DOCSLIB.ORG

Inglewood, Ca

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inglewood, Ca New DOWNTOWN AND FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS Transit Oriented Development Plan and Design Guidelines INGLEWOOD, CA Adopted November 1, 2016 II INGLEWOOD TOD PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A City Council James T. Butts, Mayor George Dotson Alex Padilla Eloy Morales, Jr. Ralph L. Franklin Planning Commission City Staff Larry Springs, Chair Artie Fields, City Manager Aide Trejo Christopher Jackson, Senior Economic and Community Terry Coleman Development Department Manager David Rice Mindala Wilcox, Planning Manager Erick Holly Fred Jackson, Senior Planner Arturo Salazar, Assistant Planner Plan Consultants The Arroyo Group Public Outreach Venues with Faithful Central Bible Church Stanley R. Hoffman Associates St. John Chrysostom Church Iteris, Inc. Inglewood Public Library JMC2 Inglewood High School Productivity Consulting Metis Environmental Group Stakeholders Advisory Committee Councilman George Dotson Councilman Alex Padilla Planning Commission Chair Larry Springs Planning Commissioner/Chamber of Commerce President Erick Holly Maxine Toler, Around the Block Club Anne La Rose, Inglewood Historic Preservation Alliance Rev. Fr. Marcos Gonzalez, St. John Chrysostom Church Marc Little, Faithful Central Bible Church Roderick McDonald, Fox Theater Gina Lamb, Inglewood Cultural Arts Kruti Parekh, Chuco’s Justice Center ADOPTED OCT. 2016 I T TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - INTRODUCTION PART III - FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS PART IV - IMPLEMENTATION Chapter 1: Overview 2 Chapter 3: Zoning 30 Chapter 5: Concept Plan 54 Chapter 8: Implementation Action Plan 74 1.1 Metro and Planning Area .........................................2 3.1 Introduction .............................................................30 5.1 Urban Design Concept .........................................54 1.2 Legal Factors ..............................................................2 3.2 Zoning Districts ......................................................30 5.2 Key Development Sites ..........................................58 1.3 Purpose .......................................................................2 3.3 Preferred Land Use Plan ........................................32 5.3 Complete Streets .....................................................58 APPENDIX A - FORM-BASED BUILDING 1.4 New Regional Accessibility ......................................2 3.4 Permitted and Prohibited Uses .............................32 5.4 Parking ......................................................................58 PROTOTYPES 78 1.5 Planning and Decision-Making Process ................ 4 3.5 Land Uses Not Listed.............................................32 5.5 Bicycle Network ......................................................59 1.6 Overview of Potentials and Needs ........................5 3.6 Interpretation ...........................................................32 5.6 Public Transit ...........................................................59 A.1 Introduction .............................................................78 A.2 Applicability .............................................................78 1.7 Vision ..........................................................................5 3.7 Non-Conforming Uses ..........................................32 5.7 Street Trees and Furniture .....................................59 A.3 Interpretation ...........................................................78 3.8 Special Use Permits .................................................32 5.8 Arts ����������������������������������������������������������������������������61 3.9 Variances ...................................................................32 5.9 Sustainability ������������������������������������������������������������62 A.4 Prototype Selection Considerations .....................78 A.5 Parking and Driveway Guidelines .........................78 3.10 Change of Zoning Regulations .............................32 5.10 Equity ........................................................................62 A.6 Setbacks for Prototypes .........................................78 PART II - THE NEW DOWNTOWN INGLEWOOD 3.11 Planned Assembly Developments ������������������������32 A.7 Undesirable Prototypes ..........................................84 Chapter 2: Concept Plan 6 Chapter 6: Zoning 62 Chapter 4: Development Standards and Design 2.1 Urban Design Concept ............................................6 Guidelines 36 6.1 Introduction .............................................................62 2.2 Districts.....................................................................10 6.2 Zoning Districts ......................................................62 2.3 Major Development Potentials .............................12 4.1 Purpose and Applicability ......................................36 6.3 Preferred Land Use Plan ........................................64 2.4 Complete Streets .....................................................16 4.2 Interpretation ...........................................................36 6.4 Permitted and Prohibited Uses .............................64 2.5 Parking District / Park Once ................................16 4.3 Development Standards and Guidelines Not 6.5 Land Uses Not Listed.............................................64 