City Council Meeting Agenda
October 13, 2025

May 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Noise Impact Study (Study) evaluates th e potential noise and vibration impacts from the construction and operation of the Fuel Station Re location at the Costco Wholesale, located at 13463 Washington Boulevard in the City of Culver City, California (Project). The Project will relocate the existing fuel station with eight (8) product dispensers located near the southeastern portion to the southwestern corner of the Costco Project Site. The relocated fuel station will include a total of fifteen (15) product dispensers.

Findings
In order to analyze the potential noise impacts of Project construction and operations, the existing ambient noise environment at the five sen sitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site were measured and tabulated in th is report. The measured ambient sound data were utilized as baseline noise levels, and in c onjunction with the applicable standards and guidelines, was used to define the Project noise im pact thresholds. All technical terms, levels of significance, and Project Design Features are explained in the body of this report.

The key findings of the report, all as more fully described later in this Study, are as follows:

Construction Noise Impacts
 The estimated noise levels from on-site temporary construction activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site.

However, the construction noise level would be below the significance threshold with implementation of the specified Project Design Features. As such, construction noise impacts would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.
 The estimated noise levels from the on-site ge nerators to be used during the Project construction would be well below the exis ting ambient noise levels. As such, noise impacts associated with the generators woul d be less than significa nt; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

Construction Vibration Impacts
 The estimated vibration levels from Project on-site temporary construction activities would be below the significance threshold fo r building damage at the nearest off-site buildings to the north, south, east and west . Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with Project on-site construction activities would be less than significant.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

 The estimated vibration levels from the Project’s on-site temporary construction activities would be below the 80 VdB significance threshold pursuant to human annoyance at all off-site vibration sensitive receptors. Therefore, Project-level vibration impacts from on-site construction activities with respect to human annoyance would be less than significant.

Operational Noise Impacts
 Noise levels associated with the fuel sta tion typical operation would include running product dispensers, vehicle circulation, a nd arrival, unloading and departure of a delivery truck. The estimated overall noise levels from the product dispensers and vehicles range from 13.5 dBA (L
eq) at receptor R2 to 43.6 dBA (L eq) at receptor
location R1, which would be below the exis ting ambient noise levels. As such, the estimated noise levels at all off-site receptor locations would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA (Leq) above ambient noise levels.
 The estimated noise levels from the produc t delivery truck operation range from 30.3 dBA (Leq) at receptor R2 to 52.5 dBA (L eq) at receptor location R4, which would be consistent with the existing ambient noise le vels. As such, the estimated noise levels increase at all off-site receptor locations would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA (Leq) increase over the ambient noise levels.
 The estimated noise levels from the on-site generator to be used for the new fuel station (on a temporary basis) would be well below the existing ambient noise levels. As such, noise impacts associated with the generators would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.
 In addition, a noise analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential sleep disturbance, associated with the product delivery trucks . The potential sleep disturbance was analyzed using the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and based on the recommended SEL noise limit from the LAX South Airfield Improvement Project EIR. The estimated SEL noise level at all off-site receptors range d from 65.9 dBA SEL at the exterior of receptor R2 to 88.1 dBA SEL at the exterior of receptor R4, which would be below the maximum exterior noise limit of 94 dBA SEL (assuming windows open). In addition, the estimated SEL at the interior of the residence, with the window opens (worst-case noise scenario) would be approximately 52.9 to 75.1 dBA SEL, which would be below the 81 dBA SEL interior noise limits.
 A composite operational noise analysis was performed to evaluate the noise impacts (concurrent operation) from all Project -related noise sources, including product dispensers, vehicle queueing, and product delivery truck operations. The Project Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

would result in a maximum increase of 0.1 dBA CNEL at receptor R2 to 2.4 dBA CNEL at receptor R1. The increases in noise levels due to Project operations (all noise sources) at off-site receptors R1, R2, R3 and R5 would be below the 5 dBA CNEL significance threshold, as the estimated noi se levels would be below 65 dBA CNEL.

The estimated noise level increase at off-site receptor R4 would be below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold for noise level greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the composite operational noise level impacts due to Project operation would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

1 INTRODUCTION
This Noise Impact Study (Study) evaluates th e potential noise and vibration impacts from the construction and operation of the Fuel Station Re location at the Costco Wholesale, located at 13463 Washington Boulevard in the City of Culver City, California (Project), as shown in Figure 1 (on page 7).

1.1 Project Description
The Project includes a new, approximately 13,00 0-square-foot fuel canopy, the installation of 15 new multi-product dispensers (MPDs), three (3) 40,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs), one (1) 1,500-gallon fuel additive UST, a new controller enclosure, a vapor processing unit, and associated site improvements, such as parking and landscaping. In addition, temporary noise barriers will be provi ded along the project’s western property line, northern property line, and the existing fue ling facility’s eastern property line; the power construction equipment will contain noise shie lding and muffling devices, consistent with manufacturers’ standards; and a portion of th e project construction activities will not occur concurrently with the City’s Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project, as further described herein.

The existing fueling facility will be razed and removed from the site and the existing currently unoccupied commercial uses (consisting of retail buildings and a coffee shop with a total area of 6,890 square feet, and a Starbucks Coffee with an area of 1,590 square feet) will be demolished.
1 The existing underground storage tanks and piping will be decommissioned and removed by state certified contractors. Following demolition, the existing fueling facility site will be improved with additiona l parking for the Costco Warehouse. The intent of the relocation is to install a new state of the art facility to provide a more efficient fuel purchasing experience for Costco members.

The operational hours are anticipated to match the existing hours of operation, which are:

Monday through Friday 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.; Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Sunday 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The fuel station is anticipated to receive up to eight nighttime deliveries spread out evenly between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (i.e., one fuel delivery per hour).

1 Under applicable case law (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4th 94), these uses are considered to be part of the CE QA baseline even though the buildings are currently unoccupied. Therefore, consistent with CEQA, this analysis includes a trip credit for the removal of these uses from the Project site. Moreover, as the buildings were occupied when the historic traffic counts at local roadways were taken, not taking such a credit would overstate post-Project traffic noise conditions.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

The objectives of this Study are to:
a) Evaluate the Project’s construction-related noise and vibration impacts on sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Project Site,
b) Determine potential noise impacts on existing off-site noise sensitive uses from Project operation-related noise sources, including the fuel station operation and fuel delivery trucks, and
c) Provide Project Design Features to avoid or reduce the potential noise impacts. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Noise is commonly defined as sound that is und esirable because it can interfere with speech communication and hearing, may cause sleep dist urbance, or may otherwise be considered annoying (unwanted sound). The decibel (dB) is a conventional unit for measuring the amplitude of sound because it accounts for the large variations in sound pressure amplitude and reflects the way people perceive changes in sound amplitude. 2 The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate this human frequency-dependent response, the A-weighted filtering system is used to adjust measured sound levels (dBA). The term “A-weighted” refers to filtering the noise signal in a manner that corresponds to the way the human ear perceive s sound. Examples of various sound sources and decibel levels in outdoor and indoor environments are provided in Table 1 (on page 8).

Generally, people judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation by subjective terms such as “loudness” or “noisiness.” To the normal human ear, a change in sound level of 3 dB is considered “just perceptible,” a change in sound level of 5 dB is considered “clearly noticeable,” and a change (i.e., increase) of 10 dB is generally recognized as “twice as loud.”3

2.1.1 Outdoor Sound Propagation
In an outdoor environment, sound levels attenuate (reduce) through the air as a function of distance. Such attenuation is commonly referred to as “distance loss” or “geometric spreading,” and is based on the noise source configuration (e.g., point source, or line source). For a point source, such as the fuel pump the rate of soun d dissipation is about 6 dB per doubling of distance from the noise source. For example, a fuel pump generates a sound level of 66 dBA at a distance of three feet would attenuate to 60 dBA at a distance of six feet. For a line source,

2 All sound levels measured in decibel (dB) in this study are relative to 2x10-5 N/m2. 3 Engineering Noise Control, Bies & Hansen, 1988.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

such as a constant flow of auto traffic on a roadway, the rate of sound attenuation is about 3 dB per doubling of distance.4
In addition, structures (e.g., buildings, parape t walls) and natural topography (e.g., hills) that obstruct the acoustic line-of-sight between a noise source and a receptor further reduce the noise level if the receptor is located within th e “acoustic shadow” of the obstruction, such as behind a sound wall. This type of sound attenuation is known as “barrier insertion loss.” If a

4 Caltrans, “Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS)”, 2013.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Figure 1. Project Site Map

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table 1. Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Levels,
dBA Common Indoor Activities
110 Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 1000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet
90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower at 100 feet 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room

Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio (background)
10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), 2013

receptor is located behind the wall but still has a view of the source (i.e., acoustic line-of-sight is not fully blocked), some barrier insertion loss would still occur, however to a lesser extent.

Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as a noise source may experience an increase in the perceived noise level as the wa ll reflects noise back to the receptor, thereby compounding the noise. Outdoor sound walls can provide noise level reductions ranging from approximately 5 dBA (where the barrier just breaks the acoustic line-of-sight between the noise source and receiver) to an upper range of 20 dBA with a more substantial barrier. 5 5 Caltrans, “Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS)”, 2013.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

2.1.2 Environmental Noise Descriptors
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider the total acoustical energy content, as well as the time and duration of occurrence. The most frequently used noise descriptors, including those used by Culver City, are summarized below.

Equivalent Sound Level (L eq). L eq is a measurement of the acoustic energy content of noise averaged over a specified period. Thus, the L eq of a time-varying sound and that of a steady sound are the same if they deliver the same amount of energy to the receptor’s ear during exposure. Leq for one-hour periods, during the daytime or nighttime hours, and 24 hours are commonly used in environmental noise assessments. L eq can be measured for any period but is typically measured for an increment of no l ess than 15 minutes for environmental studies.

For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during day or night.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) . CNEL is the time average of all A-weighted sound levels for a 24-hour period with a 10 dBA adjustment (upward) added to the sound levels that occur between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. (nighttime), and a 5 dBA adjustment (upward) added to the sound levels which occur between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. (evening). These penalties attempt to account fo r increased human sensitivity to noise during the nighttime and evening periods, particularly where sleep is the most probable activity.

CNEL has been adopted by the State of California to define the community noise environment for development of the community noise element of a General Plan and is also used by the City of Culver City for land use planning in the City’s General Plan. 6 2.2 Ground-borne Vibration
Vibration is commonly defined as an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root-mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is typically used for ev aluating potential building damage. 7 The RMS velocity is defined as the square-root of the average of the squared amplitude of the vibration signal and is typically more suitable for evaluating human response to ground-borne vibration.8 The RMS

6 State of California, General Plan Guidelines, 2003. Cul ver City General Plan Noise Element, Approved July 22, 1996.
7 Vibration levels described in this report are in term s peak particle velocity level in the unit of inches per second.
8 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,” Section 5.1, September 2018.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

vibration velocity level can be presented in inch per second or in VdB (a decibel unit referenced to 1 micro-inch per second).9 Ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities (e.g., road traffic, construction operations) typically weakens with greater horizontal distance away from the source of the vibration.

2.3 Application Noise Standards
Government agencies have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and other adverse physio logical and social effects associated with noise. The Culver City General Plan estab lishes CNEL guidelines for land use compatibility and includes number of goals, objectives, and policies for land use planning purposes. The City also has regulations to control excessive and annoying noise, as set forth in the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Chapters 9.04 and 9.07. Standards and guidelines that may be applicable to this Project are discussed below.

2.3.1 Culver City General Plan Noise Element
The overall purpose of the General Plan Noise El ement is to guide policy makers in making land use determinations and in preparing noise ordinances that would limit exposure of citizens to excessive noise levels. The following Culver City Noise Element policies and objectives are applicable to the Project:
10 Objective 1. Land Use Compatibility : Ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses with regard to noise sources and receptors.

Policy 1.A: Ensure the consistent application of ad opted noise standards and criteria in the review of all discretionary land use decisions.

Policy 1.D: Investigate the opportunity to construc tion barriers to mitigate sound emissions where necessary and where feasible.

Objective 2. Stationary Noise Sources: Protect those areas that are or may be subject to unacceptable noise from stationary noise sources.

Policy 2.A: Create a comprehensive ordinance establishing noise regulation criteria, and standards for noise sources and receptors to include but not limited to the following:

9 VdB (velocity level in decibel) = 20 x Log (V / V ref), where V is the RMS velocity amplitude in micro-inch per second and Vref is the reference velocity amplitude of 1x10-6 inch per second (1 micro-inch per second). 10 Culver City General Plan Noise Element, Approved July 22, 1996.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

 Noise reduction features during site planning to mitigate anticipated noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and libraries.
 Standards for mechanical equipment such as fans, air conditioners, compressors, and exhaust vents.
 Temporary sound barrier installation at c onstruction site if construction noise is impacting nearby noise sensitive land uses.
 Noise abatement and acoustical design criteria for construction and operation of any new development.

Policy 2.B: Require addition of noise reduction features to all existing and proposed stationary- related noise sources which exceed establishe d noise standards to reduce impacts on noise sensitive land uses.

The City’s maximum allowed exterior/interior noise standards in CNEL standards are provided in Table 2 (below).

Table 2. Culver City Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Uses Interior, dBA CNEL Exterior, dBA CNEL
Residential 45 65
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 65
Commercial Retail 55 --
Office Building 50 --
-- No applicable standard.

Source: Culver City General Plan Noise Element, Table N-3, November 1996.

2.3.2 Culver City Municipal Code
The following sections of the Culver City M unicipal Code, partially or entirely, may be applicable to the operation of the fuel station:

Section 9.04.015.H Noise Disturbances

1. General. Any noise that is made, generated, pro duced, or continued, whether by a person, activity, animal, fowl, automobile, motorcycle, e ngine, machine, or other mechanical device, whether on public or private property, in such a manner that it unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities, or that otherw ise violates any provision of the Culver City Municipal Code, including the regulations set forth in Chapter 9.07 (“Noise Regulations”) and/or the noise limits set fort h in the Culver City Zoning Code. Factors which shall be Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

considered in determining whether the noise is a nuisance shall include, but not be limited to the following:
(a) The volume of the noise;
(b) The intensity of the noise;
(c) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; (d) Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; (e) The volume and intensity of the background noise, if any; (f) The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; (g) The nature of the zoning of the area from which the noise emanates; (h) The density of inhabitation of the area from which the noise emanates; (i) The time of day or night the noise occurs;
(j) The duration of the noise;
(k) Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; (l) Whether the noise is produced by commercial or noncommercial activity; and (m) Whether the noise is a consequence or expected result of an otherwise lawful use.

4. Mechanical noise or construction noise near residential zones. (a) The use or operation of any automob ile, motorcycle, engine, machine, or mechanical device, or other contrivance or facility, or the carrying on of any trade or business, causing between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., any loud or unusual noise or sound, disturbing the peace of residents of a residentially zoned neighborhood. (b) Any construction or excavation work, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays, or between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sundays.

Section 9.04.035 Construction
A. All construction activity shall be prohibited, except between the hours of:
- 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays
- 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Saturdays
- 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Sundays
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

B. It is prohibited for any person to operate a device, which amplified music or sound, at a construction site in a manner that results in noise levels that are audible beyond the construction site property line.

D. In the case of an emergency, the Building Office may issue a permit for construction activity for periods during which construction is prohibited by Subsection A. of this Section. Such permit shall be issued for only the period of the emergency.

2.4 Applicable Vibration Standards
The City does not have any adopted standards, guidelines, or thresholds relative to ground- borne vibration. As such, available guidelines from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are utilized to assess impacts due to ground-borne vibration. The FTA has published a technical manual titled, “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” that provides ground-borne vibration impact criteria with respect to building damage during construction activities.11 Table 3 (below) provides the vibration criteria (based on FTA) applicable to construction activities.

According to FTA guidelines, a vibration criterion of 0.2 PPV should be considered as the significant impact level for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber, have a vibration damage criterion of 0.5 PPV, and structures that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage have a vibration damage criterion of 0.12 PPV, pursuant to the FTA guidelines.

Table 3. FTA Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for Building Damage Building Category
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV),
(in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: FTA, 2018

In addition, the FTA guidance manual also provides vibration criteria for human annoyance for various uses. These criteria were established pr imarily for rapid transit (rail) projects and, as indicated in Table 4 (on page 14), are based on the frequency of vibra tion events. Specific criteria are provided for three land use categories: (1) Vibration Category 1—High Sensitivity; (2) Vibration Category 2—Residential; and (3) Vibration Category 3—Institutional.

11 FTA, “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,” September 2018.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table 4. FTA Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for Human Annoyance Land Use Category
Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts Levels (VdB)
Frequent
Eventsa
Occasional
Eventsb
Infrequent
Eventsc
Category 1: Building where vibration would
interfere with interior operations
65d 65 d 65 d
Category 2: Residences and buildings where
people normally sleep
72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime uses
75 78 83
a “Frequent Events” are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. b “Occasional Events” are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. c “Infrequent Events” are defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day. d This criterion limit is based on th e levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes.

Source: FTA, 2018

2.5 Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to intrusive noise than others based on the types of activities typically involved at the receptor location. Based on a review of the land uses in the Project area, a total of five noise sensitive receptor locations were selected to represent nearest noise sensitive uses surrounding the Project site. The locations of the five noise-sensitive receptors are identified as R1 through R5 in Figure 2 (on page 15). Descriptions of the noise receptor locations are provided in Table 5 (on page 16).

