portion of the economy, entertainment and retail boast a storied and controversial place in the city’s business history. From 1967 to 1999, from the era of the Jackson 5 to the reign of *NSYNC, the Forum on the eastern edge of the city housed the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Kings. The Staples Center famously stole both teams in the 2000s, though at least one economic impact analysis argued Inglewood’s taxable sales jumped in the years immediately after the sports’ teams departure (Baade, 2004).

64 Rendering of the forthcoming stadium. (Woike, 2018).

The Forum lay dormant for many years before the Madison Square Garden company purchased and reopened the facility with an Eagles performance in 2014 (Gallo, 2014). It is now the premier concert venue in the State of California.

In the last three years, the Hollywood Park development, a monster mixed-use project south of the Forum, partnered with Stan Kroenke, the owner of the Los Angeles Rams, to build the 1.7 billion dollar Inglewood Stadium (Little, 2015). The stadium will host the LA Rams and the LA Chargers beginning in 2020 (Woike, 2018). Plans are on the books for a Clippers Arena next door.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 65 7 MOBILITYCIRCULATION, TRANSIT AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Much has changed in the realm of mobility in the twenty-five years since Inglewood’s Circulation Element of the General Plan was adopted. While back in 1992, circulation policy focused primarily on helping cars move quickly--frequently at the expense of other forms of mobility--in the years since the general plan was adopted the importance of promoting walking, biking, and public transportation has become more widely recognized. This shift has changed both the legislative environment at the state level and led the City of Inglewood to think differently about its recent planning efforts. To understand the state of circulation policy in Inglewood today as well as the work that must be done to update the general plan, all three of these pieces of the puzzle need to be understood--the existing circulation element, State policy changes in Sacramento, and recent planning efforts at the City level in response to State legislation. This section will explore all three.

PART 1: THE EXISTING CIRCULATION ELEMENT The circulation element of the 1992 general plan focused heavily on technical discussions of how to move cars and trucks as fast as possible and devoted relatively little space and attention to other modes of transportation. Discussions of which streets need widening and the role of each street for moving cars dominate the document, with little of the emphasis on the promotion of other modes of transportation that the state legislature and City have focused on in recent years.

CIRCULATION ELEMENTS RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ELEMENTS The Circulation Element relates to several other elements in the General Plan. With the Land Use Element, the maintenance of the existing system and plans for future uses can influence how land is used in regards to access and the physical design (width to traffic volume and capacity). With the Safety Element, seismic activity, access, volume, and capacity, especially as they relate to the Circulation Element, are considered. Pollutants released by the vehicles impacts the Conservation Element, which refers back to this Element’s provisions for volume and capacity. The Open Space Element includes landscaping of medians in road ways along with parking (street and surface

66 lots). Access, volume, and capacity are informed and are affected by the Housing element. Speed limits and street type (i.e. boulevard, local connector) are also considered with Housing. Finally, both ground and aircraft traffic are parts of the Noise Element intrinsically linked to Circulation. The point of concern is that the beginning of the existing Element provides a brief statement about how the Circulation Element and these other elements relate to each other but the statement does not demonstrate those connections visually.

THEN AND NOW: TRAFFIC GENERATORS In the 1992 version of the Element, Interstate 405 was listed with a volume of around 270,000 vehicles/day. Ten years later that number doubled (Bacharch, 2013). In 1992, interstate 105 was incomplete; projections estimated approximately 150,000 vehicles/day. That number doubled by 2002 (Bacharch, 2013). At that time the plan called for a rail in the median of Interstate 105. The Green Metro Line opened in August 1995.

Street classifications include: major arterials (30,000+ vehicles/day), minor arterials (15,000 to 30,000 vehicles/day), collectors (up to 15,000 vehicles per day but typically 3,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day), and local streets (City of Inglewood, 1992).

Street Classification. Inventory of Inglewood’s Streets as identified in the 1992 Circulation Element. (City of Inglewood, 1992)

The 1992 plans lists seven traffic generators: LAX with 60,000 vehicles/day, 40,000 employees; Hollywood Park (currently in transition and under revitalization) with 40,000 vehicles, 50,000 patrons; the Forum with 4,000 vehicles and 20,000 persons; Northrop Corporation (no longer existing) with 20,000 persons; Daniel Freeman Hospital (no longer existing) with 3,300 vehicles entering and leaving daily; Centinela Hospital with the same approximate 3,300 vehicles entering

Phase 1: General Plan Review 67 MOBILITY (CONTINUED)

and leaving daily; and Downtown Inglewood with a 16 block area of retail; professional and medical offices; financial institutes; city, county, and state governmental offices and court buildings; a high school and a junior high school, for which explicit traffic generation numbers were not identified (City of Inglewood, 1992).

Those numbers are very different now. In 2016, LAX averaged 75,000 vehicles per day and can get up to over 100,000 vehicles during holidays like Christmas

Inglewood’s Traffic Generators. Trips/Day projections from the week and Labor Day weekend (Chiland, 2016). Although circulation Element for places drawing large amounts of people (City of Inglewood, 1992). there are no current estimates for the total amount of vehicle traffic for the future Los Angeles Entertainment Center under construction on what was Hollywood Park, Rams home games are estimated to have at least 72,500 vehicles making trips to the Center (Shrine, 2013). With the completion of the Crenshaw/LAX line some of this may be alleviated if Angelenos are willing to walk from the closest Metro stop. There are no current estimates for The Forum vehicle traffic. The Daniel Freeman Hospital no longer exists and the site is going to develop into residential land-use. No data is available

Street widening. List of streets identified that need to be wider to for the current daily vehicle use at Centinela Hospital accommodate more traffic (City of Inglewood, 1992). but an increase is expected due to its recent remodel and the loss of the other major hospital in the city. The current TOD for downtown does not outline specific trip generation numbers, for reasons discussed below.

THEN AND NOW: PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ALONG ARTERIALS AND INTERSECTIONS The Circulation Element identified several portions of public right of way There were also several Rights-of- Way concerns with varying widths from 125 feet at the Intersection Realignment. Sixteen out of 1,2000 intersections widest to 40 feet at the narrowest (City of Inglewood, identified as needing modification (City of Inglewood, 1992). 1992). In addition to widening roads, the 1992 plan identifies sixteen intersections in need of realignment (out of 1, 200) (City of Inglewood, 1992).

68 At the time of the 1992 General Plan update for the Circulation Element there was one railroad line with twelve crossings. All twelve crossings were fully regulated with arms, lighting, and warning bells, with only the crossing at Florence Avenue noted as an area of concern since cars often end up waiting on the tracks (City of Inglewood, 1992). When the Crenshaw/LAX line is completed, this will change.

The original design of the city did not anticipate the traffic volume or capacity it had in 1992 or even today. As demonstrated by the table, several intersections have Unsatisfactory Peak Levels of Service (LOS E or greater means >0.90 – 100 and Volume-to-Capacity which means that there is >55 – 80 seconds signalized delay). Those intersections are:

Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Delay. Inventory of the • Prairie Ave. & Florence Ave., in the AM existing intersections, which is indicative of their capacity (Iteris, 2016). peak hour • Prairie Ave. & Manchester Blvd., in the AM To help explain the above table, the following and PM peak hour acronyms and calculations are explained below by Iteris: • Crenshaw & Manchester Blvd., in the AM Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds) PM peak hour V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio • La Cienaga Blvd. & Florence Ave.,in the LOS = Level of Service Intersection operating AM and PM peak hour ((Iteris 2016). below acceptable LOS are shown in bold.

THEN AND NOW: PERSONAL VEHICLE 1 Intersection analyzed in HCM methodology ALTERNATIVES because ICU methodology does not support 5-legged intersections. Delay reported for this There are several alternative transportation intersection. options in the 1992 plan. Bus routes from SCRTD 2 Caltrans intersection utilizing HCM local services; shuttles to and from Hollywood methodology to evaluate intersection Park race track and downtown; and senior operations. shuttles (City of Inglewood, 1992). There has been no light rail service since before WWII so it was not addressed in this version. There were no Park-and-Rides for Inglewood listed in the

Phase 1: General Plan Review 69 MOBILITY (CONTINUED)

1992 plan but it mentioned a failed attempt in the 1970s when the one built was barely used (City of Inglewood, 1992). There are six paratransit service buses with only Monday through Friday service (City of Inglewood, 1992). The 1992 plan lists one taxicab company, shuttle buses from the hotels to the airport, and charter bus services (City of Inglewood, 1992).