2.6 Downtown Bicycle Network ��������������������������������18 Listed .........................................................................36 6.6 Interpretation ...........................................................64 2.7 Public Transit and Mobility Hub .........................18 4.4 Site Plan Review ......................................................36 6.7 Non-Conforming Uses ..........................................64 2.8 Street Trees and Furniture .....................................19 4.5 Design Review .........................................................36 6.8 Special Use Permits .................................................64 2.9 Pedestrian Circulation and Open Space Network 4.6 Development Standards for Historic Core, TOD 6.9 Variances ...................................................................64 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20 Mixed Use 1, TOD Mixed Use Corridor, TOD 6.10 Change of Zoning Regulations .............................64 2.10 Downtown/Forum/Hollywood Park Linkages ......22 Mixed Use 2, R-3 and R-4 zones ..........................36 6.11 Planned Assembly Developments ������������������������64 2.11 Arts ......................................................................................24 4.7 Development Incentives ........................................36 4.8 Macro Form Considerations .................................38 2.12 Sustainability ......................................................................26 Chapter 7: Development Standards and Design 2.13 Equity ........................................................................28 4.9 Micro Form Considerations ����������������������������������50 4.10 Historic Downtown Design Guidelines ..............50 Guidelines 68 4.11 Street Frontages Standards for New Zoning 7.1 Purpose and Applicability ......................................68 Districts.....................................................................52 7.2 Interpretation ...........................................................68 4.12 Multi-Family Residential Guidelines and Form- 7.3 Development Standards and Guidelines Not Based Prototypes .....................................................54 Listed .........................................................................68 7.4 Site Plan Review ......................................................68 7.5 Design Review .........................................................68 7.6 Development Standards for TOD Mixed Use 1, TOD Mixed Use 3, TOD Mixed Use 4, R-3 and C-N zones ................................................................68 7.7 Development Incentives ........................................68 7.8 Macro Form Considerations .................................72 II INGLEWOOD TOD PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 3: Zoning PART III - FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS PART IV - IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Zoning Districts Map ���������������������������������������������31 Chapter 5: Concept Plan Chapter 8: Implementation Action Plan PART I - INTRODUCTION 3.2 Preferred Land Use Map........................................33 5.1 Urban Design Concept Elements................... 54-55 8.1 Transportation Link Funding Sources .................83 3.3 Permitted and Prohibited Uses ....................... 34-35 5.2 Urban Design Concept Map .................................55 8.2 Projected 20-year Bond Capacity with EIFD - Chapter 1: Overview 5.3 Urban Design Framework Map ............................55 Downtown ...............................................................83 1.1 Citywide Context Map ����������������������������������������������2 Chapter 4: Development Standards and Design 5.4 Key Development Sites Map .................................57 8.3 Projected 20-year Bond Capacity with EIFD - 1.2 Light Rail Connections Map ....................................3 Guidelines 5.5 Redondo Boulevard Cross-Section ......................58 Downtown ...............................................................83 5.6 Redondo Boulevard Plan .......................................58 1.3 Planning and Decision-Making Process ................ 4 4.1 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Table ..........36 5.7 Redondo Boulevard Street Trees and Furniture 1.4 Stakeholder Comments
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AVIATION/96TH STREET FIRST/LAST MILE PLAN APPENDIX Appendix a Walk Audit Summary Inglewood First/Last Mile Existing Conditions Overview Map
    Next stop: our healthy future. /96 / 3/22/19 Draft Inglewood First/Last Mile Strategic Plan A Los Angeles Metro Jacob Lieb, First/Last Mile Planning My La, First/Last Mile Planning Joanna Chan, First/Last Mile Planning Los Angeles World Airports Glenda Silva, External Affairs Department Consultants Shannon Davis, Here LA Amber Hawkes, Here LA Chad So, Here LA Aryeh Cohen, Here LA Mary Reimer, Steer Craig Nelson, Steer Peter Piet, Steer Christine Robert, The Robert Group Nicole Ross, The Robert Group B Aviation/96th St. First/Last Mile Plan Contents D Executive Summary 22 Recommendations 1 Overview 23 Pathways & Projects 26 Aviation / 96th St. Station 2 Introduction 3 Introduction 40 Next Steps 4 What is First/Last Mile? 41 Introduction 5 Vision 42 Lessons Learned 6 Planning for Changes 43 Looking Forward 8 Terminology Appendix 10 Introducing the A Walk Audit Summary Station Area B Existing Plans & Projects Memo 11 First/Last Mile Planning Around C Pathway Origin Matrix the Station D Costing Assumptions / Details 12 Aviation / 96th St. Station E Funding Strategies & Funding Sources 14 Process 15 Formulating the Plan 16 Phases Aviation/96th St. First/Last Mile Plan C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section introduces the Aviation/96 St. Station first/last mile project, and lists the key findings and recommendations that are within the Plan. D Aviation/96th St. First/Last Mile Plan Overview of the Plan The Aviation/96th St. First/Last (where feasible) separation from Next Steps Mile Plan is part of an ongoing vehicular traffic This short chapter describes effort to increase the accessibility, > More lighting for people walking, the next steps after Metro safety, and comfort of the area biking, or otherwise ‘rolling’ to Board adoption, focusing on surrounding the future LAX/Metro the station at night implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space Element Inglewood General Plan
    OPEN SPACE ELEMENT INGLEWOOD GENERAL PLAN =================================================================== OPEN SPACE ELEMENT =================================================================== INGLEWOOD GENERAL PLAN DECEMBER 1995 Prepared by Community Development and Housing Department City of Inglewood One Manchester Boulevard Inglewood, California 90301 =================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS =================================================================== Purpose of the Open Space Element 1 Compatibility of Open Space Element with General Plan 2 Introduction 5 RECREATION FACILITIES I PARK LAND Need for Parks 6 Inventory of Inglewood Parks 9 Analysis of Park Needs 14 Southwest Inglewood Area 16 Lockhaven Area 24 Mini parks 27 Goals and Policies to Provide Parks 29 Implementation and Funding 32 OPEN SPACE (Nonpark Sites} Need for Open Space 38 Inventory of Open Space 39 Analysis of Open Space Preservation and Provision 47 Goal and Policies to Preserve and Provide Open Space 52 Implementation 54 References 55 DIAGRAMS Diagram 1. Vicinity Map Diagram 2. City Parks 10 Diagram 3. Recreational Parks Showing Service Radii 15 Diagram 4. Multiple-Unit Neighborhoods Outside Service Radii of Recreational Parks 17 Diagram 5. Possible Park Sites for Southwest Inglewood Area 19 Diagram 6. Possible Park Sites for Lockhaven Area 25 Diagram 7. Open Space Sites 40 APPENDICES Negative Declaration 57 City Council Resolution 58 1996 - 2006 AQUISITION PROGRAM 60 DOWNTOWN L.A. FREEWAY Kl NG LOS ANGELES SLAUSON
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 4.6 Geology and Soils APPENDIX 4.6.1 Fault Rupture Study
    APPENDIX 4.6 Geology and Soils APPENDIX 4.6.1 Fault Rupture Study Prepared for: Pacifica Services, Inc. 106 South Mentor Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena, California 91106 FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF DRAFT EIR INGLEWOOD TRANSIT CONNECTOR PROJECT INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: 16644 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 301 San Diego, California 92127 Project Number: HPA1043-05 27 September 2019 i FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF DRAFT EIR Inglewood Transit Connector Project Inglewood, California This report was prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned. Prepared by: Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. 16644 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92127 Alexander Greene, P.G., C.E.G. Jared Warner, P.G. Senior Principal Engineering Geologist Project Geologist ITC Fault Rupture Eval_20190927.F TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective and Scope of Services ................................................................. 2 2. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 3 3. ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES AND FAULTS............ 4 4. RECORDS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 5 4.1 City of Inglewood Building and Safety Division .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center
    Confidential - Attorney/Client Privileged Subject to Revision CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center In determining lo approve the Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center project ("Project"), the City oflnglewood ("City") City Council makes and adopts the following findings of fact and decisions regarding mitigation measures and alternatives, and adopts the statement of overriding considerations, based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding and under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21000 et seq.), particularly Public Resources Code sections 21081 and 21081.5, the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA ("CEQA Guidelines") (14 California Code of Regulations,§ 15000 et seq.), particularly sections 15091 through 15093, and City ofinglewood Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Article 28. This document is organized as follows: Section I provides a description of the Project proposed for adoption, the environmental review process for the Project, the approval actions to be taken, and the location of records; Section n identifies the impacts found not to be significant that do not require mitigation; Section HI identifies potentially significant impacts that can be avoided or reduced to less-than­ significant levels through mitigation and describes the disposition of the mitigation measures; Section IV identifies significant impacts that cannot be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels
    [Show full text]
  • 355 East Manchester Blvd
    355 EAST MANCHESTER BLVD Parham Khoshbakhtian | Senior Vice President 310.878.6896 | [email protected] Offering Memorandum Cal DRE Lic #01446947 Jenny Eng | Associate 213.631.8788 | [email protected] 101 S Prairie Ave Cal DRE Lic #01931224 Inglewood, CA 90301 NAI CAPITAL | 101 S PRAIRIE AVE | INGLEWOOD, CA | 1 Section 1 Property Information TABLE OF • Executive Summary CONTENTS • Property Description • Property Details • Property Photos • Site Plan Section 2 Location Information • Location Overview • Location Maps • Area Overview • Property Location • Neighboring Development Projects No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy of the information contained herein. this information is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price, rental or other conditions, withdrawal without notice, and is subject to any special listing conditions imposed by our principals. cooperating brokers, buyers, tenants and other parties who receive this document should not rely on it, but should use it as a starting point of analysis, and should independently confirm the accuracy of the information contained herein through a due diligence review of the books, records, files and documents that constitute reliable sources of the information described herein. NAI Capital CA DRE #01990696 PROPERTY INFORMATION Executive Summary Property Description Property Details Property Photos Site Plan PROPERTY DETAILS 101-105 S Prairie Ave & 661 Manchester Ter, Address Inglewood CA 90301 Bldg Size 13,494 SF Lot Size 34,310 SF APN 4021-004-040 / 4021-004-025 / 4021-004-029 Zoning INRM Year Built 1956 No. of Stories 1 NAI CAPITAL | 101 S PRAIRIE AVE | INGLEWOOD, CA | 4 PROPERTY DETAILS NAI CAPITAL | 101 S PRAIRIE AVE | INGLEWOOD, CA | 5 PARCEL MAP NAI CAPITAL | 101 S PRAIRIE AVE | INGLEWOOD, CA | 6 PROPERTY ZONING FIGURE 3.1 Downtown Zoning Districts • Lot SF – 34,310 SF approximate Stepney St.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.4.1 Cultural Resource Investigation Cultural Resource Investigation in Support of the Inglewood Transit Connector Project, Los Angeles County, California
    Appendix 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4.1 Cultural Resource Investigation Cultural Resource Investigation in Support of the Inglewood Transit Connector Project, Los Angeles County, California Submitted to: Meridian Consultants 920 Hampshire Road, Suite A5 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Technical Report 18-640 December 4, 2018 626.408.8006 | paleowest.com | 517 S. Ivy Avenue | Monrovia, CA 91016 CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION IN SUPPORT OF THE INGLEWOOD TRANSIT CONNECTOR PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Roberta Thomas, M.A., RPA, and Gena Granger, M.A., RPA Prepared for: Meridian Consultants Technical Report No. 18-640 PaleoWest Archaeology 517 S. Ivy Avenue Monrovia, California 91016 (626) 408-8006 December 4, 2018 Keywords: CEQA; Inglewood; Los Angeles County; Automated People Mover Inglewood Transit Connector | i CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................III 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 1 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................... 2 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 5 2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ............................................. 5 2.2 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 52 ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
    3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources This section describes and evaluates potential impacts related to cultural resources that could result from construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The section contains: (1) a description of the existing setting as it pertains to cultural resources, as well as a description of the Adjusted Baseline Environmental Setting; (2) a summary of the federal, state, and local regulations related to cultural resources; and (3) an analysis of the potential impacts related to cultural resources associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project, as well as identification of potentially feasible measures that could mitigate significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP for the EIR regarding cultural resources can be found in Appendix B. Any applicable issues and concerns regarding potential impacts related to cultural resources that were raised in comments on the NOP are analyzed within this section. The analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment Report prepared by ESA, which is included as Appendix F of this Draft EIR. Additional communication as part of Tribal consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 is also provided in Appendix F. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Natural Setting The Project Site is located within the fully urbanized City of Inglewood. The Project Site is surrounded by residential and commercial development to the west, south, and east, and the former Hollywood Park to the north (currently the Hollywood Park Specific Plan [HPSP] area). The HPSP Adjusted Baseline projects include the NFL Stadium, commercial, office, residential, civic, and open space uses.