Ambient noise measurements were taken at five selected off-site locations (R1 through R5). The ambient noise monitoring program was c onducted using a Larson-Davis Model 870 Integrating/Logging Sound Level Meters, the sound level meter meets the minimum industry standard performance requirements for “Type 1” standard instruments as defined in the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S1.4. Two 15-minute measurements, one during the daytime hours (between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.) and another during the nighttime hours (between 12 a.m. and 2 a.m.), were conducted at the off-site receptor locations, on May 19, 2021.

Table 6 (on page 16) presents the measured ambient noise levels at the selected noise receptors located in the close vicinity of the Project site, in L eq (average sound level). Based on field
observation and measured sound data, the current ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the Project Site is controlled primarily by vehicular traffic on local roadways and other typical urban noise. As indicated in Table 6, the existing daytime ambient noise levels ranged from

52.6 dBA L
eq at receptor R5 to 71.3 dBA L eq at receptor R4. The existing nighttime ambient noise levels ranged from 40.0 dBA Leq at receptor R2 to 62.6 dBA Leq at receptor R4.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Source: Google Earth Map, 2021
Figure 2. Noise Receptor Locations

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table 5. Description of Noise Receptor Locations
Location
General Description of
Measurements Locations
Approximate
Distance to Future
Relocated Fuel
Station,
Feet
Representing
Nearby Land Uses
R1 Residence at 2567 Walnut Avenue,
west of the Project Site
75 Residential
R2 Residence at 2489 Louella Avenue,
north of the Project Site
865 Residential
R3 Residence at 3942 Glencoe Avenue,
east of the Project Site
820 Residential
R4 Encore Motel Venice at 13432
Washington Boulevard, south of the
Project Site
180 Motel
R5 Residence at 1231 Elm Street,
northwest of the Project Site
515 Residential
Source: AES, 2021

Table 6. Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Location
Noise-Sensitive
Land Use
Measured Ambient Noise Levels,
dBA Leq
24-hour
CNELa
Daytime Hours
(between 9 a.m.
and 11 a.m.)
Nighttime Hours
(between 12 a.m.
and 2 a.m.)
R1 Residential 55.9 45.3 56.8
R2 Residential 56.0 40.0 56.0
R3 Residential 53.4 46.9 55.8
R4 Motel 71.3 62.6 72.8
R5 Residential 52.6 45.7 54.8
a Calculated based on short-term (15-minute) noise measurements based on FTA procedures. Calculations procedure and assumptions are depicted on the project ambient noise measurements in Appendix A.

Source: AES, 2021, See Appendix A for detail ambient noise measurements data.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

3 IMPACT ANALYSIS

3.1 Methodology

3.1.1 Construction Noise
Construction noise impacts due to on-site cons truction activities associated with the Project were evaluated by calculating the construction -related noise levels at representative sensitive receptor locations and comparing these estimated construction-related noise levels to the existing ambient noise levels (i.e., noise levels without construction noise from the Project).

Construction noise associated with the Project w as analyzed based on the Project’s potential construction equipment inventor y, construction durations, and construction schedule. The construction equipment noise le vels are based on the published noise data (equipment source levels) by the FHWA “Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).” The construction noise levels were then calculated for sensitive receptor locations based on the standard point source (e.g., generator or bulldozer) noise-di stance attenuation factor of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. Additional noise attenuati on was assigned to receptor locations where the line-of-sight to the Project Site was interr upted by the presence of intervening structures.

For the noise analysis, a 5 dBA attenuation was assigned for receptor locations where the acoustic line-of-sight is just interrupted (i.e., around the edge of a building) and up to 15 dBA for receptor locations where the acoustic line-of-si ght is fully interrupted (i.e., by intervening buildings).

3.1.2 Construction Vibration
Ground-borne vibration impacts due to the Proj ect’s construction activities were evaluated by identifying potential vibration sources (i.e., c onstruction equipment), estimating the vibration levels at the potentially affected receptors ( building structures), and comparing the Project’s activities to the applicable vibration significance thresholds, as described below.

Vibration levels were calculated based on the FTA published standard vibration velocities for various construction equipment operations.12 The vibration velocities were calculated based on a point source with standard distance propagation conditions, pursuant to FTA procedures.

Construction of the Project would not use impact pile driving methods and as such, impact pile driving vibration is not included in this construction vibration analysis.

3.1.3 Operational Noise
On-site stationary point-source noise impacts were evaluated by (1) identifying the noise levels that would be generated by the Project’s stati onary noise sources, such as product dispensers and fuel delivery trucks, (2) calculating th e noise level from each noise source at surrounding

12 FTA, “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,” Table 7-4, September 2018.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

sensitive receptor property line locations; and (3) comparing such noise levels to ambient noise levels to determine significance. The on-site stationary noise sources were calculated using SoundPLAN (version 8.2), a 3-dimensional computer noise prediction model, which calculates noise transference (propagation) using approve d engineering procedures and incorporates national and international noise standards. This calculation tool is widely used by acoustical engineers as a noise modeling tool for environmental noise analysis. In addition, the SoundPLAN utilizes the FHWA’s TNM 2.5 (FHWA and Caltrans official traffic noise model) for traffic noise calculations (i.e., fuel delivery trucks).

3.2 Significance Thresholds
In accordance with the State CEQA Guide lines Appendix G, the Project would have a significant impact related to noise if it would result in the:

Threshold (a): Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies,
Threshold (b): Generation of excessive gr oundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Threshold (c): For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

3.2.1 Construction Noise
Based on the City Municipal Code described ab ove, significant noise im pacts would occur if any of the following occur:
 Project construction activities occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Mondays through Fridays; 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays; and 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays.
 Project construction activities would result in noise levels 5 dBA L eq greater than the
measured ambient noise levels (see Table 6 on page 16) at noise-sensitive receptors.

3.2.2 Construction Vibration
As described above, the City does not have significance criteria to assess vibration impacts during construction. Thus, FTA guidelines set forth in FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment are used to evaluate the Project’s potential vibration impacts for both building damage and human annoyance. Based on this FTA guidance, impacts relative to ground-borne Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

vibration associated with potential building damage would be considered significant if any of the following future events were to occur:
 Project construction activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.5 PPV at the nearest off-site reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber building.  Project construction activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.3 PPV at the nearest off-site engineered concrete and masonry building.  Project construction activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.2 PPV at the nearest off-site non-engineered timber and masonry building.  Project construction activities cause gro und-borne vibration levels to exceed

0.12 PPV at buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage, such as historic buildings.

Based on FTA guidelines, construction vibrati on impacts associated with human annoyance would be significant if the following were to occur:
 Project construction activities cause ground-bor ne vibration levels to exceed 80 VdB at off-site sensitive uses, including residential and hotel uses.

3.2.3 Operations Noise
The City Municipal Code does not have quantitative noise limits as specifically applied to the proposed fuel station operation. However, as noted above the City Municipal Code Section

9.04.015.H and Section 9.07.15 prohibits the following:
(a) The use or operation of any automobile, mo torcycle, engine, machine, or mechanical device, or other contrivance or facility, or the carrying on of any trade or business, causing between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., any loud or unusual noise or sound, disturbing the peace of residents of a residentially zoned neighborhood. (b) Any noise which is reasonably determined to be excessively loud, piercing, or offensive to occupants of neighboring properties.

As previously discussed, with respect to th e community noise assessment, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA are generally not discernable to most people, while changes greater than 5 dBA are readily noticeable and would be cons idered a significant increase. As such, the significance threshold for the proposed fuel station operation is based on human perceptibility to changes in noise levels (increases), with regards to the existing ambient noise conditions.

As discussed above, the City (Municipal Code ) currently does not have a quantitative noise limits; however, the City Municipal Code Section 9.04.015.H prohibits loud or unusual noises.

This can be interpreted as an increase of 3 or 5 dBA above the existing ambient noise levels, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

as further described below. Therefore, the Pr oject noise impact thresholds are based on the City General Plan Noise Element exterior noise standard (in terms of 24-hour CNEL) and other municipalities (in terms of 1-hour L eq). Based on the aforementioned thresholds, the Project operation would have a noise impact on the current outdoor sound environment if:
 The noise level generated by the fuel station operation increase the existing ambient noise level (Leq) at noise sensitive uses by 5 dBA.
 The noise level generated by the fuel st ation operation increase the existing CNEL ambient noise levels at noise sensitive uses by 5 dBA where the existing ambient noise level is less than 65 dBA CNEL (City’s exte rior noise standard for residential, school and church uses, see Table 2 on page 11) or 3 dBA where the existing ambient noise level is 65 dBA CNEL or greater.

3.3 Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features would be im plemented as part of the Project to reduce the construction-related noise impacts:

PDF-1: Temporary noise barriers would be provided at the following locations to block the line-of-sight between the c onstruction equipment and the adjacent noise sensitive uses.
 Along the project’s western property line. The noise barrier shall provide minimum 20 dBA noise reduction (minimum 16 feet high, relative to local grade elevation) at the residences acr oss the Project Site to the west (receptor location R1).
 Along the project’s northern property line. The noise barrier shall provide minimum 5 dBA noise reduction (minimum 6 feet high, relative to local grade elevation) at the residences to the northwest (receptor location R5).  Along the existing fuel station eastern property line. The noise barrier shall provide minimum 12 dBA noise reduction (minimum 12 feet high, relative to local grade elevation) to the residences across the Project Site to the east (receptor location R3).

PDF-2: The Project contractor will use pow er construction equipment with properly operating and maintained noise shieldi ng and muffling devices, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

PDF-3: The Project construction activities will avoid concurrent construction with the Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project (City’s Stormwater Project) as follows:

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

 Avoid concurrent construction within 500 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R1
 Avoid concurrent construction within 400 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R3
 Avoid concurrent construction within 100 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R4

3.4 Construction Noise Impacts
Noise impacts from Project construction activities would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the timing and duration of the noise- generating construction activities, and the re lative distance to noise-sensitive receptors.

Construction activities for the Project would ge nerally include demolition, site grading and excavation, building construction, and landscaping. Each stage of construction would involve the use of various types of construction equipment and would, therefore, have its own distinct noise characteristics. Demolition would involve the use of jackhammers, excavators, breakers, backhoes, and heavy-duty trucks. Grading and excavation would require the use of graders, excavators, breakers, jackhammers, backhoes, compactors, and heavy-duty trucks. Building construction would involve the use of air compr essors, cranes, concrete trucks, paving trucks, compactors, and delivery trucks. Landscaping would involve the use of backhoes and work trucks. Noise from construction equipment w ould generate both steady-state and episodic noise that could be heard within and adjacent to the Project Site.

Individual pieces of construction equipment that would be used for construction of the Project produce maximum noise levels of 75 dBA to 90 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table 7 (on page 22). The construction equipment noise levels at 50 feet distance (Referenced Maximum Noise Levels) are based on the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (RCNM, 2006), which is a technical report containing actual measured noise data for construction e quipment. These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites often operate under less than full power conditions, or part power. To more accurately characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (Hourly L eq) noise level associated with each construction stage is calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

be used during each construction stage. 13,14 These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.

Table 7. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usage Factors Type of Equipment
Acoustical Usage Factora
(%)
Reference Maximum Noise
Levels at 50 Feet,b Lmax (dBA)
Air Compressor 40 78
Backhoe 40 78
Breaker 20 90
Compactor 20 83
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79
Crane 16 81
Excavator 40 81
Forklift 20 75
Generator 50 81
Grader 40 85
Dump/Haul Truck 40 76
Jackhammer 20 89
Paving Equipment 50 77
a The usage factor is the estimated percentage of tim e during an 8-hour day that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power.
b Construction equipment noise levels are based on the FHWA RCNM.

Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, Table 1, 2006

Construction would start at the future fuel station, with demolition of the existing buildings at the future fuel station location, follow by grad ing/excavation, building construction, and site civil works; and followed by demolition of th e existing station, site civil works and landscaping. As indicated above, temporary construction noise barrier will be provided at the Project construction areas, as specified by the Project Design Feature PDF-1, to reduce the construction-related noise to the off-site sensitive receptors. Table 8 (on page 23) provides the estimated, unmitigated constructi on noise levels at the off-site noise sensitive receptors by construction phase. To present a conservative impact analysis, the estimated noise levels were calculated with all pieces of construction e quipment assumed to be operating simultaneously and located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors. As indicated in Table 8, the estimated construction noise levels would be below the Project daytime significance

13 Pursuant to the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2005, the usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction is operating at full power.
14 Construction noise levels are ca lculated in terms of hourly Leq consistent with the City’s exterior noise limits.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

Mayh 2024

Table 8. On-Site Construction Noise Impacts
Receptor
Location
Ambient
Noise
Levels,
dBA (Leq)
Estimated Construction Noise Levels by Phase,a dBA (Leq) Significance
Threshold,b
dBA (Leq)
Sig.

Impacts?
Demo
Existing
Buildings
Grading/
Excavation
and
Utilities for
New
Station
Building
New
Station
Demo
Curbs
Planters at
New
Station
Civil Put-
Back
Curbs
Planters at
New
Station
Demo of
Existing
Station
Civil Put-
back at
Existing
Station
Landscaping
at Existing
Station
R1 55.9 56.4 59.9 56.2 59.0 58.3 39.5 36.1 28.8 60.9 No R2 56.0 46.7 48.2 46.1 46.2 45.4 53.3 49.9 43.3 61.0 No R3 53.4 45.1 46.6 43.9 44.6 43.9 57.5 54.1 47.7 58.4 No R4 71.3 74.9 75.6 71.9 73.9 73.1 72.2 68.7 62.9 76.3 No R5 52.6 54.4 57.4 53.9 55.5 54.7 47.5 44.0 37.2 57.6 No a Estimated noise levels include the noise reduction provided by the temporary construction noise barriers, as specified by the Project Design Feature PDF-1. b Significance thresholds are equivalent to the measured ambient noise levels plus 5 dBA.

Source: AES, 2021.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

threshold at all off-site noise receptors.

The Project would also include the use of two generators during the construction phase. One 75 KVA generator would be used for the cons truction activities and one 80 KVA generator would be used for the fuel facility operation. The generator for the construction would be used during the daytime construction hours and the ge nerator for the fuel facility operation would be used 24 hours per day. The generator woul d generate a noise level of 72 dBA at 23 feet distance. Table 9 (below) provides the estimated generator noise levels at the off-site noise sensitive receptors. As indicated in Table 9, the estimated generator noise levels would be below the Project daytime and nighttime significance threshold at all off-site noise receptors.

As such, construction noise impacts would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

In addition, the City’s Stormwater Project could have concurrent construction with the Project.

Noise from construction is typically localized a nd has the potential to affect noise-sensitive uses near the construction site. As specified by the Project Design Feature PDF-3 above, the Project would avoid concurrent construction ac tivities with the City’s Stormwater Project, which would avoid potential cumulative noise im pacts. As such, potential cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

Table 9. Generator Noise Levels during Construction
Receptor
Location
Ambient Noise Levels,
dBA (Leq)
Estimated Generator
Noise Levels,a dBA (Leq)
Significance Threshold,b
dBA (Leq) Sig.

Impacts? Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime R1 55.9 45.3 53.1 42.2 60.9 50.3 No
R2 56.0 40.0 28.6 25.9 61.0 45.0 No
R3 53.4 46.9 37.8 35.4 58.4 51.9 No
R4 71.3 62.6 50.7 49.0 76.3 67.6 No
R5 52.6 45.7 42.4 38.8 57.6 50.7 No
a Estimated noise levels include the noise reduction provided by the temporary construction noise barriers, as specified by the Project Design Feature PDF-1.
b Significance thresholds are equivalent to the measured ambient noise levels plus 5 dBA.

Source: AES, 2024.

3.5 Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the type of construction equipment used. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations th at travel through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

construction site often varies, depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receptor buildings.

With regard to potential building damage, the Project would generate ground-borne construction vibration forces during building demolition and site excavation/grading activities when heavy construction equipment, such as la rge bulldozers, drill rigs, and loaded trucks, would be used. The FTA has published standa rd vibration velocity levels for various construction equipment operations. Table 10 (below) presents the typical vibration levels at a reference distance of 25 feet for construction e quipment anticipated to be used during Project construction. Vibration impacts with regard to structures are evaluated at the nearest off-site buildings to the Project Site (north, south, east, and west), whereas the potential for human annoyance associated with construction-related vibration are evaluated at the five human annoyance vibration-sensitive receptor locations (receptor locations R1 through R5).

Table 10. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment
Equipment vibration Levels at 25 feet,
(PPV/VdB)
Large Bulldozer (e.g., excavators, graders) 0.089/87
Loaded Trucks (e.g., haul trucks) 0.076/86
Jackhammer 0.035/79
Small Bulldozer (e.g., backhoe) 0.003/58
Source: FTA, 2018

Table 11 (on page 26) provides the estimated vibration levels (in terms of inch per second PPV) at the nearest off-site structures adjacent to the Project Site. To present a worst-case analysis, the estimated vibration levels were calculated with the construction equipment assumed to be operating at the closest distance to the nearest off-site building structures. As indicated in Table 11, the estimated vibration velocity levels from all construction equipment would be below the building damage significance criteria at all off-s ite building structures. As such, on-site vibration impacts, pursuant to the significance criteria for building damage, during construction of the Project would be less than significant.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table 11. Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage Nearest Off-Site
Building Structuresa
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Nearest Off-Site Structures from the Project Construction Equipment,b
inch/second (PPV)
Significance
Threshold,
inch/second
(PPV)
Sig.