Currently there are several local and rapid buses that operate around Inglewood and move individuals from the Inglewood Transit Center located on La Brea to other locations in the Los Angeles region, as identified by LA Metro: • Metro Bus 40 - Patsaouras Transit Plaza - South Bay Galleria via M.L. King, Hawthorne & Crenshaw • Metro Bus 111 - Norwalk to LAX City Bus Center via Florence • Metro Bus 115 - Playa Del Rey - Norwalk via Manchester Av, Firestone • Metro Bus 211 - Inglewood TC - South Bay Galleria via Prairie Ave • Metro Bus 215 - Redondo Beach - Inglewood TC via Inglewood Metro Express 442 - Hawthorne - Union Station via Hawthorne, La Brea Av, Manchester & Harbor Transitway • Metro Bus 607 - Circular (clockwise): Inglewood - Windsor Hills - Inglewood • Metro Rapid 740 Expo/Crenshaw - South Bay Galleria via Crenshaw & Hawthorne (LA Metro, n.d.).

Lastly, there’s hope that Crenshaw/LAX Line will lower the volume of driver vehicles and speed up bus services. As of now there is limited and low functioning transit offered in Inglewood. A young demographic concerned with environmental issues may opt to ride and use transit more than a personal vehicles. Hopefully, the Metro line, and the overnight success of ride-share companies and ride- share apps will all improve the circulation of the city.

70 Existing Transit Service. Bus Routes with stops in Inglewood. (Iteris, 2015.) THEN AND NOW: TRUCK ROUTES The 1992 plan lists major north/south truck routes as La Brea Avenue, Centinela Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, West Boulevard, and Crenshaw Boulevard and major east/west routes as Florence Avenue, Hyde Park Boulevard, and Manchester Boulevard (City of Inglewood, 1992).

Today the City is still using truck routes established by City Ordinance in 1985. The Inglewood Municipal Code (IMC) Section 3-85 lists the current truck routes established as:

• Arbor Vitae Street from West City Limits to La Brea Avenue • Aviation Boulevard from Manchester Boulevard to South City Limits • Centinela Avenue from West City Limits to Florence Avenue • Century Boulevard from West City Limits to East City Limits • Crenshaw Boulevard from North City Limits to South City Limits • Eucalyptus Avenue from Florence Ave to Juniper Street • Florence Avenue from Manchester Boulevard to East City Limits • Hawthorne Boulevard from Century Boulevard to South City Limits • Hyde Park Boulevard from Hyde Park Place to East City Limits • Hyde Park Place from Centinela Avenue to Hyde Park Boulevard • Imperial Highway from West City Limits to East City Limits • Juniper Street from Eucalyptus Avenue from La Brea Avenue • La Brea Avenue from North City Limits to South City Limits • La Cienega Boulevard from North City Limits to South City Limits • Manchester Boulevard from West City Limits to East City Limits • Prairie Avenue from Florence Avenue to South City Limits • 102nd Street from Prairie to Yukon Avenue (City of Inglewood, 1985).

THEN AND NOW: STREET ENVIRONMENT

Street Environment is an important aspect of the Circulation element. Landscaping is the most prevalent concern. The Official Parkway and Tree Planting List in 1969 did not have much variety but the Inglewood Department of Parks and Code Enforcement had added several alternatives to increase visibility and created variety in landscaping by the time of the drafting of the 1992 version of the Circulation Element (City of Inglewood, 1992). Several guidelines were listed around street naming and numbering such as: any new streets must be named for readily known objects; dissimilar from current names; extensions should carry same name; however, annexed streets may change their name; and house numbers must comply with local or regional numbering systems (City of Inglewood, 1992).

Phase 1: General Plan Review 71 MOBILITY (CONTINUED)

THEN AND NOW: PARKING

City-wide parking today is limited by policies and programs of the past and of recent. Due to a number of 1950s regulations (i.e. parking meters); there is no unimproved land with which to build new lots or structures because it was allocated to housing so that the Housing Element met RHNA needs or looped into development and disposition agreements (DDAs) for large development projects; and many existing municipal lots are time restricted (City of Inglewood, 1992).

PART 2: STATE-LEVEL LEGISLATIVE CHANGES SINCE 1992 RELATING TO CIRCULATION

Several pieces of legislation have been passed since the Circulation Element was last updated. A detailed list of climate change legislation, which has been closely linked with transportation planning efforts relevant to Inglewood’s Circulation Element can be found in the Existing Legislation Section earlier in this document. Some of the pertinent laws and changes include: The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358) requires cities and counties making substantive revisions to the circulation element of their general plans to include modifications to plan for complete streets (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2008).

On January 26, 2016, the State released a revised draft of SB 743 Guidelines to implement the provisions of Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which required changes to State CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts (i.e. using VMT instead of LOS). The revised CEQA Guidelines establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts and defining alternative metrics to replace delay-based metrics such as LOS in CEQA documents. Vehicle miles travelled (VMT) has been identified as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. However, LOS and Vehicle Delay will still be vital to help City of Inglewood analyze and plan for its road capacity, traffic flow, and connectivity for its arterials and intersections.

On April 7, 2016 SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2016 - 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG, 2016) in compliance with SB 375. It aims to: • Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. • Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. • Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. • Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. • Protect the environment and health of SCAG-region residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking). • Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible.

72 • Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. In general, Inglewood has attempted to respond to the changes with its ECAP and ATP plans. ECAP was adopted in 2013 and the ATP should be released by the end of 2018. Iteris traffic consulting firm is working with Planning, Public Works and Parks and Recreation on roads. The thrust of many of these changes is that cities and counties need to be more supportive of modes of transportation other than driving alone. While the existing circulation element does not do that, Inglewood’s largest recent planning initiatives do. The gap between these two will just just need to be filled in the next update.

PART 3: CIRCULATION IN INGLEWOOD’S RECENT TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING INITIATIVE

2016 TOD PLAN FOR INGLEWOOD (NEAR THE DOWNTOWN AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS STATIONS)

While Inglewood’s current general plan does not strongly support modes of transportation other than driving, in 2016 the city adopted a plan to use the arrival of the Crenshaw Line light rail as an opportunity to generate economic growth and better uses of land. Many of the recommendations and conclusions of this plan directly relate to circulation, and given its recency and its broad impact on the most prominent parts of the city, it is impossible to understand the direction of circulation policy in Inglewood today without understanding this plan. To fill in this crucial context, we examine the circulation-related pieces of this plan below.

In 2016, Inglewood published a new plan to guide TOD around two new light rail stations-- Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights--that will open with the Crenshaw Line in 2019 (City of Inglewood, n.d.). Inglewood will soon be home to a third light rail station, Westchester/Veterans. Inglewood shares a light rail station along the 105 freeway median with City of Hawthorne: Crenshaw/Imperial. The TOD plans for those stations are included in other TOD specific plans which are currently under administrative review and are set to go before City Council in Summer 2018 (City of Inglewood, n.d.). The adopted TOD plan, for Downtown and Fairview Heights, included six initiatives directly related to circulation. TOD outlines the City’s aspirations to create and/or build the following items: 1) the conversion of a few key streets into “green boulevards, ”; 2) a downtown parking district; 3) a downtown bike network; 4) a transit center (referred to as a “mobility hub”); 5) pedestrian improvements; and 6) a link to Hollywood Park and the Forum.

Green Boulevards

To improve bike and pedestrian mobility, the TOD plan sought to transform four roads classified as major arterials in the general plan--La Brea, Florence, Manchester, and Prairie--into “green boulevards.” What makes them “green?” They promote stormwater absorption as well upgrading bike and pedestrian mobility by adding a protected bike lane to either side of the street. They also buffer that bike lane from the general lanes with tree and plant-filled bioswales. The plan proposes Phase 1: General Plan Review 73 MOBILITY (CONTINUED) to do this without taking away any existing general lanes. A typical cross-section of a green boulevard would look like the picture, taken from the TOD plan (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

As of today, this concept has yet to be implemented on any of the selected corridors, and Inglewood has identified no funding for it; however, the city hopes having a plan already ready to go will help them win federal grant dollars.