    [Show full text]
  • 9.0 References
    9.0 REFERENCES “$11 Million Center Assured in Inglewood,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 1968. “Downtown Center of Many Activities,” Los Angeles Times, March 18, 1962. “Forum,” National Register of Historic Places Form. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, April 29, 2014. “Holy Faith Episcopal Church: One Hundred Years of Ministry,” Holy Faith Episcopal Church, https://www.holyfaithla.org/ (accessed February 2019). “Inglewood Fox Theatre,” Los Angeles Historic Theatre Foundation, http://www.lahtf.org/inglewoodfox/ (accessed February 2019); “Fox Theater,” Inglewood Public Art, http://www.inglewoodpublicart.org /Fox_Theater.html (accessed February 2019). The former Fox Theater is located at 115 N. Market Street. “Inglewood Glows Under New Lights,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1927. “Merchants Protest Proposal to Build on Parking Lot,” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1986. “The Changing Face of South Bay: Downtowns,” Los Angeles Times, January 4, 1987. “Two-Story Business Structure: Work for Inglewood Bank Let,” Los Angeles Times, May 15, 1927. The former Bank of Inglewood building is located at 100 N. Market Street/307 E. Queen Street. 15 USC Section 2601 et seq. (1976), 40 CFR Section 700 et seq. (2012). 2009 California Vehicle Code - Section 27200-27207: Article 2.5. Noise Limits 2018 California Code, Public Resources Code – PRC, Division 2 – Geology, Mines and Mining, Chapter 7.8, Seismic Hazards Mapping, Section 2690, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. 2019 California Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24, Part 2, Volumes I and II) published July 1, 2019. 22 CCR Division 4.5, “Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste,” 2020, https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Index?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default).
    [Show full text]
  • CRENSHAW TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT Page 4-238 September 2009
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4.0 - Affected Environmental and Environmental Consequences 4.9 Water Resources This section evaluates the potential for changes in water quality to occur as a result of the proposed project and identifies measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential water quality impacts, if applicable. The information in this section is based primarily on information readily available from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.9.1 Regulatory Framework 4.9.1.1 Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S. Code 1251-1376) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 first prescribed a regulatory system for establishing water quality standards applicable to interstate or navigable waters. In 1972, amendments to this Act established a system of standards, permits, and enforcement. Further amendments were passed in 1977, when the Act was renamed the Clean Water Act. Today, the Clean Water Act is the nation’s primary mechanism for protecting and improving water quality. The Act makes the states and the USEPA jointly responsible for identifying and regulating both point and non-point sources of pollution. The 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act added Section 402(p) that requires the USEPA to develop regulations for the control of nonpoint source discharges, such as urban storm water runoff. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to eliminate the discharge of pollutants and to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations' waters. The Act also established the NPDES permit system.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Architecture Tour6-5-15.Indd
    SELF GUIDED TOUR: INGLEWOOD’S ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORIC SITES The story of Inglewood begins with the Centinela Springs located in Edward Vincent, Jr. Park. The naturally occurring water was what enabled the area to become an agricultural area specializing in barley, then eggs, and even chinchillas. One of the few original farmhouses is the Centinela Adobe which now houses a large collection of historical artifacts and a museum run by the Centinela Valley Historical Society. From a historical perspective, the Inglewood Cemetery casts a wide net as 400,000 people are buried there, many origi- nally from Inglewood, many from the LA Basin. The single family house is often considered the iconic building type in Los Angeles. The City has been on the forefront of cutting edge house design since the turn of the century when Frank Lloyd