Impacts?
Large
Bulldozerd
Loaded
Trucksd
Jack-
hammere
Small
Bulldozerf
Residential buildings to
the north, along Zanja
Street

0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.20 c No
Commercial buildings to
the south, along
Washington Boulevard

0.011 0.010 0.004 <0.001 0.20 c No
Residential buildings to
the east, along Glencoe
Avenue

0.002 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.20 c No
Residential buildings to
the west, along Walnut
Avenue

0.017 0.015 0.007 0.001 0.20 c No
a Represents off-site building structures located nearest to the Project Site to the north, south, east and west. b Vibration levels calculated based on FTA refe rence vibration level at 25-foot distance. c FTA criteria for non-engineered concrete and masonry buildings.

Source: FTA, 2018; AES, 2021

Table 12 (below) presents the estimated vibratio n velocity levels (in terms of VdB) due to construction equipment at the off-site vibratio n sensitive receptors. To present a worst-case analysis, the estimated vibration levels were calculated with the construction equipment assumed to be operating at the closest distance to the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. As indicated in Table 12, the estimated vibration levels due to on-site construction equipment would be below the significance threshold for human annoyance at all off-site receptor locations. Therefore, on-site vibration impacts, pursuant to the significance criteria for human annoyance, during construction of the Project would be less than significant.

Table 12. Construction Vibration Impacts – Human Annoyance Off-Site
Receptor
Location
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Receptors from the Project Construction Equipment,a VdB Significance
Threshold,
VdB
Sig.

Impacts?
Large
Bulldozerc
Loaded
Trucksc
Jack-
hammerd
Small
Bulldozere
R1 73 72 65 44 80 No
R2 44 43 36 15 80 No
R3 54 53 46 25 80 No
R4 61 60 53 32 80 No
R5 48 47 40 19 80 No
a Vibration levels calculated based on FTA refe rence vibration level at 25-foot distance.

Source: FTA, 2018; AES, 2021.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

3.6 Operation Impacts
Noise levels associated with th e fuel station operation would include product dispensers, vehicle queuing, and pr oduct delivery trucks. Reference noise levels associated with the product dispensers, vehicle queueing, and product delivery trucks were measured at the existing Culver City Costco fuel station on May 19, 2021. Table 13 below presents the measured noise levels from the existing Costco fuel station ope rations. The measured noise levels are used reference noise levels for the future fuel station.

Table 13. Costco Fuel Station Measured Noise Levels
Fuel Station Equipment Noise Source Measured Noise Levels,1 dBA Leq Product Dispenser 65.7 dBA at 3 feet
Vehicle Queueing (with 24 vehicles in the queue) 59.6 dBA at 25 feet Product Truck Delivery 71.6 dBA at 10 feet
1 Measured noise levels at th e existing Culver City Costco Fuel Station, on 5/19/2021 Source: AES, 2021

3.6.1 Product Dispensers and Vehicle Queueing
The gas station will be located at the southwest corner of the Project Site and will include fifteen (15) product dispensers. In addition, the vehicle queue area will allow for up to 16 vehicles in queue. It should be noted that the new fuel facility will provide an additional seven (7) product dispensers beyond the existing eight (8) product dispensers to expedite the processing of vehicles during peak times. This increase in dispensers will provide a reduction in peak period queues and wait times as more dispensers are available to process queues.

Queues are anticipated to reduce from the existing peak queue of 24 vehicles (as noted in Table 12) to 16 vehicles. Noise levels from the product dispensers and vehicles queueing to the off- site noise sensitive receptors were calculated based on the measured noise levels at the existing fuel station, as described above. The noise analysis assumed all fifteen (15) product dispensers would be operating at the same time and th e vehicle queuing area would be filled with 16 vehicles to represent a worst-case scenario (a highly conservative noise scenario). Table 14 (on page 28) presents the estimated noise levels associated with the fuel station product dispensers and vehicle queueing at the off-site receptor locations. As shown on Table 14, the estimated noise levels from the product dispensers and vehicle queueing range from 13.5 dBA (L
eq) at receptor R2 to 43.6 dBA (L eq) at receptor location R1, which would be below the existing ambient noise levels. As such, the est imated noise levels at all off-site receptor locations would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA (Leq) above ambient noise levels.

Therefore, noise impacts from product dispensers and vehicle queueing would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table 14. Product Dispensers and Vehicle Queueing Noise Levels Receptor
Location
Existing
Ambient
Noise
Levels,
dBA (Leq)
Estimated
Noise from
Project
Product
Dispensers
and Vehicle
Queueing,a
dBA (Leq)
Ambient +
Project
Noise
Levels, dBA
(Leq)
Significance
Thresholdb
Exceed over
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
R1 45.3 43.6 47.5 50.3 0.0 No
R2 40.0 13.5 40.0 45.0 0.0 No
R3 46.9 27.5 46.9 51.9 0.0 No
R4 62.6 41.4 62.6 67.6 0.0 No
R5 45.7 30.7 45.8 50.7 0.0 No
Notes:
a Noise levels were calculated based on measured noise levels at the existing Culver City Costco fuel station. b Significance thresholds are equivalent to the measured daytime or nighttime am bient noise levels, whichever is lower plus 5 dBA.

Source: AES, 2021

3.6.2 Product Delivery Trucks
As described above, product deliveries would occur during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. with up to eight (8) deliveries per day, evenly distributed with one (1) product delivery per hour. The delivery tr uck would enter the fuel station from the southwestern entrance (along Washington Boulevard) and exit through the same entrance.

Table 15 (on page 29) presents the estimated noise levels associated with the delivery trucks at the off-site noise sensitive receptors. As indicated in Table 15, the estimated noise levels from the product delivery truck operation range from 30.3 dBA (L eq) at receptor R2 to 52.5 dBA
(Leq) at receptor location R4, which would be consistent with the existing ambient noise levels.

As such, the estimated noise levels increase at all off-site receptor locations would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA (L eq) increase over the ambient noise levels. Therefore, noise impacts from product delivery truck would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table 15. Product Delivery Truck Noise Levels
Receptor
Location
Existing
Ambient
Noise
Levels,
dBA (Leq)
Estimated
Noise from
Project
Product
Delivery
Truck,a
dBA (Leq)
Ambient +
Project
Noise
Levels, dBA
(Leq)
Significance
Thresholdb
Exceed over
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
R1 45.3 48.2 50.0 50.3 0.0 No
R2 40.0 30.3 40.4 45.0 0.0 No
R3 46.9 37.0 47.3 51.9 0.0 No
R4 62.6 52.5 63.0 67.6 0.0 No
R5 45.7 38.2 46.4 50.7 0.0 No
Notes:
a Noise levels were calculated based on measured noise levels at the existing Culver City Costco fuel station. b Significance thresholds are equivalent to the measured daytime or nighttime am bient noise levels, whichever is lower plus 5 dBA.

Source: AES, 2021

As presented above, the estimated noise levels as sociated with product delivery trucks would be below the City’s nighttime noise limit. Nevert heless, a noise analysis is carried out to address the potential sleep disturbance using th e Sound Exposure Level (SEL). It should be noted that the SEL analysis with respect to poten tial sleep disturbance is mainly applicable to aviation related noises. Currently, there are no noise standard, or limit, to address traffic noise impacts on sleep (sleep disturbance), using SEL noise descriptor. Therefore, the recommended SEL noise limit from the LAX South Airfield Improvement Project EIR (LAX EIR) was used to evaluate potential sleep disturbance for th e Project, which specified a maximum 81 dBA SEL at the interior of the residence.
15 Per the LAX EIR, buildings with window open would
provide approximately 13 dBA ex terior/interior noise reduction. Therefore, based on the interior noise limit of 81 dBA SEL and typical noise reduction of building with window open of 13 dBA, the maximum exterior noise limit would be 94 dBA SEL, threshold for the sleep disturbance to occur. The estimated SEL due to a product delivery truck would range from

65.9 dBA SEL at the exterior of receptor R2 (r esidence to the north) to 88.1 dBA SEL at the exterior of receptor R4 (motel to the south). The estimated SEL at the exterior of the nearest residence (receptor R1) would be 83.8 dBA SEL. As analyzed, the estimated SEL levels at all off-site sensitive receptor would be well be low the 94 dBA SEL exterior noise limits. In addition, the estimated SEL at the interior of the residence, with the window opens (worst-case

15 LAX Project EIR, although the Berkeley Jets case ruling directed that the significance of single event noise effects be addressed in an EIR, th ere was no established basis for defining or assessing the significance of single event aircraft noise, and the Court of Appeal did not set forth any standards of significance in the evaluation of such events.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

noise scenario) would be approximately 52.9 to 75.1 dBA SEL, which would be below the 81 dBA SEL interior noise limits.

3.6.3 Temporary Generator
As described above, a temporar y 80 KVA generator would be used for the new fuel facility operation. The temporary generator for the new fuel facility operation would be used 24 hours per day, on a temporary basis. Table 16 (below) provides the estimated generator noise levels at the off-site noise sensitive receptors. As indicated in Table 16, the estimated generator noise levels would be below the Project significance threshold at all off-site noise receptors. As such, noise impacts associated with the temporary use of the generator would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

Table 16. Temporary Generator Noise Levels
Receptor
Location
Existing
Ambient
Noise
Levels,
dBA (Leq)
Estimated
Noise from
Temporary
Generator,
dBA (Leq)
Ambient +
Project
Noise
Levels, dBA
(Leq)
Significance
Thresholda
Exceed over
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
R1 45.3 42.2 47.0 50.3 0.0 No
R2 40.0 25.9 40.2 45.0 0.0 No
R3 46.9 35.4 47.2 51.9 0.0 No
R4 62.6 49.0 62.8 67.6 0.0 No
R5 45.7 38.8 46.5 50.7 0.0 No
Notes:
a Significance thresholds are equivalent to the measured daytime or nighttime am bient noise levels, whichever is lower plus 5 dBA.

Source: AES, 2024

3.6.4 Composite Operational Noise Levels
An evaluation of composite operational noise levels, including all Project related noise sources plus existing ambient noise levels, was conducted to identify the potential Project-related noise level increase that may occur at the noise-sensitive receptor locations. Noise sources associated with the Project would include product dispen sers, vehicle queueing, and product delivery trucks. Table 17 (on page 31) presents the estimated noise from Project-related noise sources in terms of CNEL. As indicated in Table 17, the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.1 dBA CNEL at receptor R2 to 2.4 dBA CNEL at receptor R1. The increases in noise levels due to Project operations at off-site recep tors R1, R2, R3 and R5 would be below the 5 dBA CNEL significance threshold, as the estimated noise levels would be below 65 dBA CNEL. The estimated noise level increase at o ff-site receptor R4 would be below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold for noise level greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

composite noise level impacts due to Project operation would be less than significant; and, therefore, no mitigation measure is required.

Table 17. Composite Operational Noise Impacts
Receptor
Location
Calculated Project-Related Noise
Levels, CNEL (dBA)
Project
Composite
Noise
Levels,
CNEL
(dBA)
Ambient
Noise
Levels,a
CNEL
(dBA)
Ambient
Plus
Project
Composite
Noise
Levels,
CNEL
(dBA)
Increase
in Noise
Levels
Due to
Project,
CNEL
(dBA)
Significance
Thresholdb
Significant
Impact?
Product
Dispensers
and
Vehicle
Queueing
Product
Delivery
Trucks
Temp.

Generator
R1 46.9 53.4 48.8 55.4 56.8 59.2 2.4 61.8 No
R2 16.8 35.5 32.6 37.4 56.0 56.1 0.1 61.0 No
R3 30.8 42.2 42.0 45.3 55.8 56.2 0.4 60.8 No
R4 44.7 57.7 55.7 60.0 72.8 73.0 0.2 75.8 No
R5 34.0 43.4 45.4 47.7 54.8 55.6 0.8 59.8 No
Notes:
a Ambient in CNEL levels are estimate d based on the short-term ambient noise measurements based on FTA procedures. b Significance threshold is equal to the existing ambient noise levels plus 5 dBA (where the existing ambient is less than 65 dB A CNEL) or plus 3 dBA (where the existing ambient noise level is 65 dBA CNEL or greater).

Source: AES, 2024

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Appendix A
Ambient Noise Measurements

A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Location: R1
Date: 5/19/2021
Time Leq Lmax
9:31:01 AM 54.4 57.4
9:31:11 AM 59.2 63.9
9:31:21 AM 51.7 52.8
9:31:31 AM 52.2 53.3
9:31:41 AM 56.4 58.5
9:31:51 AM 56.7 59
9:32:01 AM 51.1 53.2
9:32:11 AM 50.9 53.5
9:32:21 AM 53.9 55.4
9:32:31 AM 55.3 57.8
9:32:41 AM 56.3 57.7
9:32:51 AM 53.8 56.9
9:33:01 AM 55.6 62
9:33:11 AM 59.3 62.7
9:33:21 AM 55 57.4
9:33:31 AM 52.7 54.6
9:33:41 AM 54.5 57.8
9:33:51 AM 51.7 53
9:34:01 AM 51 51.8
9:34:11 AM 50.9 52.6
9:34:21 AM 49.7 50.8
9:34:31 AM 51.1 54.6
9:34:41 AM 60.6 65.4
9:34:51 AM 56.9 62.8
9:35:01 AM 54.8 57.3
9:35:11 AM 55.3 57
9:35:21 AM 53.6 55.5
9:35:31 AM 53.4 54.5
9:35:41 AM 55.2 59.2
9:35:51 AM 54.7 56.7
9:36:01 AM 52.3 53.3
9:36:11 AM 62 66.7
9:36:21 AM 51 53.8
9:36:31 AM 53.1 56.3
9:36:41 AM 54.6 57.2
9:36:51 AM 51.5 52.9
9:37:01 AM 49.9 51.1
9:37:11 AM 49.6 50.8
9:37:21 AM 51.5 53.3
9:37:31 AM 54.8 56.5
9:37:41 AM 57.6 59.3
9:37:51 AM 55.3 57
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
9:38:01 AM 52.5 55.3
9:38:11 AM 57.3 59.9
9:38:21 AM 54.8 59.3
9:38:31 AM 53 58.1
9:38:41 AM 60.9 65.4
9:38:51 AM 50.2 51
9:39:01 AM 51.1 53.5
9:39:11 AM 51.1 52.6
9:39:21 AM 51.3 52.7
9:39:31 AM 49.5 50.3
9:39:41 AM 51.9 55.2
9:39:51 AM 55 56.8
9:40:01 AM 52.7 55.6
9:40:11 AM 52.2 54.7
9:40:21 AM 50.4 51.6
9:40:31 AM 52.2 52.9
9:40:41 AM 52.4 53.6
9:40:51 AM 50.9 52.6
9:41:01 AM 52.6 54.3
9:41:11 AM 61 66.4
9:41:21 AM 54.4 61.4
9:41:31 AM 50.9 52.6
9:41:41 AM 49.7 50.6
9:41:51 AM 53.4 55.2
9:42:01 AM 56.1 57.2
9:42:11 AM 61.4 67.9
9:42:21 AM 55.1 61.9
9:42:31 AM 52.8 55.4
9:42:41 AM 51.8 52.6
9:42:51 AM 53.6 55.2
9:43:01 AM 52 54.2
9:43:11 AM 60.2 63.7
9:43:21 AM 52.4 55.2
9:43:31 AM 51.6 52.5
9:43:41 AM 53.7 55.8
9:43:51 AM 55.8 61.6
9:44:01 AM 63 67.9
9:44:11 AM 63.3 69.6
9:44:21 AM 63.4 69.2
9:44:31 AM 50.8 53.6
9:44:41 AM 50 51.3
9:44:51 AM 53.1 54.1
9:45:01 AM 62.2 66.6
9:45:11 AM 59.3 65.2
9:45:21 AM 50.9 52.7
9:45:31 AM 52.9 55.2
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
9:45:41 AM 52.5 53.8
9:45:51 AM 52.4 54