Green Boulevards. Inglewood envisions its auto-oriented thoroughfares as complete streets that provide for multiple modes of transportation (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Downtown Parking District

In order to make Downtown Inglewood flourish as a restaurant and retail district, the city has included a plan to create a parking district within the larger TOD plan. The city plans to manage both supply of and demand for parking so that travelers can feel confident that they will be able to park in Downtown Inglewood, without setting aside so much land for parking that it hurts the vibrancy of the district. To do this, Inglewood will first create a Parking Management Plan, which will evaluate the current and projected demand for parking, compare that with current supply, and create a plan to leverage public-private partnerships to efficiently and effectively match parking supply with demand. While the plan has not been fully developed yet, the TOD plan did identify a few key strategies it would likely use, which are as follows: • Reduce parking requirements near Downtown Inglewood and Fairview Heights stations • Update the City’s rules regarding in-lieu parking fees to allow developers to meet their entire parking requirement through in-lieu fees and off-site parking nearby • Share parking across different land uses within the district that need parking at different times; for example, restaurants in the Downtown area could use parking in the Civic Center • Buy land where parking garages could be built in the future (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

74 The TOD plan provides a more comprehensive list of potential interventions that go beyond the key concepts outlined above. This list is given in the right table:

Downtown Bike Network

In addition to the protected bike lanes, the TOD plan calls for improving bike mobility throughout the downtown area by adding bike infrastructure on a number of other streets in and near downtown. These break down into three types of bike infrastructure: type one, type two, and type three. Downtown Parking District Strategies. Inglewood’s vision for increasing parking Two type one bike lanes--which are off- in the Downtown and Fairview Heights TOD area (City of Inglewood, n.d.). vehicle road paths dedicated to bike and pedestrian traffic--will run through TechTown (an area northwest of Downtown on the other side of Florence) and along the east side of Prairie Avenue (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Type two bike lanes are lanes painted onto existing streets without a physical barrier between the bike lane and auto traffic, and one each of these would be added on Locust Street and Regent Street between Fir Avenue and La Brea Boulevard (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Lastly, the city will add type three lanes on Regent Street between Inglewood and Fir Avenues and again from La Brea to Prairie Avenues. This final type of bike lane is a lane that bikes and cars share, with signs and road markings indicating that bikes may use the lane (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Mobility Hub

While Inglewood currently has a transit center, it is not next to the new light rail line, so in order to ease transfers between buses and the new rail line Inglewood will construct a new transit center- -called the Inglewood Mobility Hub--on a site immediately to the east of the Downtown Inglewood station (City of Inglewood, n.d.). To serve this station, the Metro Local Line 607 should be adjusted to go to the new transit center and also have its frequency increased to one bus every 20-30 minutes. The Mobility Hub will also include “carshare, long-term bicycle parking, a bicycle hub for repairs and maintenance, and other services as desired.”

Phase 1: General Plan Review 75 MOBILITY (CONTINUED)

Pedestrian Improvements

The pedestrian improvements envisioned in the plan break down into a few areas: improvement of sidewalks and crosswalks, adding signage to help people navigate the area, building alley walkways and mid-block passthroughs, and adding parks and plazas (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

While the TOD plan finds that most sidewalks in Downtown are sufficiently wide, more trees and benches need to be added to make the area more comfortable for pedestrians. Since the TOD plan envisions the downtown area as a hub of pedestrian activity, it calls for the installation in several places of a type of intersection designed to make mobility easy for people on foot: pedestrian scrambles. In a pedestrian scramble, pedestrians get their own light cycle in which no cars may pass through the intersection, and in this phase, they may cross in any direction--including diagonally. These will be installed at the intersections of Market and Regent streets, Florence Avenue and Market Street, Florence and Locust Street, Market and Queen, and Market and Nutwood. The plan also calls for the evaluation of implementing another pedestrian scramble at the corner of Market and Hillcrest Boulevard. The plan also requests the widening of the sidewalks on Beach Avenue east of Edgewood Street (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Further, he TOD plan saw a need for wayfinding signage. Potential locations are In Civic Center, Downtown, and TechTown districts; hypothetically, one set of signs at a height comfortable to pedestrians and another, complementary set geared towards directing drivers (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Long blocks can make it take longer to travel places on foot, so the plan requests developers to include pedestrian-friendly alleyways and mid-block crossings in their projects. This involves creating open passageways between buildings or even through single buildings, and the plan encourages developers to consider adding retail along these passageways in internal courtyards (City of Inglewood, n.d.). Lastly, pedestrian-only plazas will be added on the north block of Market Street and right next to the station and the CVS Pharmacy (City of Inglewood, n.d.). These plazas are potential sites for festivals, concerts, farmers’ markets, and the like (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Link to Hollywood Park & the Forum

While Downtown is envisioned as a key growth corridor for Inglewood, it is not the only one. New development is expected in Hollywood Park and the Forum. The TOD contemplates three options to connect this area to the Downtown Inglewood station. The simplest of these is to run shuttle buses between these locations, but the city also is considering adding an aerial tramway or developing a system that would run at street level through Downtown but would be carried through the air on overhead wires through other parts of the route (City of Inglewood, n.d.). The three options are detailed in the graphic.

76 Linking Downtown to Hollywood Park and the Forum. Inglewood aims to provide connections outside of the personal vehicle to its entertainment venues (and future sites for housing and retail) (City of Inglewood, n.d.).

Wrapping up the discussion of the TOD plan, it is worth noting what the plan does not include. It does not have a list of roads to widen, nor does it ever mention the phrase “level of service.” This is partly due to the fact that its status as a plan was voluntarily adopted by the city in coordination with LA Metro as part of the forthcoming rail projects and completed outside of the context of the existing General Plan, meaning that the plan authors did not make inclusion of these things a priority. This plan is influenced by state legislation and transportation planning trends, but in concept only. It is not a direct attempt to address state legislation. It focuses more on the importance of walking, biking, and transit in creating a vibrant community and in improving quality of life.

MOBILITY CONCLUSION

The sharp differences between the circulation element, ECAP, ATP and the TOD plan has given Inglewood an uncoordinated circulation policy. The auto-dominated circulation element technically rules the whole city, while the (existing and forthcoming) TOD plan sketches out a multi-modal future for the heart of the city. The General Plan update must resolve the tension between these contradictory visions to respond to the legislative changes that have come from Sacramento in recent years.

Phase 1: General Plan Review 77

PART C WORK PROGRAM

WORK PROGRAM This report contains the existing conditions of the General Plan and the community. Based on the data compiled and analysis conducted, a recommended work program and associated action program has been outlined for the General Plan update. Inspiration for the work program was drawn from David Early’s The General Plan in California and best practices, as identified by the subject matter expert and our team’s principal, Mr. Woodie Tescher. The Work Program has been split up into eight (8) main tasks and associated action items with various concurrent and independent timelines to help visually display how this huge undertaking gets broken up into more digestible pieces.

This is a table displaying how the process flows. Inglewood’s General Plan Update has been commenced with this report compiled by USC Price Master’s of Planning (MPL) students for a course on General Plans. The scope of the work for this course is a preliminary survey of the existing General Plan and the community, which will be followed by an assignment that identifies best practices and trends in contemporary General Plan design. The remaining portion of the Work Program continues internally with city staff and administration in the following manner:

• Task A: Preliminary Survey of General Plans 2 mo

• Task B: Project Team Selection 4 mo

• Task C: Project Initiation 3 mo

• Task D: Visioning and Guiding Principles | Background Data and City Profile |Planning Issues Analysis

• Task D.1: Visioning and Guiding Principles 3.5

• Task D.2: Background Data and City Profile 4.5

• Task D. 3: Planning Issues Analysis 4.5

• Task E: Land Use Alternatives and Evaluation 7

• Task F: Plan Preparation 7-10

• Task G: Environmental Impact Report 12

• Task H: Public Review and Adoption 6

• Task I: (General Plan) Updates and Amendments ongoing Phase 1: General Plan Review 81 A: PRELIMNARY SURVEY OF GENERAL PLANS

B: PROJECT TEAM SELECTION

C: PROJECT INITIATION

D.1: D.2: D.3: VISIONING AND GUIDING BACKGROUND DATA PLANNING ISSUES PRINCIPLES AND CITY PROFILE ANALYSIS PRELIMNARY PRELIMNRY SURVEY SURVEY OF GENERAL OF GENERAL PLANS PLANS OUTPUT: VISION, COMMUNITY PROFILE, DISCUSSION PAPERS

E: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

F: PLAN PREPARATION

G: H: EIR PUBLIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION

OUTPUT: NEW GENERAL PLAN

General Plan Update Work Program Process. The Work Program has been split up into eight (8) main tasks and associated action items. Graphic: Taylor Kay I: UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TASK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ACTION

TASK A: PROJECT INITIATION 1. USC MPL students Identify Existing Conditions and Best Practices and Present Findings to City Planning Staff (Project Transitions to City Staff) 2. Identify designated Planning Staff and City Staff Person(s) in each department to be the point person for each respective department within the City 3. Peer-City Selection: Identify Adopted General Plans and executed projects from other Cities that will serve as inspiration as well as their consultants or project procurement agencies 4. Start-up Meeting with City Council, City Manager, City Staff Person(s) (called Internal General Plan Committee (IGPC)): Outline desired Consultant Team Qualifications and desired General Plan format (i.e. PDFs, Digital Database) 5. Read and Review OPR’s 2017 State of CA: General Plan Guidelines

TASK B: PROJECT TEAM SELECTION 1. Submit RFP for Consultant Team 2. Invite Consultant Teams for Project Proposal Presentations/Interviews 3. Narrow Down to Top 3 Consultants 4. Invite Top 3 Consultant Teams for Second Round of Project Proposal Presentations/Interviews 5. Select Final Consultant Team 6. Contract Negotiation and Finalization 7. Consultant Team becomes part of IGPC