Wright headed west to design the Holly- hock House. Rudolph Schindler came to LA from Vienna, initially to work with Wright. He built many houses throughout the city including three in Inglewood which though small, reflect some of the ideas percolating in the architectural com- munity: the relationship between inside and outside, small spaces with low ceilings, total design by architects, simple materials such as plywood. One of the houses was renovated by Steven Ehrlich, a Culver City Architect whose firm won the AIA National Firm Award in 2015. Another architect who built some of his major works in Los Angeles in Inglewood was Charles Luckman. He had an extraordinary impact on the city as the designer of the Forum which was just renovated and reopened in 2014 and the Civic Center.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.13 Tribal Cultural Resources 4.13.1
    4.13 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.13.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed Inglewood Transit Connector Project (proposed Project) to impact tribal cultural resources within the footprint of the proposed Project and in the immediate surrounding area. Tribal cultural resources may include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places (CRHR) or included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource determined by the lead California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant and eligible for listing on the CRHR. Such resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. Information from the following study of the proposed Project is incorporated into this section: • Cultural Resource Investigation, Roberta Thomas, RPA, and Gena Granger, M.A., RPA, PaleoWest Archaeology, December 12, 2018 (included as Appendix 4.4.1 of this Draft EIR). Information regarding the AB 52 process is provided in the following appendices: • AB 52 Summary of the AB 52 Consultation Process for the Inglewood Transit Connector Project, Meridian Consultants LLC, December 6, 2018 (included as Appendix 4.13.1); and • AB 52 Meeting Summary, Meridian Consultants LLC, February 6, 2019 (included as Appendix 4.13.2). Please see Section 8.0 for a glossary of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Racial Balance and Intergroup Relations: an Advisory Report to the Board of Education, Inglewood Unified
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 025 571 UD 007 611 Improving Racial Balance and IntergroupRelations: An Advisory Report to the Boardof Education, Inglewood Unified School District. California State Dept. of Education. Sacramento.Bureau of Intergroup Relations. Pub Date Jun 68 Note-91p EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$4.65 Descriptors-*Boards of Education,Educational Opportunities.EqualEducation,*Intergroup Relations, SchoolCommunity Negroes.PublicSchools,RacialAttitudes.RacialBalance.RacialComposition, Relationship School Personnel. Sensitivity Training.Student Distribution, Teachers Identifiers-Bureau of Intergroup Relations, CaliforniaInglewood An advisory report to the Boardof Education of the InglewoodUnified School District was prepared byCalifornia's Bureau of IntergroupRelations. The document contains a section on thepupil distribution in the publicschools. Also presented are such aspects of educational opportunityand intergroup relations asindicators of inequality. the "color blind" vs. "colorconscious" issue. a survey ofstaff attitudes, and staff training and sensitivity.Other sections are devoted to communityrelations and ways of improvingracial balance. A series ofrecommendations are included.(NH) VFW"( REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF INTERGROUP RELATIONS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION / INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 So. Inglewood Avenue Inglewood, California 90301 June, 1968 U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION RECEIVED FROM THE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRODUCED EXACTLY AS POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIGINATING IT. REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OFEDUCATION STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY POSITION OR POLICY. CAUFORNIA STATEDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BUREAU OF INTERGROUPRELATIONS IMPROVING RACIALBALANCE ANDINTERGROUP RELATIONS An Advisory Report tothe Board of Education Inglewood Unified SchoolDistrict, Inglewood (prepared for submissionin June, 1968) BOARD OF EDUCATION Ted F. Merrill, President Dr. James B. Sheets,Vice-President Mrs. Esther M. Bode,Member Mr.
    [Show full text]