55.9 Time Leq Lmax
1:23:31 AM 49 50.7
1:23:41 AM 55.2 58.7
1:23:51 AM 47.5 51.1
1:24:01 AM 42.1 43.4
1:24:11 AM 40.6 41.4
1:24:21 AM 42.3 45.5
1:24:31 AM 41.1 43.1
1:24:41 AM 39.9 40.6
1:24:51 AM 43.5 46.9
1:25:01 AM 44.3 47.4
1:25:11 AM 50 52.9
1:25:21 AM 46.9 51
1:25:31 AM 44.2 48.2
1:25:41 AM 47.3 49.8
1:25:51 AM 44.8 48.1
1:26:01 AM 49.9 54.9
1:26:11 AM 41.9 44
1:26:21 AM 42 45.1
1:26:31 AM 39.4 39.8
1:26:41 AM 38.5 39.2
1:26:51 AM 42.3 45
1:27:01 AM 40.4 43.6
1:27:11 AM 42.6 45.9
1:27:21 AM 39.1 42.5
1:27:31 AM 38 38.6
1:27:41 AM 38.7 39
1:27:51 AM 41.2 43.4
1:28:01 AM 39.9 42.8
1:28:11 AM 44.8 46.3
1:28:21 AM 45.2 46.8
1:28:31 AM 43.9 46.5
1:28:41 AM 39.7 41.9
1:28:51 AM 46 50
1:29:01 AM 41.6 42.3
1:29:11 AM 45.2 47.4
1:29:21 AM 41.9 43.6
1:29:31 AM 40.3 41.8
1:29:41 AM 44.1 46.9
1:29:51 AM 44.1 46.8
1:30:01 AM 39.2 39.7
1:30:11 AM 40.2 43.9
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
1:30:21 AM 41 44.4
1:30:31 AM 38 38.4
1:30:41 AM 38.8 39.9
1:30:51 AM 41.1 43
1:31:01 AM 41.1 43.2
1:31:11 AM 38.9 39.1
1:31:21 AM 42.1 45.6
1:31:31 AM 41.5 44.3
1:31:41 AM 39.3 39.9
1:31:51 AM 39.8 40.7
1:32:01 AM 43.2 47.1
1:32:11 AM 41.7 43.4
1:32:21 AM 40.3 42.9
1:32:31 AM 39.5 40.3
1:32:41 AM 41 42.2
1:32:51 AM 38.6 39.3
1:33:01 AM 38.9 41.1
1:33:11 AM 45.6 50.1
1:33:21 AM 41.7 43.3
1:33:31 AM 42.2 45.2
1:33:41 AM 43.3 46.9
1:33:51 AM 46.2 49.8
1:34:01 AM 51.6 56.7
1:34:11 AM 48.2 54.5
1:34:21 AM 43 44.5
1:34:31 AM 45.7 51.8
1:34:41 AM 49.3 52.7
1:34:51 AM 42.8 45.2
1:35:01 AM 45.8 50.8
1:35:11 AM 40.9 42.7
1:35:21 AM 41 43
1:35:31 AM 40 41.2
1:35:41 AM 41.7 44
1:35:51 AM 45.3 47.8
1:36:01 AM 42.1 44
1:36:11 AM 43.5 45.1
1:36:21 AM 44.6 47.5
1:36:31 AM 40.2 41.1
1:36:41 AM 41.9 44
1:36:51 AM 47.7 49.6
1:37:01 AM 57.1 60.9
1:37:11 AM 48.3 54
1:37:21 AM 47.5 53.3
1:37:31 AM 43.6 48.2
1:37:41 AM 38.7 39.3
1:37:51 AM 38.9 40.9
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
1:38:01 AM 42 44.4
1:38:11 AM 43.9 45.7
1:38:21 AM 43.5 47.4

45.3 6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Location: R2
Date: 5/19/2021
Time Leq Lmax
10:32:43 AM 51.7 55
10:32:53 AM 49.3 50.8
10:33:03 AM 50.5 52.8
10:33:13 AM 60.2 65.6
10:33:23 AM 59.2 67.2
10:33:33 AM 60.2 67.2
10:33:43 AM 52.9 59.6
10:33:53 AM 48.8 49.1
10:34:03 AM 48 49.1
10:34:13 AM 47.2 48.4
10:34:23 AM 49.2 51.9
10:34:33 AM 50.1 54.5
10:34:43 AM 56.9 60.9
10:34:53 AM 51.4 53.7
10:35:03 AM 50.7 52.1
10:35:13 AM 50.8 53.5
10:35:23 AM 50.7 52.3
10:35:33 AM 53.3 55.9
10:35:43 AM 58.5 62.7
10:35:53 AM 54.7 56.8
10:36:03 AM 50.9 51.7
10:36:13 AM 50 51.8
10:36:23 AM 54.6 59
10:36:33 AM 48.2 49.8
10:36:43 AM 47.6 48.4
10:36:53 AM 51.1 54.9
10:37:03 AM 58.8 63.8
10:37:13 AM 47.1 49.3
10:37:23 AM 47.8 49.9
10:37:33 AM 49.2 51.1
10:37:43 AM 58.4 65.8
10:37:53 AM 61.2 68.1
10:38:03 AM 64.5 71.1
10:38:13 AM 59.8 63.8
10:38:23 AM 58.8 65.7
10:38:33 AM 52.5 57.6
10:38:43 AM 53.7 60.2
10:38:53 AM 55 57.6
10:39:03 AM 52.8 57.1
10:39:13 AM 49.2 52.9
10:39:23 AM 47.6 49.1
10:39:33 AM 51.1 52.5
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
10:39:43 AM 51.2 53.5
10:39:53 AM 51.2 53
10:40:03 AM 50.6 52.2
10:40:13 AM 50.7 52.6
10:40:23 AM 57.2 60.3
10:40:33 AM 57.4 60.4
10:40:43 AM 59.8 64.9
10:40:53 AM 51.7 52.8
10:41:03 AM 49.2 50.7
10:41:13 AM 60.9 67.2
10:41:23 AM 55.6 62.6
10:41:33 AM 59.8 64.3
10:41:43 AM 53.8 55.3
10:41:53 AM 57.9 59.3
10:42:03 AM 58 60
10:42:13 AM 55.6 57
10:42:23 AM 57.1 63
10:42:33 AM 56.4 63
10:42:43 AM 51 52.9
10:42:53 AM 47.1 48
10:43:03 AM 47.2 48.4
10:43:13 AM 49.1 52.3
10:43:23 AM 59.5 63.3
10:43:33 AM 63 69.1
10:43:43 AM 54.7 58.9
10:43:53 AM 55.5 58.1
10:44:03 AM 54.6 57.2
10:44:13 AM 56.1 65.1
10:44:23 AM 60.6 67.1
10:44:33 AM 50.7 52.5
10:44:43 AM 50.8 51.7
10:44:53 AM 53 53.9
10:45:03 AM 50.3 52.4
10:45:13 AM 49.7 52.3
10:45:23 AM 57.9 62.8
10:45:33 AM 50.7 52.8
10:45:43 AM 53.3 55
10:45:53 AM 52 55.1
10:46:03 AM 53.3 56.9
10:46:13 AM 57.5 62.8
10:46:23 AM 54.5 59.2
10:46:33 AM 51.7 55.4
10:46:43 AM 59.9 65.1
10:46:53 AM 51.7 56.2
10:47:03 AM 52.6 54
10:47:13 AM 54.4 56.9
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
10:47:23 AM 51.7 53.7
10:47:33 AM 62.1 67.9
56 Time Leq Lmax
12:44:36 AM 37.9 40.9
12:44:46 AM 38.6 40.5
12:44:56 AM 42.2 46.4
12:45:06 AM 37.7 38.9
12:45:16 AM 37.1 38.3
12:45:26 AM 38.6 41.8
12:45:36 AM 39.4 41.9
12:45:46 AM 37.5 38.2
12:45:56 AM 38.1 39.7
12:46:06 AM 39 40.3
12:46:16 AM 38.2 39.4
12:46:26 AM 37.4 38.3
12:46:36 AM 36.6 36.9
12:46:46 AM 37.2 39.5
12:46:56 AM 36.6 37.2
12:47:06 AM 36.1 36.9
12:47:16 AM 36.7 37.3
12:47:26 AM 37.9 38.9
12:47:36 AM 36.9 37.7
12:47:46 AM 36.4 36.9
12:47:56 AM 36.1 37.3
12:48:06 AM 36.2 38.5
12:48:16 AM 36 36.7
12:48:26 AM 36.6 37.4
12:48:36 AM 36.8 37.7
12:48:46 AM 37 37.6
12:48:56 AM 37 37.6
12:49:06 AM 36.5 36.8
12:49:16 AM 36.9 37.5
12:49:26 AM 37.6 38.8
12:49:36 AM 37.1 37.7
12:49:46 AM 36.3 37.2
12:49:56 AM 38.5 41.8
12:50:06 AM 37.5 38.2
12:50:16 AM 36.8 37.3
12:50:26 AM 36.3 36.6
12:50:36 AM 36.7 37.1
12:50:46 AM 36.8 37.1
12:50:56 AM 37.1 37.8
12:51:06 AM 36.8 37.4
12:51:16 AM 37.4 37.9
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
12:51:26 AM 37.2 38.2
12:51:36 AM 37.1 38.2
12:51:46 AM 36.9 38.3
12:51:56 AM 37.7 38.2
12:52:06 AM 36.8 37.2
12:52:16 AM 36.6 37.1
12:52:26 AM 36.4 37.2
12:52:36 AM 38.2 40.5
12:52:46 AM 40.6 41.6
12:52:56 AM 41.5 45
12:53:06 AM 45 46.9
12:53:16 AM 47.3 49
12:53:26 AM 47.5 48.5
12:53:36 AM 46.7 47.7
12:53:46 AM 42.9 44.8
12:53:56 AM 40.7 42.4
12:54:06 AM 39.3 39.8
12:54:16 AM 38.5 39
12:54:26 AM 38 38.4
12:54:36 AM 37.7 38.7
12:54:46 AM 37.1 37.8
12:54:56 AM 37.4 37.9
12:55:06 AM 37.3 37.9
12:55:16 AM 36.8 37.3
12:55:26 AM 36.8 37.1
12:55:36 AM 37.3 37.9
12:55:46 AM 37.9 39.9
12:55:56 AM 39.1 39.9
12:56:06 AM 38.1 40.1
12:56:16 AM 37.6 38.2
12:56:26 AM 39.1 40.4
12:56:36 AM 37.9 38.6
12:56:46 AM 38.4 40.9
12:56:56 AM 39.7 41.5
12:57:06 AM 38.5 39.8
12:57:16 AM 37.6 38.6
12:57:26 AM 38.4 39.2
12:57:36 AM 37.7 38.5
12:57:46 AM 38.9 40.4
12:57:56 AM 41.7 44.6
12:58:06 AM 38.2 39.3
12:58:16 AM 38.9 40.6
12:58:26 AM 41.4 42.5
12:58:36 AM 38.4 40
12:58:46 AM 40.7 44.8
12:58:56 AM 43.5 45.2
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
12:59:06 AM 44.1 46.4
12:59:16 AM 47.9 50.7
12:59:26 AM 48.3 50.9

40.0 6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco  Culver City Project
Location: R3
Date: 5/19/2021
Time Leq Lmax
10:52:08 AM 55.4 59.1
10:52:18 AM 52.9 56.4
10:52:28 AM 50.9 52.9
10:52:38 AM 50.3 51.3
10:52:48 AM 51.8 54.6
10:52:58 AM 52 54.9
10:53:08 AM 51.7 53.1
10:53:18 AM 51.4 52.2
10:53:28 AM 50.2 50.8
10:53:38 AM 51.8 54.1
10:53:48 AM 52 53.4
10:53:58 AM 51.8 53.1
10:54:08 AM 52.9 55.3
10:54:18 AM 52.1 54.4
10:54:28 AM 58.7 67.8
10:54:38 AM 58.2 63.4
10:54:48 AM 58.5 62.3
10:54:58 AM 56.7 60.3
10:55:08 AM 58.1 63.9
10:55:18 AM 61.8 66.3
10:55:28 AM 53.7 54.9
10:55:38 AM 56.4 58.3
10:55:48 AM 54.9 56.3
10:55:58 AM 54.6 56.3
10:56:08 AM 54.4 58.1
10:56:18 AM 50.7 51.8
10:56:28 AM 49.7 51.8
10:56:38 AM 51.1 54.4
10:56:48 AM 49 50.8
10:56:58 AM 54.7 57.9
10:57:08
AM 48.6 51.9
10:57:18 AM 50.9 52.5
10:57:28 AM 48.9 53
10:57:38 AM 59.5 63.4
10:57:48 AM 54.3 60.7
10:57:58 AM 49.8 53.3
10:58:08 AM 46.2 47.2
10:58:18 AM 45.6 46.2
10:58:28 AM 45.9 46.9
10:58:38 AM 46.2 46.8
10:58:48 AM 47.3 48.1
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
10:58:58 AM 48.4 51
10:59:08 AM 55.9 58.6
10:59:18 AM 50.5 51.6
10:59:28 AM 51 51.9
10:59:38 AM 58.2 62.2
10:59:48 AM 50.5 53.8
10:59:58 AM 49.9 51.9
11:00:08 AM 53.5 56.1
11:00:18 AM 55.7 58.8
11:00:28 AM 51.7 54.4
11:00:38 AM 54.8 58.4
11:00:48 AM 48.4 50.2
11:00:58 AM 46.8 47.7
11:01:08 AM 46.7 50
11:01:18 AM 52.8 54.8
11:01:28 AM 49.4 50.3
11:01:38 AM 53.7 59.5
11:01:48 AM 55.3 59.7
11:01:58 AM 49 51
11:02:08 AM 51.2 56.4
11:02:18 AM 57.1 61.3
11:02:28 AM 48.2 49.1
11:02:38 AM 50.1 51.6
11:02:48 AM 50.2 52
11:02:58 AM 50.8 51.5
11:03:08 AM 52.4 54
11:03:18 AM 51.9 52.8
11:03:28 AM 50.4 51.2
11:03:38 AM 52.6 54.8
11:03:48 AM 52.6 54.4
11:03:58 AM 50.9 53.6
11:04:08 AM 55.2 58.9
11:04:18 AM 49.5 51.7
11:04:28 AM 57.3 64.1
11:04:38 AM 53.6 58.2
11:04:48 AM 54.1 59.8
11:04:58 AM 53.2 59.6
11:05:08 AM 51.7 54.9
11:05:18 AM 48.8 50.7
11:05:28 AM 48.8 49.8
11:05:38 AM 50.1 50.5
11:05:48 AM 48.9 50.1
11:05:58 AM 47.8 48.6
11:06:08 AM 47 48
11:06:18 AM 46.2 47.2
11:06:28 AM 47.3 52
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
11:06:38 AM 53 58.4
11:06:48 AM 56.5 61.8
11:06:58 AM 54.5 61.2

53.4 Time Leq Lmax
12:24:55 AM 38.7 39.8
12:25:05 AM 40.2 42.7
12:25:15 AM 43.8 49
12:25:25 AM 43.3 47.6
12:25:35 AM 42.8 46.6
12:25:45 AM 45.6 50
12:25:55 AM 49.6 51.8
12:26:05 AM 53.1 54.8
12:26:15 AM 53 54.3
12:26:25 AM 52.4 53.9
12:26:35 AM 49.6 51
12:26:45 AM 49.7 52.5
12:26:55 AM 45.1 48.3
12:27:05 AM 43.9 45.1
12:27:15 AM 47.2 50
12:27:25 AM 47.8 50.1
12:27:35 AM 47.2 49.5
12:27:45 AM 48.6 53.1
12:27:55 AM 59.8 64.1
12:28:05 AM 45.7 48.6
12:28:15 AM 43.1 46.1
12:28:25 AM 42 42.6
12:28:35 AM 41.3 42
12:28:45 AM 41.4 42.8
12:28:55 AM 50.1 55.2
12:29:05 AM 44.1 48.8
12:29:15 AM 38.2 39.4
12:29:25 AM 39.7 43
12:29:35 AM 44.5 46.3
12:29:45 AM 43.3 47.5
12:29:55 AM 47 49.2
12:30:05 AM 39.7 41.8
12:30:15 AM 41.8 45.3
12:30:25 AM 37.1 37.8
12:30:35 AM 38.5 39.3
12:30:45 AM 45.4 51.1
12:30:55 AM 39.2 42.5
12:31:05 AM 39.2 40.5
12:31:15 AM 44.2 47.4
12:31:25 AM 45.6 49.4
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
12:31:35 AM 47.2 50.9
12:31:45 AM 47.9 52.5
12:31:55 AM 41.6 47.3
12:32:05 AM 41 44.8
12:32:15 AM 39.2 40.9
12:32:25 AM 40.8 44.6
12:32:35 AM 38.2 39.4
12:32:45 AM 38.8 39.6
12:32:55 AM 45.3 49.4
12:33:05 AM 42.5 43.6
12:33:15 AM 41.6 44
12:33:25 AM 39.3 40.1
12:33:35 AM 39.6 40.9
12:33:45 AM 43.2 46.2
12:33:55 AM 43 45.4
12:34:05 AM 42.7 45.4
12:34:15 AM 44.6 48.3
12:34:25 AM 38.7 40.5
12:34:35 AM 47.2 52.1
12:34:45 AM 43.6 48.5
12:34:55 AM 54.2 58.5
12:35:05 AM 48.5 55.9
12:35:15 AM 41.5 44.6
12:35:25 AM 44.5 47.4
12:35:35 AM 37.6 39.6
12:35:45 AM 42.9 48.6
12:35:55 AM 39.8 43.3
12:36:05 AM 41.4 45.9
12:36:15 AM 39.8 41.4
12:36:25 AM 43 48.4
12:36:35 AM 46.8 52.1
12:36:45 AM 43 50.4
12:36:55 AM 46.3 51.3
12:37:05 AM 39.7 41
12:37:15 AM 40.6 41.6
12:37:25 AM 39 40.5
12:37:35 AM 38.8 39.7
12:37:45 AM 40 44
12:37:55 AM 45.1 49.6
12:38:05 AM 38.8 40.8
12:38:15 AM 42.9 46.1
12:38:25 AM 38.4 39
12:38:35 AM 37 37.9
12:38:45 AM 39.4 42.7
12:38:55 AM 39.6 41.1
12:39:05 AM 42.7 45.1
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
12:39:15 AM 47.6 52.9
12:39:25 AM 43.9 47.2
12:39:35 AM 43.1 46.7
12:39:45 AM 56.6 60.1