TASK C: PROJECT INITIATION 1. Identify Inconsistencies in the existing General Plan, to be addressed again in Task D 2. Collect City and Census Data: Existing land use and spatial organization, economy and demographics, mobility, policy and regulatory framework (i.e. zoning, specific plans) 3. Prepare baseline trends with City and Census data 4. GIS Data Assemblage and Base Map Preparation 5. Meeting IGPC: Identify Initial Vision Statement 6. Submit RFQ for General Plan Advsiory Council (GPAC) 7. Interview for GPAC 8. IGPC Selects GPAC 9. Peer-City Tour IGPC and GPAC: Where possible visit peer-cities identified in peer-city selection 10. Create General Plan Update Website Draft and Circulate among IGPC 11. Develop Public Outreach and Participation Strategy 12. GPAC #1: Project Kickoff

TASK D: 1. Community Workshops #1: VISIONING 2. General Public Issues and Opportunities Identification Workshop 3. Target Demographic Workshops, including a Youth Workshop 4. General Plan Update website launch and pamphlet mailings 5. ______6. Task D.1: Visioning and Guiding Principles 7. Draft Guiding Principles 8. Refine Vision and Create Draft Vision Document 9. GPAC and IGPC Approval of Vision Statement 10. Final Vision Published BACKGROUND DATA AND COMMUNIITY PROFILE 11. GPAC Meeting #2: Vision Review and Approval 12. Task D.2: Background Data and City Profile 13. Land Use and Community Form 14. Mobility and Walkability 15. Public Health and Conservation 16. Economic Vitality 17. Equity and Environmental Justice 18. CEQA-Required Technical Issues 19. Community Profiles Compilations PLANNING ISSUES 20. GPAC Meeting #3: Community Profile Review 21. 22. Task D.3: Planning Issues 23. Identification and summarizing of planning issues 24. Draft Discussion Papers 25. GPAC Meeting #4: Discussion Papers Review 26. ______27. Final Drafts of Vision, Community Profile, and Planning Issues 28. Newsletter #1: Visioning | Background Data, and Community Profile | Planning Issues Key Findings 29. Public Webinar #1: Visioning | Background Data, and Community Profile | Planning Issues Key Findings 30. Public Webinar #2: Format of the General Plan (i.e. paper, digital/online)

TASK E: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION, AND SELECTION (LAND USE CHANGES) 1. Land Use Alternatives Development 2. IGPC and GPAC Meeting #5: Review and Approve Study Sites and Alternatives 3. Land Use Alternatives Evaluation Workbook and Workshop 4. Community Workshop #2: Alternatives Review 5. GPAC Meeting #6: Refine Preferred Alternative 6. City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Alternatives Review 7. Draft Proposed Land Use Map 8. City Council Study Session: Land Use Map Approval 9. Newsletter #2: Proposed Land Use Map 10. Public Webinar #3: Proposed Land Use Map 11. Refine Land Use Map as necessary

TASK F: PLAN PREPARATION 1. Review Existing Goals and Policies 2. Draft Goals, Policies, and Implementation Plan (Policy Framework), including funding, responsible departments/agencies, and status/interim checklists 3. Draft Zoning Ordinance 4. IGPC provides Goals and Policies Recommendations 5. GPAC MEeting #7: Goals and Policies Refinement 6. Draft General Plan Prepared 7. Public Review Period of Draft General Plan 8. Community Workshop #3: Introduce the Draft General Plan Update 9. Webinar #4: Introduce the Draft General Plan Update 10. GPAC Meeting #7: Draft General Plan Review 11. Webinar #5: The Relationship between the General Plan and the Zoning Code 12. Refine General Policy Framework and Draft Zoning Code, as necessary

TASK G: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. Notice of Preparation 2. Scoping Meeting 3. Administrative Draft EIR 4. Draft EIR 5. Public Review Period 6. Notice of Completion 7. Webinar #6: DEIR

TASK H: PUBLIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION 1. Newsletter #6: Draft General Plan and Draft Zoning Ordinance 2. Public Hearing 3. Final EIR 4. Findings and Resolutions 5. Certification and Adoption Hearings 6. Final General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

TASK I: (GENERAL PLAN) UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS 1. Update Technical Data and Text Every 5-10 years as City Evolves GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TASK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ACTION

TASK A: PROJECT INITIATION 1. USC MPL students Identify Existing Conditions and Best Practices and Present Findings to City Planning Staff (Project Transitions to City Staff) 2. Identify designated Planning Staff and City Staff Person(s) in each department to be the point person for each respective department within the City 3. Peer-City Selection: Identify Adopted General Plans and executed projects from other Cities that will serve as inspiration as well as their consultants or project procurement agencies 4. Start-up Meeting with City Council, City Manager, City Staff Person(s) (called Internal General Plan Committee (IGPC)): Outline desired Consultant Team Qualifications and desired General Plan format (i.e. PDFs, Digital Database) 5. Read and Review OPR’s 2017 State of CA: General Plan Guidelines

TASK B: PROJECT TEAM SELECTION 1. Submit RFP for Consultant Team 2. Invite Consultant Teams for Project Proposal Presentations/Interviews 3. Narrow Down to Top 3 Consultants 4. Invite Top 3 Consultant Teams for Second Round of Project Proposal Presentations/Interviews 5. Select Final Consultant Team 6. Contract Negotiation and Finalization 7. Consultant Team becomes part of IGPC

TASK C: PROJECT INITIATION 1. Identify Inconsistencies in the existing General Plan, to be addressed again in Task D 2. Collect City and Census Data: Existing land use and spatial organization, economy and demographics, mobility, policy and regulatory framework (i.e. zoning, specific plans) 3. Prepare baseline trends with City and Census data 4. GIS Data Assemblage and Base Map Preparation 5. Meeting IGPC: Identify Initial Vision Statement 6. Submit RFQ for General Plan Advsiory Council (GPAC) 7. Interview for GPAC 8. IGPC Selects GPAC 9. Peer-City Tour IGPC and GPAC: Where possible visit peer-cities identified in peer-city selection 10. Create General Plan Update Website Draft and Circulate among IGPC 11. Develop Public Outreach and Participation Strategy 12. GPAC #1: Project Kickoff

TASK D: 1. Community Workshops #1: VISIONING 2. General Public Issues and Opportunities Identification Workshop 3. Target Demographic Workshops, including a Youth Workshop 4. General Plan Update website launch and pamphlet mailings 5. ______6. Task D.1: Visioning and Guiding Principles 7. Draft Guiding Principles 8. Refine Vision and Create Draft Vision Document 9. GPAC and IGPC Approval of Vision Statement 10. Final Vision Published BACKGROUND DATA AND COMMUNIITY PROFILE 11. GPAC Meeting #2: Vision Review and Approval 12. Task D.2: Background Data and City Profile 13. Land Use and Community Form 14. Mobility and Walkability 15. Public Health and Conservation 16. Economic Vitality 17. Equity and Environmental Justice 18. CEQA-Required Technical Issues 19. Community Profiles Compilations PLANNING ISSUES 20. GPAC Meeting #3: Community Profile Review 21. 22. Task D.3: Planning Issues 23. Identification and summarizing of planning issues 24. Draft Discussion Papers 25. GPAC Meeting #4: Discussion Papers Review 26. ______27. Final Drafts of Vision, Community Profile, and Planning Issues 28. Newsletter #1: Visioning | Background Data, and Community Profile | Planning Issues Key Findings 29. Public Webinar #1: Visioning | Background Data, and Community Profile | Planning Issues Key Findings GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TASK 30.GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ACTION Public Webinar #2: Format of the General Plan (i.e. paper, digital/online) TASK A: PROJECT INITIATION TASK E: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT, 1. USC MPL students Identify Existing Conditions and Best Practices EVALUATION, AND SELECTION (LAND USE CHANGES) 1. Land Use Alternatives Developmentand Present Findings to City Planning Staff (Project Transitions to 2. IGPC and GPAC Meeting #5: Review and Approve Study Sites and City Staff) 2. AlternativesIdentify designated Planning Staff and City Staff Person(s) in each 3. Land Use Alternatives Evaluation Workbook and Workshopdepartment to be the point person for each respective 4. Community Workshop #2: Alternatives Reviewdepartment within the City 5.3. GPAC Meeting #6: Refine Preferred AlternativePeer-City Selection: Identify Adopted General Plans and executed 6. City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Alternatives projects from other Cities that will serve as inspiration as well as Reviewtheir consultants or project procurement agencies 7.4. Draft Proposed Land Use MapStart-up Meeting with City Council, City Manager, City Staff 8. City Council Study Session: Land Use Map ApprovalPerson(s) (called Internal General Plan Committee (IGPC)): 9. Newsletter #2: Proposed Land Use MapOutline desired Consultant Team Qualifications and desired 10. Public Webinar #3: Proposed Land Use MapGeneral Plan format (i.e. PDFs, Digital Database) 11.5. Refine Land Use Map as necessaryRead and Review OPR’s 2017 State of CA: General Plan Guidelines TASK F: PLAN PREPARATION TASK B: PROJECT TEAM SELECTION 1. Review Existing Goals and Policies 2.1. Draft Goals, Policies, and Implementation Plan (Policy Submit RFP for Consultant Team 2. Framework), including funding, responsible Invite Consultant Teams for Project Proposal departments/agencies, and status/interim checklistsPresentations/Interviews 3. Draft Zoning OrdinanceNarrow Down to Top 3 Consultants 4. IGPC provides Goals and Policies RecommendationsInvite Top 3 Consultant Teams for Second Round of Project 5. GPAC Proposal Presentations/InterviewsMEeting #7: Goals and Policies Refinement 6.5. Draft General Plan PreparedSelect Final Consultant Team 7.6. Public Review Period of Draft General PlanContract Negotiation and Finalization 8.7. Community Workshop #3: Introduce the Draft General Plan Consultant Team becomes part of IGPC Update 9. Webinar #4: Introduce the Draft General Plan Update TASK C: PROJECT INITIATION 10. GPAC Meeting #7: Draft General Plan Review 11.1. Webinar #5: The Relationship between the General Plan and the Identify Inconsistencies in the existing General Plan, to be Zoning Code addressed again in Task D 12.2. Refine General Policy Framework and Draft Zoning Code, as Collect City and Census Data: Existing land use and spatial necessaryorganization, economy and demographics, mobility, policy and regulatory framework (i.e. zoning, specific plans) 3. Prepare baseline trends with City and Census data TASK G: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4. GIS Data Assemblage and Base Map Preparation 1. Notice of Preparation 5. Meeting IGPC: Identify Initial Vision Statement 2. Scoping Meeting 6. Submit RFQ for General Plan Advsiory Council (GPAC) 3. Administrative Draft EIR 7. Interview for GPAC 4. Draft EIR 8. IGPC Selects GPAC 5. Public Review Period 9. Peer-City Tour IGPC and GPAC: Where possible visit peer-cities 6. Notice of Completion identified in peer-city selection 7. Webinar #6: DEIR 10. Create General Plan Update Website Draft and Circulate among IGPC TASK H: PUBLIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION 11. Develop Public Outreach and Participation Strategy 1.12. Newsletter #6: Draft General Plan and Draft Zoning OrdinanceGPAC #1: Project Kickoff 2. Public Hearing 3. Final EIR TASK D: 4. Findings and Resolutions 1. Community Workshops #1: 5. Certification and Adoption Hearings 2. General Public Issues and Opportunities Identification Workshop VISIONING 6. Final General Plan and Zoning Ordinance 3. Target Demographic Workshops, including a Youth Workshop 4. General Plan Update website launch and pamphlet mailings TASK I: (GENERAL PLAN) UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS 5. ______1.6. Update Technical Data and Text Every 5Task D.1: Visioning and Guiding Principles-10 years as City Evolves 7. Draft Guiding Principles 8. Refine Vision and Create Draft Vision Document 9. GPAC and IGPC Approval of Vision Statement 10. Final Vision Published BACKGROUND DATA AND COMMUNIITY PROFILE 11. GPAC Meeting #2: Vision Review and Approval 12. Task D.2: Background Data and City Profile 13. Land Use and Community Form 14. Mobility and Walkability General Plan Update Task Table 15. Public Health and Conservation Detailed Action Plan for the eight (8) main tasks 16. Economic Vitality 17. Equity and Environmental Justice Graphic: Taylor Kay 18. CEQA-Required Technical Issues 19. Community Profiles Compilations PLANNING ISSUES 20. GPAC Meeting #3: Community Profile Review 21. 22. Task D.3: Planning Issues 23. Identification and summarizing of planning issues 84 24. Draft Discussion Papers 25. GPAC Meeting #4: Discussion Papers Review 26. ______27. Final Drafts of Vision, Community Profile, and Planning Issues 28. Newsletter #1: Visioning | Background Data, and Community Profile | Planning Issues Key Findings 29. Public Webinar #1: Visioning | Background Data, and Community Profile | Planning Issues Key Findings 30. Public Webinar #2: Format of the General Plan (i.e. paper, digital/online)

TASK E: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION, AND SELECTION (LAND USE CHANGES) 1. Land Use Alternatives Development 2. IGPC and GPAC Meeting #5: Review and Approve Study Sites and Alternatives 3. Land Use Alternatives Evaluation Workbook and Workshop 4. Community Workshop #2: Alternatives Review 5. GPAC Meeting #6: Refine Preferred Alternative 6. City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Alternatives Review 7. Draft Proposed Land Use Map 8. City Council Study Session: Land Use Map Approval 9. Newsletter #2: Proposed Land Use Map 10. Public Webinar #3: Proposed Land Use Map 11. Refine Land Use Map as necessary

TASK F: PLAN PREPARATION 1. Review Existing Goals and Policies 2. Draft Goals, Policies, and Implementation Plan (Policy Framework), including funding, responsible departments/agencies, and status/interim checklists 3. Draft Zoning Ordinance 4. IGPC provides Goals and Policies Recommendations 5. GPAC MEeting #7: Goals and Policies Refinement 6. Draft General Plan Prepared 7. Public Review Period of Draft General Plan 8. Community Workshop #3: Introduce the Draft General Plan Update 9. Webinar #4: Introduce the Draft General Plan Update 10. GPAC Meeting #7: Draft General Plan Review 11. Webinar #5: The Relationship between the General Plan and the Zoning Code 12. Refine General Policy Framework and Draft Zoning Code, as necessary

TASK G: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. Notice of Preparation 2. Scoping Meeting 3. Administrative Draft EIR 4. Draft EIR 5. Public Review Period 6. Notice of Completion 7. Webinar #6: DEIR

TASK H: PUBLIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION 1. Newsletter #6: Draft General Plan and Draft Zoning Ordinance 2. Public Hearing 3. Final EIR 4. Findings and Resolutions 5. Certification and Adoption Hearings 6. Final General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

TASK I: (GENERAL PLAN) UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS 1. Update Technical Data and Text Every 5-10 years as City Evolves A couple notes about the above tasks: Each task has at least 5 action items associated with it, which are detailed in the Appendix. Second, Task D is a multi-step approach to exhaustively examine existing community conditions; therefore, it’s components--D.1, D.2, D.3- will occur concurrently. Lastly, it will be noted in our Work Program’s action items that several more webinars have been recommended than standard. This is due to the fact that Inglewood’s population is a working and commuting population, making it difficult for them ot attend workshops and meetings. However, having workshops and webinars at several stages in the process allows them to still be engaged in the process throughout its duration.

Because of the complexity as well as time and task-completion sensitivity involved in writing a General Plan, it is important to understand how the tasks are accomplished over time and in relation to each other.

Task A has a timeline of two (2) months. Task B has a timeframe of four (4) months. Task 3 is set for three (3) months. Task D.1. is estimated to last about three and one half (3.5) months, while Tasks D.2 and D.3 are estimated to take about four and one half (4.5) months. For Task E, its action items will take about nine (9) months. Task F is expected to last seven to ten (7-10) months. Task G will progress for twelve (12) months. And finally, Task H will close out the General Plan update cycle after six (6) months. The General Plan does not stop there, however. After the new version of the General Plan is adopted, updates and amendments have been designated with an “ongoing” timeframe because the General Plan is a living document that must evolve with the community. This graphic below shows how this dynamic works.

2 mos. 30 days 4 mos.

3 mos.

3.5 mos.

4.5 mos.

4.5 mos.

9 mos.

7-10 mos.

12 mos.

6 mos.

General Plan Update Work Program Timeline. Eight main tasks and associated action items with various concurrent and independent timelines. Graphic: Taylor Kay

Phase 1: General Plan Review 85

REFERENCES

Andrews, Jeff. (2018). Trump budget proposal would decimate HUD funding. [online] Curbed LA. Retrieved from https://www.curbed.com/2018/2/12/17003900/trump-budget-proposal-hud-low-income-housing

Arroyo Group, The. (2015). City of Inglewood Planning Services for TOD Existing Conditions Study. Retrieved from http://inglewood.arroyogroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Inglewood-TOD-Existing- Conditions-Report-Planning-and-Urban-Design.pdf.

Associated Press. (2017). Clippers, city of Inglewood nedgotiate on proposed new Arena. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/15/new-clippers-arena-being-discussed-by- inglewood-city-council/102878564/.

Associated Press. (2017). Forum Owners sue Inglewood over efforts to lure Clippers. Retrieved from http:// www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-clippers-inglewood-20170720-story.html.

Baade, Robert A. 2004. Assessing the Economic Impact of the Staples Center on the City of Los Angeles: Report of the Controller. [PDF File].

Bachrach, E. (2013). The 405 through LA is the busiest interstate in any US city.

Curbed. Retreived from https://la.curbed.com/2013/8/21/10206430/the-405-through-la-is-the-busiest- interstate-in-any-us-city.