46.9 6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco  Culver City Project
Location: R4
Date: 5/19/2021
Time Leq Lmax
10:11:43 AM 68 72.2
10:11:53 AM 72.7 76.8
10:12:03 AM 73.6 77.2
10:12:13 AM 71 73.2
10:12:23 AM 65.5 67.4
10:12:33 AM 66.3 71
10:12:43 AM 69.6 71.6
10:12:53 AM 65.1 67.9
10:13:03 AM 65.9 70.5
10:13:13 AM 67 72.2
10:13:23 AM 73.4 77.2
10:13:33 AM 72.4 75.4
10:13:43 AM 67.6 72.7
10:13:53 AM 67 69.5
10:14:03 AM 69.7 71.1
10:14:13 AM 68.4 72
10:14:23 AM 67.6 74.7
10:14:33 AM 61.5 63.9
10:14:43 AM 65.8 69.8
10:14:53 AM 72.8 77.3
10:15:03 AM 74.7 76.5
10:15:13 AM 74 75.5
10:15:23 AM 73.3 76.1
10:15:33 AM 71.1 73.3
10:15:43 AM 67.7 70.4
10:15:53 AM 69.4 73.7
10:16:03 AM 65 67.3
10:16:13 AM 62.3 65.8
10:16:23 AM 61.5 65.6
10:16:33 AM 66.2 69.6
10:16:43
AM 67.1 72.5
10:16:53 AM 67.2 70.5
10:17:03 AM 71.1 72.2
10:17:13 AM 76.8 81.8
10:17:23 AM 78.3 79.5
10:17:33 AM 77.7 79.6
10:17:43 AM 72.5 77.6
10:17:53 AM 61.9 65.2
10:18:03 AM 68 70.7
10:18:13 AM 69.9 73.3
10:18:23 AM 64.7 69.7
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
10:18:33 AM 64.9 69.3
10:18:43 AM 58.4 59.1
10:18:53 AM 64.8 72.2
10:19:03 AM 72.1 73.6
10:19:13 AM 69.2 71.5
10:19:23 AM 71.3 78.8
10:19:33 AM 76.3 79.1
10:19:43 AM 77.4 81.1
10:19:53 AM 74.1 78.8
10:20:03 AM 69.4 72.2
10:20:13 AM 71.8 76.4
10:20:23 AM 64.1 67.7
10:20:33 AM 69.3 74.6
10:20:43 AM 69.4 76.4
10:20:53 AM 71.2 76.3
10:21:03 AM 64.1 67.9
10:21:13 AM 68.6 71.6
10:21:23 AM 69.7 71.5
10:21:33 AM 75.5 79.6
10:21:43 AM 73.3 76.9
10:21:53 AM 68.4 70.3
10:22:03 AM 71.1 76
10:22:13 AM 65.4 68.1
10:22:23 AM 66.7 69.2
10:22:33 AM 66.7 69
10:22:43 AM 58.8 60.4
10:22:53 AM 62.9 69.4
10:23:03 AM 70.8 72.2
10:23:13 AM 71.2 74.7
10:23:23 AM 80.6 87.1
10:23:33 AM 70.5 73.2
10:23:43 AM 74.1 75.6
10:23:53 AM 74.4 76
10:24:03 AM 73.5 75.2
10:24:13 AM 71.1 73.8
10:24:23 AM 66.9 69.6
10:24:33 AM 63.1 63.8
10:24:43 AM 64.8 69.7
10:24:53 AM 66.1 71.4
10:25:03 AM 69.6 73.5
10:25:13 AM 65.7 67.7
10:25:23 AM 69.4 73.2
10:25:33 AM 70.7 72.5
10:25:43 AM 72 75.4
10:25:53 AM 69 71.6
10:26:03 AM 66.7 70.6
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
10:26:13 AM 66.7 71
10:26:23 AM 62.6 64.6
10:26:33 AM 66.8 70.2

71.3 Time Leq Lmax
1:43:11 AM 66.7 70.7
1:43:21 AM 60.9 66.1
1:43:31 AM 47.4 50.7
1:43:41 AM 56.6 64.2
1:43:51 AM 66.1 71
1:44:01 AM 51 54.6
1:44:11 AM 48 50.5
1:44:21 AM 48.7 50.2
1:44:31 AM 51.6 54.7
1:44:41 AM 49.9 52.9
1:44:51 AM 47.2 49.1
1:45:01 AM 44.9 46.5
1:45:11 AM 44.8 47.1
1:45:21 AM 43.1 43.9
1:45:31 AM 43.1 43.4
1:45:41 AM 43.2 43.5
1:45:51 AM 43.8 44.1
1:46:01 AM 44.1 45.8
1:46:11 AM 44 44.9
1:46:21 AM 43.6 44.2
1:46:31 AM 45.2 46.5
1:46:41 AM 43.8 44.3
1:46:51 AM 43.1 43.4
1:47:01 AM 43 43.7
1:47:11 AM 43 43.2
1:47:21 AM 44.4 46
1:47:31 AM 43.2 43.5
1:47:41 AM 43.8 44.4
1:47:51 AM 43.4 44.2
1:48:01 AM 48.4 52.6
1:48:11 AM 67.1 72.2
1:48:21 AM 67.9 73.1
1:48:31 AM 49.5 53
1:48:41 AM 45.2 46.8
1:48:51 AM 43.5 43.7
1:49:01 AM 43.6 43.9
1:49:11 AM 43.7 44.3
1:49:21 AM 43.1 43.6
1:49:31 AM 43 43.5
1:49:41 AM 42.8 43
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
1:49:51 AM 44.4 47.4
1:50:01 AM 51.4 54.2
1:50:11 AM 47 49.6
1:50:21 AM 45.3 48.7
1:50:31 AM 45.9 48.7
1:50:41 AM 66.7 71.7
1:50:51 AM 56.7 64.7
1:51:01 AM 53.7 58.8
1:51:11 AM 55.8 59.2
1:51:21 AM 51.2 52.4
1:51:31 AM 52.1 53.5
1:51:41 AM 50.2 50.9
1:51:51 AM 48.8 49.9
1:52:01 AM 46.5 47.4
1:52:11 AM 46.3 47
1:52:21 AM 49.2 55.9
1:52:31 AM 52.7 57
1:52:41 AM 50.8 56.4
1:52:51 AM 66.1 69.3
1:53:01 AM 57.6 63.4
1:53:11 AM 45.8 46.2
1:53:21 AM 44.9 45.5
1:53:31 AM 55.6 58.4
1:53:41 AM 63.7 70.6
1:53:51 AM 80.3 86.2
1:54:01 AM 60.3 67.4
1:54:11 AM 49.6 54.2
1:54:21 AM 46 47.9
1:54:31 AM 44.1 45.1
1:54:41 AM 43.4 44.9
1:54:51 AM 43.7 44.9
1:55:01 AM 44.2 44.9
1:55:11 AM 43.9 44.3
1:55:21 AM 48.2 50.6
1:55:31 AM 51.8 54.1
1:55:41 AM 47.4 50.4
1:55:51 AM 44.4 46.1
1:56:01 AM 46.7 51.2
1:56:11 AM 61.4 65
1:56:21 AM 64.8 70.9
1:56:31 AM 66.1 70.9
1:56:41 AM 51.3 55.2
1:56:51 AM 56.9 64.2
1:57:01 AM 59.9 65
1:57:11 AM 68.9 74
1:57:21 AM 52.7 54.9
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
1:57:31 AM 47.3 49.5
1:57:41 AM 46 46.8
1:57:51 AM 43.9 45.3
1:58:01 AM 44.4 47.6

62.6 6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco  Culver City Project
Location: R5
Date: 5/19/2021
Time Leq Lmax
9:51:54 AM 58.3 62.4
9:52:04 AM 59 62.4
9:52:14 AM 49.6 51.7
9:52:24 AM 49.7 50.2
9:52:34 AM 52.1 53.8
9:52:44 AM 55.3 59
9:52:54 AM 48.1 49.5
9:53:04 AM 49 51.2
9:53:14 AM 51.3 53.2
9:53:24 AM 52.1 53.1
9:53:34 AM 50.8 55.2
9:53:44 AM 51.4 55.3
9:53:54 AM 51.6 55.6
9:54:04 AM 52.2 53.4
9:54:14 AM 52.7 53.8
9:54:24 AM 51.9 53.1
9:54:34 AM 51.3 52.1
9:54:44 AM 49.5 50.3
9:54:54 AM 48.7 49.6
9:55:04 AM 48.9 50.5
9:55:14 AM 47.5 48.8
9:55:24 AM 47 47.5
9:55:34 AM 48.7 49.9
9:55:44 AM 50.7 53
9:55:54 AM 50.5 52.7
9:56:04 AM 50.6 51.9
9:56:14 AM 49 50.6
9:56:24 AM 48 48.5
9:56:34 AM 52.8 56.6
9:56:44 AM 54.5 57.1
9:56:54
AM 56 57.9
9:57:04 AM 51.8 55.4
9:57:14 AM 51.4 52.5
9:57:24 AM 50.4 51.7
9:57:34 AM 50.9 52.4
9:57:44 AM 56.1 63.4
9:57:54 AM 49.8 52.8
9:58:04 AM 48.4 51.3
9:58:14 AM 49.3 50.3
9:58:24 AM 50 53
9:58:34 AM 58.7 62
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
9:58:44 AM 52.4 55.1
9:58:54 AM 48.6 49.8
9:59:04 AM 47.2 49
9:59:14 AM 49.1 50
9:59:24 AM 48.9 49.8
9:59:34 AM 48.5 51.1
9:59:44 AM 51.9 58.4
9:59:54 AM 47.4 49.8
10:00:04 AM 46 47.6
10:00:14 AM 46.8 48.8
10:00:24 AM 46.5 47.2
10:00:34 AM 48.3 51.6
10:00:44 AM 55.1 62.4
10:00:54 AM 49.4 52.7
10:01:04 AM 49 52.6
10:01:14 AM 49.9 52
10:01:24 AM 51.3 53.4
10:01:34 AM 53.7 56.6
10:01:44 AM 54.4 56.9
10:01:54 AM 54.7 58.3
10:02:04 AM 53.5 54.5
10:02:14 AM 49.7 50.5
10:02:24 AM 49.4 50.3
10:02:34 AM 47.1 48.5
10:02:44 AM 46.8 48
10:02:54 AM 48.8 54
10:03:04 AM 59.3 64.6
10:03:14 AM 58.5 60.6
10:03:24 AM 53.4 57.9
10:03:34 AM 57 63.2
10:03:44 AM 50.8 53.8
10:03:54 AM 51.6 52.6
10:04:04 AM 50.9 53.2
10:04:14 AM 58.5 61.8
10:04:24 AM 59.5 67.8
10:04:34 AM 46.9 48.3
10:04:44 AM 47.2 49.3
10:04:54 AM 52 55.4
10:05:04 AM 52.7 56
10:05:14 AM 50.3 53.1
10:05:24 AM 49 52
10:05:34 AM 47.8 49.2
10:05:44 AM 49.7 51.2
10:05:54 AM 47.8 48.7
10:06:04 AM 50.4 54.6
10:06:14 AM 49.4 50.9
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
10:06:24 AM 51.2 53.7
10:06:34 AM 51.4 52.6
10:06:44 AM 51.5 52.8

52.6 Time Leq Lmax
1:05:26 AM 38.8 40
1:05:36 AM 38.7 39.3
1:05:46 AM 39.7 40.6
1:05:56 AM 42.2 44.1
1:06:06 AM 39.8 40.7
1:06:16 AM 43 46.2
1:06:26 AM 39.4 40.2
1:06:36 AM 41.3 44.2
1:06:46 AM 38.9 39.6
1:06:56 AM 38.7 39.9
1:07:06 AM 40.9 42.5
1:07:16 AM 40.9 42.4
1:07:26 AM 42.1 45.1
1:07:36 AM 38.3 39.2
1:07:46 AM 38.1 38.5
1:07:56 AM 38.9 40.1
1:08:06 AM 39.4 40.5
1:08:16 AM 38.9 39.5
1:08:26 AM 38.9 39.8
1:08:36 AM 38.8 39.6
1:08:46 AM 42.3 47.2
1:08:56 AM 43.2 44.8
1:09:06 AM 39.8 41
1:09:16 AM 41.3 43.6
1:09:26 AM 39.9 41
1:09:36 AM 39.4 40.7
1:09:46 AM 38.2 39.1
1:09:56 AM 38.2 38.7
1:10:06 AM 42.2 45.4
1:10:16 AM 47.1 52.3
1:10:26 AM 41 44.1
1:10:36 AM 38.7 39.2
1:10:46 AM 39.5 40.4
1:10:56 AM 41.9 45.3
1:11:06 AM 43.6 46.7
1:11:16 AM 54.6 60.4
1:11:26 AM 48.6 53.8
1:11:36 AM 41.3 42.5
1:11:46 AM 44 46.2
1:11:56 AM 47.4 49.4
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
1:12:06 AM 55.5 58.5
1:12:16 AM 54.7 57.7
1:12:26 AM 53 57
1:12:36 AM 43.1 45.3
1:12:46 AM 41.8 43.5
1:12:56 AM 45.3 48.1
1:13:06 AM 47.5 52
1:13:16 AM 54.4 58.7
1:13:26 AM 51.3 54.2
1:13:36 AM 46 46.7
1:13:46 AM 44 45.8
1:13:56 AM 42.7 45.9
1:14:06 AM 41.2 41.6
1:14:16 AM 40.6 41.4
1:14:26 AM 40.5 41
1:14:36 AM 42.1 44.4
1:14:46 AM 40.7 43.2
1:14:56 AM 43.5 45.5
1:15:06 AM 41.2 42.3
1:15:16 AM 40 40.7
1:15:26 AM 40.4 40.9
1:15:36 AM 41.1 42.2
1:15:46 AM 40 40.3
1:15:56 AM 40.3 41.4
1:16:06 AM 41.4 42
1:16:16 AM 42.6 46.6
1:16:26 AM 56.9 61.3
1:16:36 AM 44.1 50.8
1:16:46 AM 41.8 43.1
1:16:56 AM 41.2 42.3
1:17:06 AM 41.8 44.2
1:17:16 AM 41.8 44.5
1:17:26 AM 38.4 39.6
1:17:36 AM 40 42.7
1:17:46 AM 38.6 39.7
1:17:56 AM 37.5 38
1:18:06 AM 38.7 39.2
1:18:16 AM 39.1 39.9
1:18:26 AM 42.2 44.5
1:18:36 AM 41 43
1:18:46 AM 40 42.6
1:18:56 AM 44.3 47.1
1:19:06 AM 39.4 43.8
1:19:16 AM 37.9 38.3
1:19:26 AM 38.4 38.9
1:19:36 AM 39.2 39.8
6/24/2021
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
1:19:46 AM 41.2 44.1
1:19:56 AM 43.7 45.6
1:20:06 AM 40.2 41.2
1:20:16 AM 41.8 44.9

45.7 6/24/2021
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Appendix B
Construction Noise Calculations Worksheets

A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo of existing buildings
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Excavator 1 81 40% 130 0
Breakers 1 90 20% 155 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 180 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 180 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 205 0
5 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 76.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Grading/Excavation and Utilities for New Station Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 75 0
Excavator 1 81 40% 100 0
Generators 1 81 50% 125 0
Grader 1 85 40% 125 0
Breakers 1 90 20% 150 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 150 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 175 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 175 0
8 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 79.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Building New Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 100 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 125 0
Crane 1 81 16% 150 0
Air-compressors 1 78 40% 150 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 175 0
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 175 0
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 200 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 200 0
8 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 76.2
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo curbs planters at New Station or new entrance/round-about Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 75 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 100 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 125 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 125 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 150 0
5 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 79.0
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:

Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 75 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 100 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 125 0
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 125 0
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 150 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 150 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 175 0
7 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 78.3
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
Civil put-back curb planters at New Station or new
entrance/round-about
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Demo of Existing Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Crane 1 81 16% 680 5
Excavator 1 81 40% 680 5
Breakers 1 90 20% 705 5
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 705 5
Generators 1 81 50% 730 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 730 5
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 755 5
Bobcats 1 78 40% 755 5
Work Truck 1 75 40% 780 5
9 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 59.5
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Civil put-back
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 680 5
Compactor 1 83 20% 680 5
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 705 5
Work Truck 1 75 40% 705 5
Hammers 1 85 50% 730 5
5 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 56.1
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Landscaping
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 630 5
Work Truck 1 75 40% 630 5
2 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 48.8
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Daytime
(Generators for Construction & Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Construction 1 65.3 100% 67 10
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 227 10
2 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 53.1
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Nighttime
(Generator for Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 227 10
1 Receptor: R1
Results:
1-hour Leq: 42.2
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo of existing buildings
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Excavator 1 81 40% 865 15
Breakers 1 90 20% 865 15
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 890 15
Backhoes 1 78 40% 890 15
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 915 15
5 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 46.7
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Grading/Excavation and Utilities for New Station Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 865 15
Excavator 1 81 40% 865 15
Generators 1 81 50% 890 15
Grader 1 85 40% 890 15
Breakers 1 90 20% 915 15
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 915 15
Compactor 1 83 20% 940 15
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 940 15
8 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 48.2
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Building New Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 825 15
Backhoes 1 78 40% 825 15
Crane 1 81 16% 850 15
Air-compressors 1 78 40% 850 15
Compactor 1 83 20% 875 15
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 875 15
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 900 15
Hammers 1 85 50% 900 15
8 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 46.1
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo curbs planters at New Station or new entrance/round-about Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 865 15
Backhoes 1 78 40% 865 15
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 890 15
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 890 15
Hammers 1 85 50% 915 15
5 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 46.2
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:

Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 865 15
Backhoes 1 78 40% 865 15
Compactor 1 83 20% 890 15
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 890 15
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 915 15
Hammers 1 85 50% 915 15
Work Truck 1 75 40% 940 15
7 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 45.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
Civil put-back curb planters at New Station or new
entrance/round-about
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Demo of Existing Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Crane 1 81 16% 785 10
Excavator 1 81 40% 785 10
Breakers 1 90 20% 810 10
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 810 10
Generators 1 81 50% 835 10
Backhoes 1 78 40% 835 10
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 860 10
Bobcats 1 78 40% 860 10
Work Truck 1 75 40% 885 10
9 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 53.3
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Civil put-back
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 785 10
Compactor 1 83 20% 785 10
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 810 10
Work Truck 1 75 40% 810 10
Hammers 1 85 50% 835 10
5 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 49.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Landscaping
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 665 10
Work Truck 1 75 40% 665 10
2 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 43.3
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Daytime
(Generators for Construction & Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Construction 1 65.3 100% 888 15
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 846 15
2 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 28.6
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Nighttime
(Generator for Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 846 15
1 Receptor: R2
Results:
1-hour Leq: 25.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo of existing buildings
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Excavator 1 81 40% 820 5
Breakers 1 90 20% 820 5
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 845 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 845 5
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 870 5
5 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 57.1
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Grading/Excavation and Utilities for New Station Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 820 5
Excavator 1 81 40% 820 5
Generators 1 81 50% 845 5
Grader 1 85 40% 845 5
Breakers 1 90 20% 870 5
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 870 5
Compactor 1 83 20% 895 5
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 895 5
8 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 58.6
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Building New Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 845 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 845 5
Crane 1 81 16% 870 5
Air-compressors 1 78 40% 870 5
Compactor 1 83 20% 895 5
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 895 5
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 920 5
Hammers 1 85 50% 920 5
8 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 55.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo curbs planters at New Station or new entrance/round-about Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 820 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 820 5
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 845 5
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 845 5
Hammers 1 85 50% 870 5
5 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 56.6
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:

Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 820 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 820 5
Compactor 1 83 20% 845 5
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 845 5
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 870 5
Hammers 1 85 50% 870 5
Work Truck 1 75 40% 895 5
7 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 55.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
Civil put-back curb planters at New Station or new
entrance/round-about
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Demo of Existing Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Crane 1 81 16% 370 0
Excavator 1 81 40% 370 0
Breakers 1 90 20% 395 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 395 0
Generators 1 81 50% 420 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 420 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 445 0
Bobcats 1 78 40% 445 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 470 0
9 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 69.5
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Civil put-back
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 370 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 370 0
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 395 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 395 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 420 0
5 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 66.1
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Landscaping
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 320 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 320 0
2 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 59.7
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Daytime
(Generators for Construction & Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Construction 1 65.3 100% 1026 5
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 885 5
2 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 37.8
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Nighttime
(Generator for Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 885 5
1 Receptor: R3
Results:
1-hour Leq: 35.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo of existing buildings
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Excavator 1 81 40% 180 0
Breakers 1 90 20% 180 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 205 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 205 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 230 0
5 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 74.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Grading/Excavation and Utilities for New Station Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 180 0
Excavator 1 81 40% 180 0
Generators 1 81 50% 205 0
Grader 1 85 40% 205 0
Breakers 1 90 20% 230 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 230 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 255 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 255 0
8 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 75.6
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Building New Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 210 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 210 0
Crane 1 81 16% 235 0
Air-compressors 1 78 40% 235 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 260 0
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 260 0
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 285 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 285 0
8 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 71.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo curbs planters at New Station or new entrance/round-about Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 180 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 180 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 205 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 205 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 230 0
5 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 73.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:

Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 180 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 180 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 205 0
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 205 0
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 230 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 230 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 255 0
7 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 73.1
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
Civil put-back curb planters at New Station or new
entrance/round-about
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Demo of Existing Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Crane 1 81 16% 265 0
Excavator 1 81 40% 265 0
Breakers 1 90 20% 290 0
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 290 0
Generators 1 81 50% 315 0
Backhoes 1 78 40% 315 0
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 340 0
Bobcats 1 78 40% 340 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 365 0
9 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 72.2
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Civil put-back
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 265 0
Compactor 1 83 20% 265 0
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 290 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 290 0
Hammers 1 85 50% 315 0
5 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 68.7
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Landscaping
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 220 0
Work Truck 1 75 40% 220 0
2 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 62.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Daytime
(Generators for Construction & Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Construction 1 65.3 100% 477 0
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 327 0
2 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 50.7
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Nighttime
(Generator for Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 327 0
1 Receptor: R4
Results:
1-hour Leq: 49.0
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo of existing buildings
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Excavator 1 81 40% 630 5
Breakers 1 90 20% 630 5
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 655 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 655 5
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 680 5
5 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 59.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Grading/Excavation and Utilities for New Station Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 515 5
Excavator 1 81 40% 515 5
Generators 1 81 50% 540 5
Grader 1 85 40% 540 5
Breakers 1 90 20% 565 5
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 565 5
Compactor 1 83 20% 590 5
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 590 5
8 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 62.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Building New Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 585 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 585 5
Crane 1 81 16% 610 5
Air-compressors 1 78 40% 610 5
Compactor 1 83 20% 635 5
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 635 5
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 660 5
Hammers 1 85 50% 660 5
8 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 58.9
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Demo curbs planters at New Station or new entrance/round-about Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 515 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 515 5
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 540 5
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 540 5
Hammers 1 85 50% 565 5
5 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 60.5
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:

Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generators 1 81 50% 515 5
Backhoes 1 78 40% 515 5
Compactor 1 83 20% 540 5
Concrete Truck 1 79 40% 540 5
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 565 5
Hammers 1 85 50% 565 5
Work Truck 1 75 40% 590 5
7 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 59.7
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
Civil put-back curb planters at New Station or new
entrance/round-about
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Demo of Existing Station
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Crane 1 81 16% 870 10
Excavator 1 81 40% 870 10
Breakers 1 90 20% 895 10
Jackhammers 1 89 20% 895 10
Generators 1 81 50% 920 10
Backhoes 1 78 40% 920 10
Haul Off Trucks 1 76 40% 945 10
Bobcats 1 78 40% 945 10
Work Truck 1 75 40% 970 10
9 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 52.5
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Civil put-back
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 870 10
Compactor 1 83 20% 870 10
Paving Truck 1 77 50% 895 10
Work Truck 1 75 40% 895 10
Hammers 1 85 50% 920 10
5 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 49.0
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase: Landscaping
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Backhoes 1 78 40% 760 10
Work Truck 1 75 40% 760 10
2 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 42.2
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Daytime
(Generators for Construction & Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Construction 1 65.3 100% 525 5
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 598 5
2 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 42.4
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City - Fuel Station Relocation Project Construction Phase:Temporary Generators - Nighttime
(Generator for Fuel Station Operation)
Equipment
Description
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance to
Receptor, ft
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Generator - Operation 1 65.3 100% 598 5
1 Receptor: R5
Results:
1-hour Leq: 38.8
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: FHWA RCNM, 2006
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project: Costco Culver City Project
Construction Vibration Impacts
Reference Levels at 25 feet are based on FTA, 2006 (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment) Calculations using FTA procedure with n= 1.5(for receptors 25 feet or greater) n= 1.1(for receptors less than 25 feet, per Caltrans procedure) Table 1: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels (PPV) - Building Damage Distance Level Distance Level Distance Level Distance Level Large Bulldozer 0.089 640 0.001 100 0.011 300 0.002 75 0.017 Loaded Trucks 0.076 640 0.001 100 0.010 300 0.002 75 0.015 Jackhammer 0.035 640 0.000 100 0.0044 300 0.001 75 0.007 Small bulldozer 0.003 640 0.000 100 0.000 300 0.0001 75 0.001 Table 2a: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels (VdB) - Human Annoyance Distance Level Distance Level Distance Level Distance Level Large Bulldozer 87 75 72.7 665 44.3 320 53.8 180 61.3
Loaded Trucks 86 75 71.7 665 43.3 320 52.8 180 60.3
Jackhammer 79 75 64.7 665 36.3 320 45.8 180 53.3
Small bulldozer 58 75 43.7 665 15.3 320 24.8 180 32.3
Table 2b: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels (VdB) - Human Annoyance Distance Level Distance Level Distance Level Distance Level Large Bulldozer 87 515 48
Loaded Trucks 86 515 47
Jackhammer 79 515 40
Small bulldozer 58 515 19
Equipment
Reference
Vibration
Levels at 25
ft., VdB
Estimated Vibration Levels at Off-Site Receptors (at note distance in feet), VdB R5
Equipment
Reference
Vibration
Levels at 25
ft., VdB
Estimated Vibration Levels at Off-Site Receptors (at note distance in feet), VdB R1 R2 R3 R4

ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Equipment
Reference
Vibration
Levels at 25
ft., PPV
Estimated Vibration Levels at nearest off-site building structures, distance in feet, PPV Single-story Residential
Buildings to the North
Single-Story Commercial
Building to the South
Residential Building to the
East
Single-story Residential
Buildings to the West
Date Printed: 9/12/2021
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Appendix C
Operation Noise Calculations Worksheets

A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Project Composite Noise Calculations (CNEL)
Project: Costo Fuel Station Relocation Project
Receptor Ambient
Product
Dispenser &
Vehicle
Queueing
Product
Delivery Truck
Temporary
Generator
Project
Composite
Ambient +
Project Increase
R1 56.8 46.9 53.4 48.8 55.4 59.2 2.4
R2 56.0 16.8 35.5 32.6 37.4 56.1 0.1
R3 55.8 30.8 42.2 42.0 45.3 56.2 0.4
R4 72.8 44.7 57.7 55.7 60.0 73.0 0.2
R5 54.8 34.0 43.4 45.4 47.7 55.6 0.8
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Product Dispenser and Vehicle Queueing Noise Calculations Project: Costo Fuel Station Relocation Project
Ld (7am to
7pm)
Le (7pm to
10pm)
Ln (10pm to
7am)
Receptor Leq CNEL 12 3 3
R1 43.6 46.9 43.6 43.6 38.8
R2 13.5 16.8 13.5 13.5 8.7
R3 27.5 30.8 27.5 27.5 22.7
R4 41.4 44.7 41.4 41.4 36.6
R5 30.7 34.0 30.7 30.7 25.9
Receptor Ambient CNEL
Ambient +
Project
(CNEL)
Increase
(CNEL) ambient (Leq)
Ambient +
Project (Leq) Increase (Leq)
R1 56.8 57.2 0.4 45.3 47.5 2.2
R2 56.0 56.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 0.0
R3 55.8 55.8 0.0 46.9 46.9 0.0
R4 72.8 72.8 0.0 62.6 62.6 0.0
R5 54.8 54.8 0.0 45.7 45.8 0.1
Hours of Operations
Estimated Noise Levels, Leq
from SOUNDPLAN
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Product Delivery Truck Noise Calculations
Project: Costo Fuel Station Relocation Project
Ld (7am to
7pm)
Le (7pm to
10pm)
Ln (10pm to
7am)
Receptor Leq CNEL 0 0 8
R1 48.2 53.4 0.0 0.0 47.7
R2 30.3 35.5 0.0 0.0 29.8
R3 37.0 42.2 0.0 0.0 36.5
R4 52.5 57.7 0.0 0.0 52.0
R5 38.2 43.4 0.0 0.0 37.7
Receptor Ambient CNEL
Ambient +
Project
(CNEL)
Increase
(CNEL) ambient (Leq)
Ambient +
Project (Leq) Increase (Leq)
R1 56.8 58.4 1.6 45.3 50.0 4.7
R2 56.0 56.0 0.0 40.0 40.4 0.4
R3 55.8 56.0 0.2 46.9 47.3 0.4
R4 72.8 72.9 0.1 62.6 63.0 0.4
R5 54.8 55.1 0.3 45.7 46.4 0.7
Hours of Operations
Estimated Noise Levels, Leq
from SOUNDPLAN
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Product Delivery Trucks Noise Calculations - SEL Analysis Project: Costo Fuel Station Relocation Project
R1 48.2 83.8 94
R2 30.3 65.9 94
R3 37.0 72.6 94
R4 52.5 88.1 94
Receptor
Estimated Noise Levels,
Hourly Leq (One Truck
Passby) from

SOUNDPLAN
Calculated SEL (One
Truck Passby), dBA
SEL Limit for Sleep
Disturbance, dBA
3/6/2024
A E S
Acoustical Engineering Ser vices
Temporary Generator Noise Calculations
Project: Costo Fuel Station Relocation Project
Ld (7am to
7pm)
Le (7pm to
10pm)
Ln (10pm to
7am)
Receptor Leq CNEL 12 3 9
R1 42.2 48.8 42.2 42.2 42.2
R2 25.9 32.6 25.9 25.9 25.9
R3 35.4 42.0 35.4 35.4 35.4
R4 49.0 55.7 49.0 49.0 49.0
R5 38.8 45.4 38.8 38.8 38.8
Receptor Ambient CNEL
Ambient +
Project
(CNEL)
Increase
(CNEL) ambient (Leq)
Ambient +
Project (Leq) Increase (Leq)
R1 56.8 57.4 0.6 45.3 47.0 1.7
R2 56.0 56.0 0.0 40.0 40.2 0.2
R3 55.8 56.0 0.2 46.9 47.2 0.3
R4 72.8 72.9 0.1 62.6 62.8 0.2
R5 54.8 55.3 0.5 45.7 46.5 0.8
Hours of Operations
Estimated Noise Levels, Leq
from Const. Spreadsheet
3/6/2024
Costco Culver City Fuel Relocation
Source Levels in dB(A) - Future Delivery 3
Name Source type Lw
dB(A)
Future Delivery (Hookup Hose) Point 89.3
SoundPLAN 8.2
AES 22801 Crespi St Woodland Hills, CA 91364 USA 1
Costco Culver City Fuel Relocation
Emission calculation road - Future Delivery
Road MSVges
Day
Veh/h
MSVges
Evening
Veh/h
MSVges
Night
Veh/h
Gradient
%
Future Delivery - Entering Site 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
Future Delivery - Leaving the Site 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
SoundPLAN 8.2
AES 22801 Crespi St Woodland Hills, CA 91364 USA 1
Costco Culver City Fuel Relocation
Contribution level - Future Delivery 9
Source Source type Leq,d
dB(A)
Receiver R1 Leq,d 48.2 dB(A)
Future Delivery - Entering Site Road 44.1
Future Delivery - Leaving the Site Road 44.4
Future Delivery (Hookup Hose) Point 41.3
Receiver R2 Leq,d 30.3 dB(A)
Future Delivery - Entering Site Road 28.3
Future Delivery - Leaving the Site Road 25.8
Future Delivery (Hookup Hose) Point 12.2
Receiver R3 Leq,d 37.0 dB(A)
Future Delivery - Entering Site Road 35.2
Future Delivery - Leaving the Site Road 31.0
Future Delivery (Hookup Hose) Point 26.6
Receiver R4 Leq,d 52.5 dB(A)
Future Delivery - Entering Site Road 51.6
Future Delivery - Leaving the Site Road 45.1
Future Delivery (Hookup Hose) Point 35.5
Receiver R5 Leq,d 38.2 dB(A)
Future Delivery - Entering Site Road 33.6
Future Delivery - Leaving the Site Road 34.8
Future Delivery (Hookup Hose) Point 30.9
SoundPLAN 8.2
AES 22801 Crespi St Woodland Hills, CA 91364 USA
Page
1 Costco Culver City Fuel Relocation
Source Levels in dB(A) - Future Fuel Station 3
Name Source type Lw
dB(A)
Car Queueing Future Station Area 83.5
Future Product Dispenser 1 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 2 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 3 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 4 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 5 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 6 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 7 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 8 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 9 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 10 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 11 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 12 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 13 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 14 Point 75.9
Future Product Dispenser 15 Point 75.9
SoundPLAN 8.2
AES 22801 Crespi St Woodland Hills, CA 91364 USA 1
Costco Culver City Fuel Relocation
Contribution level - Future Fuel Station 9
Source Source type Leq,d
dB(A)
Receiver R1 Leq,d 43.6 dB(A)
Car Queueing Future Station Area 41.3
Future Product Dispenser 1 Point 30.2
Future Product Dispenser 2 Point 27.6
Future Product Dispenser 3 Point 25.7
Future Product Dispenser 4 Point 24.8
Future Product Dispenser 5 Point 24.3
Future Product Dispenser 6 Point 31.6
Future Product Dispenser 7 Point 28.9
Future Product Dispenser 8 Point 26.4
Future Product Dispenser 9 Point 24.4
Future Product Dispenser 10 Point 23.9
Future Product Dispenser 11 Point 30.4
Future Product Dispenser 12 Point 29.8
Future Product Dispenser 13 Point 29.3
Future Product Dispenser 14 Point 25.8
Future Product Dispenser 15 Point 24.5
Receiver R2 Leq,d 13.5 dB(A)
Car Queueing Future Station Area 8.5
Future Product Dispenser 1 Point 0.2
Future Product Dispenser 2 Point 0.2
Future Product Dispenser 3 Point 0.3
Future Product Dispenser 4 Point 0.3
Future Product Dispenser 5 Point 0.4
Future Product Dispenser 6 Point 0.0
Future Product Dispenser 7 Point 0.1
Future Product Dispenser 8 Point 0.1
Future Product Dispenser 9 Point 0.2
Future Product Dispenser 10 Point 0.2
Future Product Dispenser 11 Point -0.2
Future Product Dispenser 12 Point -0.1
Future Product Dispenser 13 Point -0.1
Future Product Dispenser 14 Point 0.0
Future Product Dispenser 15 Point 0.1
Receiver R3 Leq,d 27.5 dB(A)
Car Queueing Future Station Area 21.3
Future Product Dispenser 1 Point 14.0
Future Product Dispenser 2 Point 14.3
Future Product Dispenser 3 Point 14.5
Future Product Dispenser 4 Point 14.8
SoundPLAN 8.2
AES 22801 Crespi St Woodland Hills, CA 91364 USA
Page
1 Costco Culver City Fuel Relocation
Contribution level - Future Fuel Station 9
Source Source type Leq,d
dB(A)
Future Product Dispenser 5 Point 15.1
Future Product Dispenser 6 Point 13.9
Future Product Dispenser 7 Point 14.2
Future Product Dispenser 8 Point 14.5
Future Product Dispenser 9 Point 14.7
Future Product Dispenser 10 Point 15.0
Future Product Dispenser 11 Point 13.8
Future Product Dispenser 12 Point 14.1
Future Product Dispenser 13 Point 14.4
Future Product Dispenser 14 Point 14.6
Future Product Dispenser 15 Point 14.9
Receiver R4 Leq,d 41.4 dB(A)
Car Queueing Future Station Area 34.3
Future Product Dispenser 1 Point 27.3
Future Product Dispenser 2 Point 27.8
Future Product Dispenser 3 Point 28.2
Future Product Dispenser 4 Point 28.7
Future Product Dispenser 5 Point 29.2
Future Product Dispenser 6 Point 27.6
Future Product Dispenser 7 Point 28.1
Future Product Dispenser 8 Point 28.7
Future Product Dispenser 9 Point 29.2
Future Product Dispenser 10 Point 29.7
Future Product Dispenser 11 Point 27.9
Future Product Dispenser 12 Point 28.5
Future Product Dispenser 13 Point 29.0
Future Product Dispenser 14 Point 29.6
Future Product Dispenser 15 Point 30.4
Receiver R5 Leq,d 30.7 dB(A)
Car Queueing Future Station Area 25.5
Future Product Dispenser 1 Point 18.0
Future Product Dispenser 2 Point 17.9
Future Product Dispenser 3 Point 17.9
Future Product Dispenser 4 Point 17.8
Future Product Dispenser 5 Point 17.7
Future Product Dispenser 6 Point 17.5
Future Product Dispenser 7 Point 17.5
Future Product Dispenser 8 Point 17.4
Future Product Dispenser 9 Point 17.4
Future Product Dispenser 10 Point 17.3
SoundPLAN 8.2
AES 22801 Crespi St Woodland Hills, CA 91364 USA
Page
2 Costco Culver City Fuel Relocation
Contribution level - Future Fuel Station 9
Source Source type Leq,d
dB(A)
Future Product Dispenser 11 Point 17.1
Future Product Dispenser 12 Point 17.0
Future Product Dispenser 13 Point 17.0
Future Product Dispenser 14 Point 16.9
Future Product Dispenser 15 Point 16.9
SoundPLAN 8.2
AES 22801 Crespi St Woodland Hills, CA 91364 USA
Page
3 Attachment 3