Barragan, Bianca (2017). Inglewood going forward with Clippers arena plan. Curbed Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://la.curbed.com/2017/7/21/16013316/inglewood-clippers-arena-displacement

Bencomo, Brian. (2018). How the Rams’ Stadium Development Could Impact Inglewood. Retrieved from https://www.kcet.org/shows/town-hall-los-angeles/how-the-rams-stadium-development-could-impact- inglewood.

Boone, Lisa. (2017). Tour 3 homes by midcentury legend R. M. Schindler at Inglewood block party. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/home/la-hm-schindler-home-tour-20171030-story.html.

California Air Resources Board (CA ARB). (2014). Assembly Bill 32 Overview. Retrieved from https://www. arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.

California Air Resources Board (CA ARB). (n.d.). The Governor’s Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals. Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/pillars/pillars.htm.

California Air Resources Board (CA ARB). (2018). Sustainable Communities. Retrieved from https://www.arb. ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm.

California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans). (2017). Active Transportation Program (ATP). Retrieved from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/.

California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans). (2017). Safe Routes to Schools Programs. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/saferoutes.htm.

California Energy Commission. (n.d.). California Climate Change Executive Orders. Retrieved from http:// www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/executive_orders.html.

California Energy Commission. (2016). Clean Energy & Pollution Reduction Act SB 350 Overview. Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb350/.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). (n.d.). SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. Retrieved from https://oehha.ca.gov/ calenviroscreen/sb535. REFERENCES (CONTINUED)

California Health Survey. (2016). Health Profiles. Retrieved from http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/health-profiles/ Pages/default.aspx.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2017). CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Retrieved from https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30.

City of Inglewood. 2017. Inglewood Forward. https://inglewoodforward.com.

California Natural Resources Agency. (2018). Safeguarding California and Climate Change. Retrieved from http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/.

Calisphere. (1971). Inglewood City Hall, old and new. Retrieved from https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/ kt1w1024p6/.

Chandler, Jenna. (2017). Frank Gehry to design new home for LA Phil’s youth orchestra in Inglewood. https:// la.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16631748/frank-gehry-youth-orchestra-inglewood.

Chandler, Jenna. (2018). Inglewood activists pushing to get rent control on ballot in 2018. [online] Retrieved from https://la.curbed.com/2017/11/17/16671958/rent-control-initiative-inglewood.

Chiland, Elijah. (2016). Here’s the New ‘Hood Rising Around the Rams Stadium. Retrieved from https:// la.curbed.com/2016/5/18/11697054/inglewood-rams-development-hollywood-park.

Chiland, Elijah. (2016). Report: LAX traffic could be getting a whole lot worse.

Curbed. Retreived from https://la.curbed.com/2016/3/10/11191912/lax-car-traffic-worse-controller-report

City of Inglewood. (1987). Noise Element. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/209/General- Plan.

City of Inglewood. (1992). Circulation Element. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/209/ General-Plan.

City of Inglewood. (1995). Open Space Element. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/209/ General-Plan.

City of Inglewood. (1995). Safety Element. https://www.cityofinglewood.org/209/General-Plan.

City of Inglewood. (1997). Conservation Element. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/209/ General-Plan.

City of Inglewood (2009). Resolution No. 09-71 General Plan Amendment. Retrieved from https://www. cityofinglewood.org/documentcenter/view/118

City of Inglewood. (2013). Inglewood Energy and Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www. cityofinglewood.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/148.

City of Inglewood. (2014). Housing Element 2013-2021. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood. org/209/General-Plan.

City of Inglewood. (2015).City of Champions Revitalization Initiative. Retrieved from https://www. cityofinglewood.org/DocumentCenter/View/1162.

City of Inglewood. (2017). Inglewood General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved from https://www. cityofinglewood.org/209/General-Plan. City of Inglewood. (2017). Inglewood General Plan Zoning Map. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood. org/836/Map-Catalog.

City of Inglewood. (2016). Land Use Element. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/209/General- Plan.

City of Inglewood. (n.d.). City History. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/512/City-History.

City of Inlgewood. (n.d.). Facilities. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/Facilities.

City of Inglewood. (n.d.). Hollywood Park Specific Plan. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood. org/203/Hollywood-Park-Specific-Plan.

City of Inglewood. (n.d.). Inglewood Forward. Retrieved from https://inglewoodforward.com.

City of Inglewood. (n.d.). Inglewood Municipal Code. Retrieved from http://www.qcode.us/codes/ inglewood/.

City of Inglewood (n.d.). Map Catalog. Retrieved from https://www.cityofinglewood.org/836/Map-Catalog.

City of Inglewood and Arroyo Group, The. (n.d.). The New Downtown Inglewood| TOD Plans. Retrieved from http://inglewood.arroyogroup.com.

City of Inglewood and Katherine Padilla and Associates (City of Inglewood). 2016. Imagine Inglewood. Retrieved from http://www.imagineinglewood.com.

Daily Breeze (Little, Marc T). (2015). Don’t call inglewood an ‘economically depressed city’. Retrieved from https://www.dailybreeze.com/2015/12/08/dont-call-inglewood-an-economically-depressed-city/.

Deloitte. (2014). Data USA: Inglewood, CA. Retrieved from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/inglewood- ca/#economy.

Early, David. (2015.) The General Plan in California. Port Arena: Solano Press Books.

Expedia. (n.d.). Hotels in Inglewood,CA. Retrieved from https://www.expedia.com/Inglewood-Hotels. d8192.Travel-Guide-Hotels?regionId=206&langid=1033&semcid=US.UB.GOOGLE.SEARCH. HOTEL&kword=california_hotels_dsa!e.ZzZz.4800000021265.0.196227155490..california_hotels_ dsa&semdtl=a1416395150.b129246179750.d1196227155490.e1c.f11t1.g1dsa-163317809589.h1b. i1.j19031012.k11013880.l1g.m1.n1&gclid=CjwKCAiAt8TUBRAKEiwAOI9pAAQTRPm3IjoXAYaA_zKncNd q_0diME_8o2JipjtyVJHNoHaVB4RUXxoCH8IQAvD_BwE

Figure Eight Realty. (n.d.). 3645 W Luther Lane 90305, Stunning Home in Inglewood’s Renaissance Community. Retrieved from https://figure8re.com/properties/3645-w-luther-lane/.

Frank, Vincent. (2014). Inglewood Mayor to Meet with Rams Owner. Retrieved from https://sportsnaut. com/2014/11/inglewood-mayor-meet-rams-owner/.

Gnerre, Sam. (2012). Academy Theater. Retrieved from http://blogs.dailybreeze.com/history/2017/08/05/inglewoods-commercial-landscape-once-was-dotted- with-movie-theaters/?doing_wp_cron=1519110815.5850379467010498046875.

Gnerre, Sam. (2017). South Bay History: The Inglewood Public Library blossoms from humble origins. Retrieved from http://blogs.dailybreeze.com/history/2017/11/11/the-inglewood-public-library- blossoms-from-humble-origins/?doing_wp_cron=1518840906.7468619346618652343750. REFERENCES (CONTINUED)

Georgetown Climate Center. (2008). CA Executive Order S-13-08 Requiring State Adaptation Strategy. http://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/california-executive-order-s-13-08-requiring-state- adaptation-strategy.html.

Goertzen, Jeff. (2017). Take a look inside L.A.’s new NFL stadium, future home of the Rams and Chargers. Retrieved from https://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/11/take-a-look-inside-l-a-s-new-nfl-stadium-future- home-of-the-rams-and-chargers/.

Google. (n.d.). MyMaps. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1XH3qsddZJRfRto 3ieo0rQgaOnnBaRYZ3&ll=34.00113244846397%2C-118.40203914354248&z=12.

Google. (2017). Inglewood, CA. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Inglewood,+CA/@33.9541398,-118.3811401,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c2b656274bdd8d:0x 727b30fdcae3170!8m2!3d33.9616801!4d-118.3531311.

Gorman, Anna. (2012). First Lady Michelle Obama visits Inglewood to promote food access. Retrieved from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/first-lady-michelle-obama-visits-inglewood-to- promote-food-access.html.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (n.d.). CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects (SB 226). http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-226/.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), (n.d.). General Plan Guidelines Data Mapping Tool. Retrieved from http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/data-mapping-tool.html.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (2017). State of California 2017 General Plan Guidelines. Retrieved from http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (2017.) Transportation Impacts (SB 743).

Retrieved from http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/.

Green Dot Public Schools. (2017.) Inglewood to Stanford: a Green Dot Alumnus Makes His Way. Retrieved from http://blog.greendot.org/inglewood-to-stanford-a-green-dot-alumnus-makes-his-way/.

Hawthorne, Christopher (2018, February 8). The real challenge for Los Angeles’ new football stadium is everything around it. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ arts/architecture/la-et-cm-inglewood-stadium-design-20160208-column.html.

Housing and Community Development. (n.d.). Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Retrieved from http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/AccessoryDwellingUnits.shtml.