Costco Culver City Project Air Quality/Health Risk
Technical Report prepared by Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. , dated May 2024 (Attached)

Prepared for
Costco Wholesale Corporation
Prepared by
Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc.

Irvine, California
Project Number
1690022890
Date
May 2024

COSTCO CULVER CITY PROJECT

AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK

TECHNICAL REPORT
COSTCO

CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
i

Contents Ramboll

CONTENTS
Page

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Existing Conditions 1

1.2 Project Description 1

2. Environmental and Regulatory Background 2

2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants 2

2.1.1 Ozone 2

2.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 2

2.1.3 Carbon Monoxide 2

2.1.4 Sulfur Dioxide 3

2.1.5 Particulate Matter 3

2.1.6 Lead 3

2.1.7 Sulfates 4

2.1.8 Vinyl Chloride 4

2.1.9 Hydrogen Sulfide 4

2.1.10 Visibility-Reducing Particles 4

2.2 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants 4

2.2.1 Toxic Air Contaminants 4

2.2.2 Diesel Particulate Matter 5

2.3 Regulatory Setting 5

2.3.1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants 5

2.3.2 Federal Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicles Fuel Efficiency Standards 6

2.3.3 Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants Program 8

2.3.4 California’s Air Toxics Program 8

2.3.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 41700 9

2.3.6 California’s Pavley Standards 9

2.3.7 California’s Advanced Clean Cars 9

2.3.8 California’s Advanced Clean Trucks 10

2.3.9 California’s Diesel Emissions Control Measures 10

2.3.9.1 ATCM: Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling 10

2.3.9.2 ATCM: Stationary Compression Ignition Engines 11

2.3.9.3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets 11

2.3.9.4 Truck and Bus Regulation 11

2.3.10 Local Regulations and Guidance 12

2.3.10.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District 12

2.3.10.2 Culver City 15

2.4 Environmental Setting 15

2.4.1 Local Air Quality Monitoring Data 15

3. Significance Thresholds 17

3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 17

3.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds 17

3.3 Project Approach to Significance 18

4. Air Quality Emissions Inventory 19

4.1 Resources 19
Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
ii

Contents Ramboll

4.1.1 California Emission Estimator Model® 19

4.1.2 Gasoline Dispensing Facility Data 20

4.2 Construction Emissions 20

4.2.1 Emissions from Construction Equipment 21

4.2.2 Emissions from On-Road Construction Trips 21

4.2.3 Fugitive Dust 21

4.2.4 Architectural Coating 22

4.2.5 Paving 22

4.2.6 Stationary Back-up Generator 22

4.2.7 Construction Project Design Feature 22

4.2.8 Total Construction Emissions 22

4.3 Operational Emissions 22

4.3.1 Area Sources 22

4.3.2 Energy Sources 23

4.3.3 Mobile Sources 23

4.3.3.1 Calculating Mobile Source Emissions 24

4.3.3.2 Mobile Source Emissions 25

4.3.4 Operational Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 25

4.3.5 Stationary Back-Up Generator 25

4.3.6 Total Operational Emissions 25

5. Health Risk Assessment 26

5.1 Estimated Air Concentrations 26

5.1.1 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions 26

5.1.2 Air Dispersion Modeling Methodology 27

5.1.2.1 AERMOD 27

5.1.2.2 Source Characterization 28

5.1.2.3 Meteorology 29

5.1.2.4 Land Use 29

5.1.2.5 Emission Rates 29

5.1.2.6 Receptors 30

5.2 Risk Characterization Methods 31

5.3 Exposure Assessment 31

5.3.1 Age Sensitivity Factors 32

5.3.2 Toxicity Assessment 32

5.3.3 Risk Characterization 33

5.3.3.1 Estimation of Cancer Risks 33

5.3.3.2 Estimation of Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Indices 33

5.3.3.3 Estimation of Cancer Burden 34

5.4 Health Risk Results 34

6. CO Hotspots 35

7. Project Inventory in Context 37

7.1 Threshold 1 37

7.2 Threshold 2 37

7.3 Threshold 3 38

7.3.1 Localized Significance Thresholds 38

7.3.2 Health Risk Thresholds 38
Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
iii

Contents Ramboll

7.3.3 Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts 38

7.4 Threshold 4 38

8. Cumulative Analysis 39

8.1 AQMP Consistency 39

8.2 Construction Impacts 39

8.3 Operational Impacts 40

8.4 Odor Impacts 40
TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of NAAQS and CAAQS
Table 2-2 NAAQS and CAAQS Attainment Status
Table 2-3 Air Quality Data for Nearest SCAQMD Monitoring Station Table 3-1 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Table 4-1 Construction Schedule
Table 4-2 Construction Material Movement
Table 4-3 Construction Demolition Assumptions
Table 4-4 Construction Paving Emissions
Table 4-5 Stationary Back-up Generator Emissions for Project Construction Table 4-6 Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Construction Table 4-7 Gasoline Dispensing Facility Operational VOC Emissions Table 4-8 Stationary Back-up Generator Emissions for Project Operation Table 4-9 Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Operation Table 5-1 Mobile Source Air Toxics Speciation Profiles
Table 5-2 Health Risk Assessment Options Used in HARP2 ADMRT Tool Table 5-3 Health Risk Assessment Results – Project Operation Table 5-4 Health Risk Assessment Results – Project Construction Table 5-5 Combined Health Risk Assessment Results
Table 5-6 Population Exposure to Project Emissions: Cancer Burden Calculations Table 7-1 Comparison of On-site Project Emission s to SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds

FIGURES
Figure 1 Modeled Source Locations – Project Operation
Figure 2 Meteorological Station Location
Figure 3 Modeled Receptor Locations
Figure 4 Modeled Source Locations – Project Construction

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
iv

Contents Ramboll

CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDICES
Appendix A – CalEEMod® Outputs
Appendix B – Mobile Source Emission Calculations (Project) Appendix C – Mobile Source Emission Calculations (Existing) Appendix D – Health Risk Assessment Emission Calculations Appendix E – AERMOD Inputs
Appendix F – HARP2 Outputs and Health Risk Calculations

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
v

Contents Ramboll

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ACC Advanced Clean Cars
ADMRT Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool
AEI annual emissions inventory
AERMOD AMS/EPA Regulatory Model
AP-42 United States Environmental Protection Ag ency’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
APCDs Air Pollution Control Districts
AQ air quality
AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plan
AQMDs Air Quality Management Districts
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
AvgHP Maximum rated average horsepower
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod
® California Emission Estimator Model ®
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAP criteria air pollutant
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CF Conversion Factor
CO carbon monoxide
CO
2 carbon dioxide
CPF cancer potency factor
cREL chronic reference exposure level
CSA container storage area
CUP conditional use permit
CY cubic yard
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
ED Exposure Duration
EF emission factor
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMission FACtors model
FAH Fraction of time at Home (unitless)
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
g/m
3 gram per cubic meter
GDF gasoline dispensing facility
GHG greenhouse gas
HARP2 Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HI hazard index
HIA acute hazard index
HIC chronic hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
vi

Contents Ramboll

Acronym Definition
HQi Chronic hazard quotient for chemical i
HQs hazard quotients
HRA Health risk assessment
IFinh Intake Factor for Inhalation (m
3/kg-day)
KSMO Santa Monica Airport
LA Los Angeles
LLC Limited Liability Company
LOS level of service
LST localized significance threshold
m
3/L cubic meter per liter
MCY million cubic yards
MM mitigation measure
MPDs multi-product dispensers
MSW municipal solid waste
MT metric tonnes
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAPs National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO Nitric oxide
NO
2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
O3 ozone
OFFROAD Off-road Emissions Inventory Program model
Pb Lead
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm parts per million by volume
Ramboll Ramboll US Consulting, Inc.

RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOx sulfur oxide
TACs Toxic Air Contaminant
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
ZEV zero emission vehicle
Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
1 Introduction Ramboll

1. INTRODUCTION
Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll) was retained to prepare an Air Quality (AQ) Technical Report for the proposed Costco Culver City Project (Project).

This technical report analyzes the Project’s impacts on air quality from construction and operations, including an evaluation of health risk impacts. In particular, this report describes the existing setting of the Project site, describes the relevant regulatory settings, discusses the methodology used to evaluate air quality related to the Project, and evaluates potential impacts related to air quality that would be affected as a result of implementation of the Project.

1.1 Existing Conditions
The existing site is currently developed and designated by the General Plan as Commercial – Regional Center and zoning as Commercial Regional Retail. The location of the site is in Culver City, California. The Costco Warehouse is located at 13463 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, CA within a retail center. The existing Costco Gasoline facility will be re-located to the two (2) developed parcels in the southwest corner of the shopping center currently occupied by commercial buildings.

1.2 Project Description
The project includes a new, approximately 13,000-square-foot fuel canopy, the installation of 15 new multi-product dispensers (MPDs), three (3) 40,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs), one (1) 1,500-gallon fuel additive UST, a new controller enclosure, a vapor processing unit, and associated site improvements, such as parking and landscaping.

In addition, temporary noise barriers will be provided along the project’s western property line, northern property line, and the existing fueling facility’s eastern property line; the power construction equipment will contain noise shielding and muffling devices, consistent with manufacturers’ standards; and a portion of the project construction activities will not occur concurrently with the City’s Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project, as further described in the Noise Study, prepared by Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., dated February 2023.

The existing fueling facility will be razed and removed from the site and the existing currently unoccupied commercial uses (consisting of retail buildings and a coffee shop with a total area of 6,890 square feet, and a Starbucks Coffee with an area of 1,590 square feet) will be demolished.
1 The existing underground storage tanks and piping will be decommissioned and removed by state certified contractors. Following demolition, the existing fueling facility site will be improved with additional parking for the Costco Warehouse. The intent of the relocation is to install a new state of the art facility to provide a more efficient fuel purchasing experience for Costco members.

1 Under applicable case law (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4th 94), these uses are considered to be part of the CEQA baseline even though the buildings are currently unoccupied. Therefore, consistent with CEQA, this analysis includes a trip credit for the removal of these uses from the Project site.

Moreover, as the buildings were occupied when the historic traffic counts at local roadways were taken, not taking such a credit would overstate the Project’s operational emissions.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
2 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants (CAPs) are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive people from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include ozone (O 3), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. These pollutants are discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.1.1 Ozone
O3 is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sometimes referred to as reactive organic gases, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O3 is not a primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by complex interactions of two pollutants directly emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of VOCs and NOX, the precursors of O3, are automobile exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O3 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes.

2.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide
Most NO2, like O3, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an atmospheric chemical reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as NOX and are major contributors to O3 formation. The primary sources of NO, the precursor to NO2, include automobile exhaust and industrial sources. High concentrations of NO2 can cause breathing difficulties and result in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere, causing reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO
2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis, and some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppm).

2.1.3 Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as the Project location, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
3 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions, where a layer of warm air sits atop cool air, are more frequent and can trap pollutants close to the ground. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions.

2.1.4 Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. The main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of SO2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits placed on the sulfur content of fuels. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel.

2.1.5 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM

2.5 and PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SOX), NOX, and VOCs. Inhalable or coarse particulate matter, or PM10, is about one- seventh the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions.

PM

2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport absorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PM 10 tends to collect in the upper
portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility.

2.1.6 Lead
Lead (Pb) in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline, the manufacturing of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
4 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

Between 1978 and 1987, the phase-out of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead-emission sources of greater concern.

Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth.

2.1.7 Sulfates
Sulfates are the fully oxidized form of sulfur, which typically occur in combination with metals or hydrogen ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere.

Sulfates can result in respiratory impairment, as well as reduced visibility.

2.1.8 Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor, which has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air can cause nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long-term exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer.

2.1.9 Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic odor of rotten eggs. Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties at higher concentrations.

2.1.10 Visibility-Reducing Particles
Visibility-reducing particles are any particles in the air that obstruct the range of visibility.

Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the view shed of natural scenery, reduced airport safety, and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility-reducing particles are the same as for PM

2.5 described above.

2.2 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants

2.2.1 Toxic Air Contaminants
A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, waste processing facilities and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles; and area sources such as landfills.

Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic effects. Non-carcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced either on short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
5 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

2.2.2 Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust.

Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (DPM; 17 CCR 93000) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on-road diesel engines of trucks, buses, and cars, and off-road diesel engines including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy-duty construction equipment, among others. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM. 1 To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000.

2.3 Regulatory Setting

2.3.1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the adoption of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are periodically updated, to protect the public health and welfare from the effects of air pollution. Current federal standards are set for SO2, CO, NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and Lead (Pb).2
The State of California also has established additional standards, known as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. The current NAAQS and CAAQS are shown in Table 2-1.

Specific geographic areas are classified as either "attainment" or "non-attainment" areas for each pollutant based upon the comparison of measured data with the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Those areas designated as “non-attainment” for purposes of NAAQS compliance are required to prepare regional air quality plans, which set forth a strategy for bringing an area into compliance with the standards. These regional air quality plans developed to meet federal requirements are included in an overall program referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). If the SIP is deemed acceptable, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will delegate responsibility for implementation pursuant to the SIP to the State and/or its air districts therein.

Whenever the USEPA revises or establishes a new NAAQS, the State and the USEPA have specific obligations to ensure that the NAAQS is met.
3 These are listed below:
• The USEPA must designate areas as meeting (attainment areas) or not meeting (non-attainment areas) the NAAQS within two years after its promulgation. • States must submit “infrastructure SIPs” to show that they have the basic air quality management program components in place to implement the NAAQS within three years after its promulgation.

1 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particul ate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.

Accessed: December 2022.
2 NAAQS. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed: December 2022. 3 USEPA. NAAQS Implementati on Process. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs- implementation-process. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
6 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

• States must submit non-attainment area SIPs that outline the strategies and emission control measures that will improve air quality and make the area meet the NAAQS within 18 to 36 months after designation.