Housing and Community Development. (n.d.) California’s 2017 Legislative Housing Package.

Retrieved from http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/15-bill-matrix-with-links.pdf.

Inglewood Airport Area Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.). Inglewood Airport Area Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved from http://inglewoodchamber.org.

Inglewood Open Studios. (n.d.) Open Studios. Retrieved from http://inglewoodopenstudios.blogspot.com.

Inglewood Playhouse. (n.d.) Inglewood Playhouse. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/ InglewoodPlayhouse/. Kaplan, Erin. (2015). No name. Retrieved from https://www.kcet.org/history-society/market-value-a-stroll- through-inglewoods-farmers-market.

Laconservancy.org. (n.d.). The Arts District - History and Architecture in Downtown L.A.. [online] Retrieved from https://www.laconservancy.org/sites/default/files/files/documents/ArtsDistrict_Booklet_LR.pdf

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2016, May). Parks and Public Health in Los Angeles County - A Cities and Communities Report. Retrieved from http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chronic/ docs/Parks%20Report%202016-rev_051816.pdf.

Los Angeles Metropolitan Authority (LA Metro). (n.d.). Maps and Timetables. Retrieved from https://www. metro.net.

McGinnis, Mesiyah. (2018). Inglewood Fulfills Promise to Seniors as Center Opens. Retrieved from https:// lasentinel.net/inglewood-senior-citizen-facility-opens.html.

Miracle Theater. (n.d.) Miracle Theater Inglewood. Retrieved from https://www.themiracleinglewood.com.

Meyers Nave. (n.d.). Broad Affordable Housing Package Bill Signed by Governor. Retrieved from http://www. meyersnave.com/broad-affordable-housing-bill-package-signed-governor/.

Meyers Turner, Ashley. 2012. Los Angeles Pastry Icon Randy’s Donuts Celebrates 60 years in Inglewood (Photos). Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/07/11/33220/los-angeles-pastry-icon-randys- donuts-celebrates-6/.

Miguelito103. (2016). LA Metro 7996 Rt. 111. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/78855462@ N08/28721460336.

Navymailman. (2013). Inglewood Unified School District-Chevy School Bus. Retrieved from https://www. flickr.com/photos/navymailman/9620172416.

No Author. (2013). Judge Deals Major Blow to Hollywood Growth Plan. Retrieved from http://www. savehollywood.org/?p=1192.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). (2017). State Climate Adaptation Policy Briefing. Retrieved from http://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/7-state_climate_adapt..pdf.

Sharp, S. (2017). Inglewood Pursues New Transit-Oriented Development Plans. [online] Urbanize LA. Retrieved from https://urbanize.la/post/inglewood-pursues-new-transit-oriented-development-plans.

Shine, Nicole. (2015). Could the I-405 handle the traffic a new NFL team would bring?. Retrieved from https://www.ocregister.com/2015/08/03/could-the-i-405-handle-the-traffic-a-new-nfl-team-would-bring/

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (2016.) Final 2016 RTP/SCS. Retrieved from http:// scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (2017). Profile of City of Inglewood. Retrieved from https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Inglewood.pdf.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (2011). A RHNA 101 Primer. Retrieved from http:// rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/rhna/RHNA101primer_Dec2010.pdf.

Staff Report. (2017). Forum Concert Venue Owners File Damages Claim Against City of Inglewood for Building New Clippers Arena Down the Street. Retrieved from https://westsidetoday.com/2017/07/20/ forum-concert-venue-owners-file-damages-claim-against-city-of-inglewood-for-building-new-clippers- arena-down-the-street/. REFERENCES (CONTINUED)

Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. (2015). Economic and Financial Background Study: Inglewood TOD Study: County of Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://inglewood.arroyogroup.com/wp-content/ uploads/2015/08/Inglewood-TOD-Existing-Conditions-Report-Economics.pdf.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2005.) AB-1233 Housing Element: regional housing need. Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB1233.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2006). AB-2140 General Plans: safety element. Retrieved from http:// leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB2140.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. 2008. AB 31-Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008. Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=200720080AB31.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2008). AB-1358 Planning: circulation element: transportation. Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080AB1358.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2011). Senate Bill No. 244. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_244_bill_20111007_chaptered.pdf.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2012). SB-535 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient. xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB535.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2013). SB-99 Active Transportation Program. Retrieved from http:// leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB99.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2015). SB-379 Land use: general plan: safety element. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB379.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2016). AB-1550: Greenhouse gases: investment plan: disadvantaged communities. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201520160AB1550.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2016). SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2016). SB-1000 Land use: general plans: safety and environmental justice. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2016). AB-1505 Land use: zoning regulations. Retrieved from https:// leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1505.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2016). AB-2299 Land use: housing: 2nd units. https://leginfo.legislature. ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2299.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2016). AB-2406 Housing: junior accessory dwelling units. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2406.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2016). SB-1069 Land use: zoning. Retrieved from https://leginfo. legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1069.

State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2017). AB-494 Land use: accessory dwelling units. Retrieved from http:// leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB494 State of CA, Legislative Counsel. (2017). SB-229 Accessory dwelling units. Retrieved from http://leginfo. legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB229.

Steuteville, Robert. (2015, Sept 15). Bye, bye, ‘collector,’ hello ‘avenue.’ Smart Growth Voic. Retrieved from https://smartgrowth.org/bye-bye-collector-hello-avenue/.

Tinoco, Matt. (2017). How will booming Inglewood handle development around its new train stations? Retrieved from https://la.curbed.com/2017/11/21/16654218/inglewood-development-plan-arts-district

Tree People. (2016). Inglewood & Lennox Greening Plan. Retrieved from https://www.treepeople.org/sites/ default/files/pdf/publications/Inglewood%20Lennox%20Greening%20Plan_Digital.pdf.

United States Census Bureau (US Census). (2010). Inglewood city, California. Retrieved from https:// factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.

United States Census Bureau (US Census). (n.d.). QuickFacts: Inglewood city, California. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/inglewoodcitycalifornia/PST045216

United States Department of Commerce. (2017). Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. Retrieved from https://lehd.ces.census.gov.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CA Department of Water Resources. (2011). Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning.Retrieved from https://www.water.ca.gov/ LegacyFiles/climatechange/docs/Climate_Change_Handbook_Regional_Water_Planning.pdf.

University of CA, Berkeley (UC Berkley) Geospatial Innovation Facility (GIF). (2018). Cal-Adapt. Retrieved from http://cal-adapt.org.

Y Charts. (n.d.). Inglewood, CA Unemployment Rate: 5.50% for December 2017. Retrieved from https:// ycharts.com/indicators/inglewood_ca_unemployment_rate.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: RECENT CA LEGISLATION (DETAILED)

CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION

EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) S-3-05 In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established 1990 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels as the precedent for acceptable emission levels and directed state agencies to coordinate to meet reduction targets. The reduction targets were as follows: • 2020: reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels • 2050: reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels (CA Energy Commission n.d.).

ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 32 In September 2006, AB 32 was passed assigning California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) with the responsibility to identify the 1990 GHG emission levels, establish a scoping plan (which is updated every five years) and coordinate statewide methods, market mechanisms, and measures for meeting the 2020 and 2050 targets (CA ARB, 2014). This is more commonly known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Noteworthy programs that emerged from this legislation is the cap-and-trade program and carbon offset credits.

AB 2140 In September 2006, AB 2140 was passed allowing for local governments to adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) with the Safety element of their General Plan, thereby making them eligible for pre- and post- disaster funding or flood funding. (State of CA, Legislative Counsel 2006; OPR, 2017).

SENATE BILL (SB) 375 As of September 2008, Senate Bill 375 links transportation, land use planning, and housing methodologies to State climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions. Regional targets have been set to reduce passenger vehicle use for 2020 and 2035. Inglewood falls within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. SCAG, as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), must establish a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) as part of a regional transportation plan (RTP). Developers may also be exempt from certain aspects of CEQA if their development coincides with SCS or APS goals. (CA ARB, 2018). SB 375 also subjects localities that are 120 days or more past-due on updating their housing element to revert to the 4-year update cycle, rather than an 8-year cycle (SCAG, 2011).

AB 1358

This law was passed September 2008. Effective January 2011, any extensive revision of a jurisdiction’s Circulation Element must include methods to plan and provide for complete streets. Thus, this law is more commonly known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008. It requires that roadways accommodate, cars, bicycles, buses, transit, and pedestrians, especially those with disabilities (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2008). EO S-13-08

In November 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed this EO requiring various state agencies to coordinate with local, regional, and state as well as federal and private entities to develop a Climate Change Adaptation and Resilliency Program in coordination with state efforts contained in its plan called Safeguarding California (CA Energy Commission, n.d.; Georgetown Climate Center, 2008). State agencies have honed in on seven areas: Public Health, Biodiversity and Habitat, Oceans and Cultural Resources, Coastal Resources, Water, Agriculture, Forestry, and Transportation and Energy (CA Natural Resources Agency, 2018). Local and regional coordination focuses heavily on climate change, especially causes and effects of sea level rise, in the areas of transportation and land use (SACOG, 2017).

SB 226

In 2011, Governor Brown signed a law streamlining the CEQA process (by limiting reviewable topics) for infill projects that satisfy pre-set criteria, such as location in an urban area, meeting performance standards (i.e. renewable energy, soil and water remediation, below average regional VMT), consistency with the general use, density, and intensity for the project area (OPR, n.d.). This law is more commonly known as CEQA Streamlining for infill projects.

SB 99

In September 2013, SB 99 established an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which promotes safety, mobility, and increased trips for uses other the automobile such as biking and walking. This is related to the Safe Routes to School Plan (SR2S). Jurisdictions are also eligible for funding for these programs (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2013; Cal Trans, 2017; Cal Trans, 2013).

SB 743

Governor Brown signed this bill into law in September 2013. It changes the way transportation impacts are measured and transit oriented development (TOD) projects are considered. In lieu of previous measures of transportation impacts (vehicle delay and level of service (LOS)) SB 743 now requires vehicle miles traveled (VMT), VMT per capita or per employee, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated to be used to determine if a project triggers an impact finding under CEQA (OPR, 2017). (At time of this writing, regional VMT numbers are adopted, but OPR and ARB are still establishing standards. Visit OPR and ARB for current standards and guidelines to evaluate regional VMT results.) The state has provided copies of policy briefs about how parking pricing, road use pricing telecommuting, etc relate to GHG and VMT reductions. In the area of transit oriented development, projects located within an downtown core or along a transit corridor that are contained within a city’s specific plan are considered exempt from CEQA (unless the project would cause new or worse impacts than those identified at the time of adoption of the Specific Plan). Additionally, parking, Level of Service (LOS) and aesthetic impacts (i.e. viewshed) cannot be identified as significant impacts if a development is residential, mixed-use (with a residential component), or located in employment centers proposed on infill sites or within transit priority areas. EO-B-30-15

In April 2015, Governor Brown reinforced Governor Schwarzenegger’s targets by signing Executive Order B-30-15. It set GHG emission levels to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to orchestrate statewide ability to meet the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990s levels. SB 32 was passed in September 2016 and effectively reinforced EO B-30-15. It requires the ARB to ensure the 40% target is met (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2016).

SB 350

As of October 2015, this law increased CA’s goal of deployment and availability of renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030 in order to help provide clean energy and air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy sources favored by the state include solar, wind, biomass, geothermal etc and tasks large utility companies with developing plans to integrate these energy sources into their current portfolios. Thus cities need to provide opportunities for permitting renewable energy sources. SB 350’s passing included a study on lessening barriers to solar for low-income customers and barriers to near zero-emission transportation options for disadvantaged communities. This is commonly known as the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (CA Energy Commission, 2016).

SB 379

Passed in October 2015, SB 379 requires that Safety Elements updated after January 2017 include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. It requires cities to outline feasible goals, policies, and objectives to realize these strategies (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2015).

HOUSING LEGISLATION

AB 1233

In October 2005, the Governor signed AB 1233 into law requiring that cities and counties unable to address their share of the regional housing need, rezone land to assure that share is met in the future (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2005; SCAG 2011).

SB 1069, AB 2299, AB 2406, SB 229, AB 494

In September 2016, legislation was passed allowing for construction or conversion of existing structures into accessory dwelling units (ADUs), up to 1,200 square-feet in size, in residential zones (Housing and Community Development, n.d.; State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2016; State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2016; State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2016; State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2017; State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2017).

SB 2

Signed in September 2017, this authorizes a $75 real estate transaction fee on mortgage refinancing or other real estate transactions (except home and commercial sales) to help finance the development of low-income housing. The revenue from these will go to a) local governments for streamlining housing production in 2018, b) state agencies for homeless assistance programs in 2018, c) local governments for affordable housing projects in 2019, and d) state agencies for farmworker, multifamily, and other affordable housing programs (Meyers Nave n.d.).

SB 3

Also passed in September 2017, SB 3 authorizes a $4 billion dollar bond funded by tax dollars, designed to to help finance the development of low-income housing for affordable housing development loans, veteran’s home loan program, and other affordable housing programs. Note: this bill authorizes the bond, which will be placed on the November 2018 ballot (Meyers Nave n.d.).

SB 35

This was signed September 2017. If state-set regional housing targets have not been met, cities must now approve projects that meet zoning standards presented by the development community, without a conditional use process and with lower state-mandated parking requirements. On the developer’s end, the site must be one that is characterized as urban infill (per state definitions), have a zoning or general plan designation allowing for residential, and not located in a sensitive area. Additionally, a percentage of such housing developments must cater to low income demographics. Developers must also pay construction workers union level wages (Meyers Nave n.d.).

AB 73

Passed in September 2017, AB 73 provides for a city to receive state funding if it designates a an area or community for more housing, especially more affordable housing, and issues permits for new housing (Meyers Nave n.d.).

SB 540

Passed in September 2017, SB 540 authorizes state funds to assist cities in preparation of planning and environmental reviews of a particular community, called Workforce Housing and Opportunity Zones. Further, when developers reserve a portion of their residences for low and middle income demographic categories in compliance with this law, their projects must undergo approval without delay (Meyers Nave n.d.).

AB 1505

Governor Brown signed this bill in September 2017 into law allowing cities to establish low-income requirements for developments (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2017).

AB 1521

This law was passed and signed September 2017. It requires income restricted property owners to notify prospective and existing tenants that their rental restriction will expire within three years of the date of expiration. It also requires owners to accept offers to purchase low-income restricted developments from someone who commits to continue rental to low-income residents (Meyers Nave n.d.). AB 571

As authorized by Governor Brown in September 2017, this allows developers to bundle existing state tax credit and loan incentives provided to banks with other sources of funding to develop farmworker housing (Meyers Nave n.d.).

AB 1397

Authorized by Governor Brown in September 2017, local governments must provide land designations for housing in appropriate zones, instead of designating future housing sites that the city has no intention of approving (Meyers Nave n.d.).

SB 166

Governor Brown signed this law in September 2017. Cities must identify and reserve additional sites for housing if they approve a project on a site previously designated at a lower density than what was originally identified in their Housing Element. This is known as the “no net loss” law. (Meyers Nave n.d.).

AB 879

Governor Brown signed this law in September 2017. Cities must analyze their entitlement process and construction development timeline and make efforts to reduce that timeline (Meyers Nave n.d.).

SB 167, AB 678, AB 1515

Governor Brown signed these bills into law September 2017. Together these laws open the opportunity for developers to challenge a city's denial of a project in court. It also authorizes a city penalty of $10,000 or less per unit denied, thereby reinforcing the Housing Accountability Act, the state’s “anti-NIMBY” law (Meyers Nave n.d.).

AB 72

The state housing department now has been granted increased authority to investigate, and refer to the Attorney General, cities not meeting targets identified in their housing plan as of the signing of this law by Governor Brown in September 2017 (Meyers Nave n.d.).

AB 1505

Signed by Governor Brown in September 2017, this bill allows local governments to specify that new rental housing contain a specific amount of affordable units. Localities, however, must now offer alternatives, such as in-lieu fees, land dedication, offsite construction, and housing rehabilitation. In some cases, CA HCD may have authority over local jurisdictions when local ordinances require over 15% affordable housing in new developments (Meyers Nave, n.d.). DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES LEGISLATION

SB 244

This was passed October 2011. City and county General Plans must include policies to address the infrastructure needs of disadvantaged communities on or before a City or County’s next housing element update. A disadvantaged community is one which has an annual median household income of “less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income.” The law requires cities and counties to addresses access to sidewalks, safe drinking water, and adequate waste processing. This particular law directs cities to evaluate and make provisions to change how lack of investment that fosters inequality in public health and safety, the economy education, and society as a whole. (State of CA, Legislative Counsel 2011; OPR, 2017).

SB 535 and AB 1550

As of September 2012, the CA Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) must identify disadvantaged communities and direct 25% of the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to projects that provide a benefit for disadvantaged communities under SB 535. Additionally as of September 2016, AB 1550 now requires that 25% proceed amount be spent on projects. Data is collected and visualized spatially by Census Tract through a tool called CalEnviroScreen 3.0. It includes criteria covering a community’s exposure to pollutants, susceptibility to poor public health, emission caused diseases, and ethnicity. (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2012; State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2016; OEHHA, n.d.).

SB 1000

This was signed by the Governor September 2016. With the adoption or revision of two or more elements, cities and counties must now include an Environmental Justice element (or integrate the topic into their existing elements) which speaks to policies to reduce health risks, promote civic engagement, and prioritize meeting the needs of disadvantaged communities within their jurisdiction (State of CA, Legislative Counsel, 2016; OPR, 2017).