The steps involved in the SIP process are described below. 4 • SIPs must be developed with public input and be formally adopted by the State and submitted to the USEPA by the Governor’s designee (CARB in California). • The USEPA reviews each SIP and proposes to approve or disapprove all or part it. The public is then provided with an opportunity to comment on the USEPA's proposed action.

The USEPA considers public input before taking final action on a State's plan. • If the USEPA approves all or part of a SIP, those control measures are enforceable in federal court. In the event a State fails to submit an approvable SIP or if the USEPA disapproves a SIP, the USEPA is required to develop a Federal Implementation Plan.

Table 2-2 summarizes the attainment status of Los Angeles County for the pollutants regulated by the NAAQS and CAAQS.
5 As seen in Table 2-2, Los Angeles County is currently in attainment (including where unclassified or maintenance) for: the federal 24-hour PM10 standard, the federal and State CO standards, the federal and State NO2 standards, the federal and State SO2 standards, and the State hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particles standards. However, as also shown in Table 2-2, Los Angeles County is currently designated as nonattainment for the federal and State O3 standards, the State PM10 standards, the federal and State PM2.5 standards, and the federal lead standards.6, 7, 8

2.3.2 Federal Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicles Fuel Efficiency Standards In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model year 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards are projected to achieve 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking.

4 USEPA. State Implementation Plan Development Process. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air- pollutants/naaqs-implementation-process. Accessed: December 2022. 5 USEPA. Non-attainment Area s for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/green- book. Accessed: December 2022.
6 USEPA. Non-attainment Area s for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/green- book. Accessed: December 2022.
7 California standard attainment status based on CARB website. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed: December 2022. 8 SCAQMD. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs- feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
7 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the USEPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.

In August 2016, the USEPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types of sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons (MT) and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. 9 In August 2017, the USEPA asked for additional information and data relevant to assessing whether the GHG emissions standards for model years 2022-2025 remain appropriate. In early 2018, the USEPA Administrator announced that the midterm evaluation for the GHG emissions standards for cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2022-2025 was completed and stated his determination that the current standards should be revised in light of recent data. Subsequently, in April 2018, the USEPA and NHTSA proposed to amend certain existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, covering model years 2022-2025. Compared to maintaining the post-2020 standards now in place, the pending proposal would increase U.S. fuel consumption.
10 California and other states have announced their intent to challenge federal actions that would delay or eliminate GHG reductions. In April 2020, NHTSA and EPA amended the CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new less stringent standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026.

On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and NHTSA published the SAFE Rule (Part One).11 The SAFE Rule (Part One) went into effect in November 2019, and revoked California’s authority to set its own GHGs standards and set zero emission vehicle mandates in California. The SAFE Rule (Part One) freezes new zero emission vehicles (ZEV) sales at model year 2020 levels for year 2021 and beyond, and will likely result in a lower number of future ZEVs and a corresponding greater number of future gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles. In response to the USEPA’s adoption of the SAFE Rule (Part One), CARB has issued guidance

9 USEPA and NHTSA. 2016. Greenhouse Ga s Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016- 21203.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.
10 NHTSA. 2018. Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 72, Rules & Regulations, Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles. April 13. Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/13/2018-07364/mid-term-evaluation-of-greenhouse-gas- emissions-standards-for-model-year-2022-2025-light-duty. Accessed: December 2022. 11 USEPA and NHTSA. 2019. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program. September 27. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2019-09-27/pdf/2019-20672.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
8 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

regarding the adjustment of vehicle emissions factors to account for the rule’s implications on criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.12,13 The SAFE Rule is subject to ongoing litigation and on February 8, 2021 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Biden Administration’s motion to stay litigation over Part 1 of the SAFE Rule. On April 22 and April 28, 2021, respectively, NHTSA and USEPA formally announced their intent to reconsider the Safe Rule (Part One). 14 In August 2021, EPA
proposed to revise existing national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for Model Years 2023- 2026 to make the standards more stringent. The NHTSA finalized the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Pre-emption rulemaking to withdraw its portions of the SAFE I Rule on December 21, 2021. 15 On August 5, 2021, EPA announced plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other harmful air pollutants from heavy-duty trucks through a series of rulemakings over the next three years. The first rulemaking, to be finalized in 2022, will apply to heavy-duty vehicles starting in model year 2027, and will set new standards for criteria pollutants for the entire sector as well as targeted updates to the current GHG emissions standards. 16 2.3.3 Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants Program
The 1977 CAA Amendments required the USEPA to identify National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) to protect the public health and welfare. Hazardous air pollutants include certain VOCs, pesticides, herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans and other mammals.

Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, which expanded the control program for hazardous air pollutants, 189 substances and chemical families were identified as hazardous air pollutants.

2.3.4 California’s Air Toxics Program
The state Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 under Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner). The California TAC list identifies more than 700 pollutants, of which carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with AB 2728, the state list includes the (federal) hazardous air pollutants.

The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources; however, AB 2588 does not reduce the

12 CARB. 2019. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One. November 20.

Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.pdf. Accessed:

December 2022.
13 CARB. 2020. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. June 26. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020-final.pdf. Accessed:

December 2022.
14 USEPA. 2021. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 80, California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Car Program; Reconsideration of a previous Withdrawal of a Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Public Comment. April 28. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- vehicles-and-engines/notice-reconsideration-previous-withdrawal-waiver. Accessed: December 2022. 15 NHTSA. Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy. Accessed:

February 2022.
16 USEPA. 2021. Clean Trucks Plan. https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/clean- trucks-plan. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
9 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

quantity of air toxics emissions. Instead, under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. “High-priority” facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled vehicles and engines. The plan was anticipated to result in an 85% decrease in statewide diesel health risk in 2020 compared with the diesel risk in 2000. Additional regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel, including the On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (In-Use) Regulation, the On-Road Heavy Duty (New) Vehicle Program, the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, and the New Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines and Equipment program. All of these regulations and programs have timetables by which manufacturers must comply and existing operators must upgrade their diesel-powered equipment. There also are several Airborne Toxic Control Measures that reduce diesel emissions, including In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.) and In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025).

2.3.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
This section of the Health and Safety Code states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This section also applies to sources of objectionable odors.

2.3.6 California’s Pavley Standards
AB 1493 ("the Pavley Standard" or AB 1493) required CARB to adopt regulations by January 1, 2005, to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 through 2016.

CARB’s approach to passenger vehicles (cars and light trucks), under AB 1493, combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. This new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the numbers of plug-in hybrids and zero-emission vehicles in California. These standards will apply to all passenger and light-duty trucks used by customers, employees of and deliveries to the Project. While AB 1493 focuses on the reduction of GHG emissions, it is anticipated that this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants.

2.3.7 California’s Advanced Clean Cars
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program,17 a new emissions-control program for model year 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. While ACC focuses on the reduction of GHG emissions, it is anticipated that this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants. At the time of this writing, CARB has adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulations which “seek to reduce criteria and greenhouse

17 Advanced Clean Cars Program. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/index.php/our-work/programs/advanced- clean-cars-program. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
10 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

gas emissions from new light- and medium-duty vehicles beyond the 2025 model year and increase the number of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) for sale”.18

2.3.8 California’s Advanced Clean Trucks
In June 2020, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which has requirements for manufacturer ZEV sales and a one-time reporting requirement for large entities and fleets.19 The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation is part of a holistic approach to accelerate a large-scale transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers, and others are required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, are required to report about their existing fleet operations.

This information helps to identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

2.3.9 California’s Diesel Emissions Control Measures
CARB has adopted a number of Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) to control diesel particulate emissions and emissions from in-use on- and off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. With the assistance of the Advisory Committee and its subcommittees, CARB developed and approved the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles
20 and the Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines.21 Various control measures adopted by CARB to reduce diesel emissions are summarized below.

2.3.9.1 ATCM: Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling This ATCM applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed for operation on highways. The measure limits idling of trucks to a maximum of 5 minutes, except when the vehicle is queuing.
22 While this ATCM focuses on the reduction of diesel particulate emissions as a toxic, this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants.

18 Advanced Clean Cars II Program. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/advanced-clean-cars-ii-meetings- workshops. Accessed: December 2022.
19 CARB. 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean- trucks. Accessed: December 2022.
20 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 21 CARB. 2008. California’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan: Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rmg.htm. Accessed:

December 2022.
22 13 CCR 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Available at:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I6DACC2EF0D6441DDA5B788DFEDCD1A22?viewType=FullText&ori ginationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed:

December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
11 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

2.3.9.2 ATCM: Stationary Compression Ignition Engines
This ATCM establishes emission standards and fuel use requirements for new and in-use stationary engines used in prime and emergency back-up applications (non-agricultural) and for new stationary engines used in agricultural applications.23 While this ATCM focuses on the reduction of diesel particulate emissions as a toxic, this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants.

2.3.9.3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets
These regulations reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions from in-use, off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles typically are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulations, among other requirements, impose limits on idling; require all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; restrict the adding of older vehicles into fleets; and require fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) (i.e., exhaust retrofits).

The requirements and compliance dates of the regulations vary by fleet size. Large fleets have compliance deadlines each year from 2014 through 2023, medium fleets each year from 2017 through 2023, and small fleets each year from 2019 through 2028. 24 At the time
of writing, CARB is in the process of developing a regulation amendment. The target of the amendment aligns with the targets set out by the 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, which sets a goal of reducing statewide NOx emissions from the construction and earth moving sector by

7.5 tons/day by 2031.

2.3.9.4 Truck and Bus Regulation
The Truck and Bus Regulation (13 CCR 2025) requires diesel trucks and buses to be upgraded to reduce emissions; newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements; lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced; and, by January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent to reduce PM and NOx emissions.

The regulation applies to nearly all privately- and federally-owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses, and to privately- and publicly-owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks.

23 17 CCR 93115: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Engines. Available at:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I32577B50D60811DE88AEDDE29ED1DC0A?originationContext=Se arch+Result&listSource=Search&viewType=FullText&navigationPath=Search%2fv3%2fsearch%2fresults%2fnavi gation%2fi0ad62d2e00000160511f23fc18257bb0%3fstartIndex%3d1%26Nav%3dREGULATION_PUBLICVIEW% 26contextData%3d(sc.Default)&rank=1&list=REGULATION_PUBLICVIEW&transitionType=SearchItem&contextD ata=(sc.Search)&t_T1=17&t_T2=93115&t_S1=CA+ADC+s. Accessed: December 2022. 24 13 CCR 2449: General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets. Available at:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID1C693E02DDD11E197D9B83B68A61150?originationContext=Se arch+Result&listSource=Search&viewType=FullText&navigationPath=Search%2fv3%2fsearch%2fresults%2fnavi gation%2fi0ad62d2e000001605120fcc918257bd2%3fstartIndex%3d1%26Nav%3dREGULATION_PUBLICVIEW% 26contextData%3d(sc.Default)&rank=1&list=REGULATION_PUBLICVIEW&transitionType=SearchItem&contextD ata=(sc.Search)&t_T1=13&t_T2=2449&t_S1=CA+ADC+s. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
12 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

2.3.10 Local Regulations and Guidance
Air pollution often does not conform to city and/or county jurisdictional boundaries, and the State has been divided into air basins based on geographical and meteorological conditions.

Air pollution within each air basin is regulated by the regional air pollution control districts/air quality management districts, in a manner that is consistent with and in furtherance of standards adopted by the USEPA and CARB. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

2.3.10.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District
While CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) and Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The Project is located within the SCAB and is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the SCAQMD.

The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis-Presley Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies (i.e., Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties, and the non-desert portion of San Bernardino County) into one regional district for the SCAB. In the SCAB, the SCAQMD is the agency responsible for protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and State air quality laws, regulations, and policies.

Included in the SCAQMD’s tasks are the monitoring of air pollution, the preparation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB, and the promulgation of rules and regulations. The AQMP includes strategies and tactics to be used to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS standards in SCAB, whereas the rules and regulations include procedures and requirements to control the emission of pollutants and to prevent adverse impacts.

For the Project area, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and the state-designated transportation planning agency for six counties: Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, Imperial, and Orange Counties.

The SCAQMD and SCAG are jointly responsible for preparing the AQMP for the SCAB. In particular, the 2016 AQMP is based on demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) developed by SCAG for their 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which forms part of SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Thus, consistency with the planning assumptions contained within the RTP/SCS demonstrates consistency with SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP. SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted in April 2016.
25 In May 2020, SCAG released the final 2020-2045 RTP/SCS called Connect SoCal.26 Connect SoCal was adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council on September 3, 2020.

Additionally, with respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the SCAG region, which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters, which form the basis for the land use and transportation

25 SCAG. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. April. Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/f2016rtpscs.pdf?1606005557. Accessed: December 2022. 26 Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
13 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

components of the AQMP. These chapters are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and the consistency analysis that is included in the AQMP.

Below is a list of SCAQMD rules relevant to the Project:

SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance
Prohibits discharges of air contaminants that causes nuisance to the public.

SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust
Regulates fugitive dust emissions from any commercial construction or demolition activity capable of generating fugitive dust emissions, including active operations, open storage piles, and disturbed surface areas, as well as track-out beyond an active operation.

SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings
Requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories.

SCAQMD Rule 1470: Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines
Implements the ATCM for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines for engines greater than 50 horsepower (hp). Sets forth requirements to reduce PM emissions and requires off-road engines to meet standards specified in the Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Standards.

Establishes additional requirements for engines located in close proximity to existing schools.

Air Quality Management Plan Status
The AQMP and SIP processes generally occur concurrently: The SIP is required under the federal CAA to provide the framework for non-attainment areas to come into attainment of the NAAQS, and the AQMP is prepared by the SCAQMD, in part, to satisfy the requirement for a SIP. The AQMP traditionally evaluates all criteria pollutants; portions of the AQMP represent the required SIP elements, which are then transmitted to CARB for review, approval, and transmittal to the USEPA for inclusion in the overall California SIP.

The SCAQMD has been preparing AQMPs (and related SIP elements) since the 1989 AQMP.

The list below presents the AQMPs prepared by the SCAQMD and a short summary of included SIP elements:
• 1989 AQMP - 1-hour ozone SIP elements.
• 1991 AQMP - 1-hour ozone SIP elements (attainment demonstration). • 1994 AQMP - 1-hour ozone SIP elements designed to forestall a potential FIP and PM10 SIP elements describing Best Available Control Measures. • 1997 AQMP - PM10 SIP elements (attainment demonstration) and updated 1-hour ozone SIP elements.
• 1999 AQMP - Revisions to 8-hour ozone SIP elements as part of the 1997 AQMP lawsuit settlement agreement.
• 2003 AQMP - Update of some PM10 and 1-hour ozone SIP elements.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
14 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

• 2007 AQMP - New federal standards requiring 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 SIP elements (including new attainment demonstrations and control measures). • 2012 AQMP - New federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard requiring 24-hour PM2.5 SIP elements (attainment demonstration).
• 2016 AQMP - Update of ozone and PM2.5 SIP elements (including new attainment demonstrations and control measures)
• 2022 AQMP – Includes a variety of new strategies (such as accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies, etc.) to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard As previously mentioned, Table 2-2 shows that Los Angeles County is currently designated as nonattainment for the federal and State O3 standards; the State PM10 standards; the federal and State PM2.5 standards; the State NO2 standards.27,28 In addition, the southern portion of Los Angeles County is designated as nonattainment for the federal lead standard.

The current status of the AQMPs for these non-attainment pollutants are shown below:
 The 2007 AQMP provides attainment demonstrations for the annual PM2.5 standard by April 5, 2015 and of the 8-hour O3 standard by December 31, 2023; SCAQMD and CARB submitted the amendments to the USEPA. In 2009 and 2011, respectively, at the request of the USEPA, CARB provided clarifying revisions to the annual PM

2.5 and 8-hour
O3 SIP amendments. In 2011, the USEPA approved the control strategy, emission reduction commitment, and attainment demonstration of the annual PM2.5 standard by April 5, 2015. In 2012, the USEPA approved the control strategy, emission reduction commitment, and attainment demonstration of the annual 8-hour ozone standard by June 15, 2024.29
 The 2012 AQMP provides attainment demonstrations for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2019 and the 1-hour O3 standard by 2023. 30,31 In addition, it provides supplemental information for the approved 8-hour ozone SIP. On January 25, 2013, CARB approved the 2012 AQMP, which was subsequently submitted to the USEPA. On September 3, 2014, USEPA issued a final rule approving and promulgating the portions of the SIP

27 USEPA. The Green Book Non-Attainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/green- book. Accessed: December 2022.
28 CAAQS attainment status based on CARB website. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.

Accessed: December 2022.
29 CARB. 2013. South Coast Air Basin 2012 PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plans, Resolution No. 13-3.

January 25. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/scabsip/resolution13-3.pdf. Accessed:

December 2022.
30 SCAQMD. 2012. Air Quality Management Plan. Main Document. December. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2012-air-quality- management-plan/final-2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip-submittal-(december-2012)/2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip- submittal-main-document.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.
31 SCAQMD. 2012. Air Quality Management Plan. Appendix VII – 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration.

Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2012- air-quality-management-plan/final-2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip-submittal-(december-2012)/2012-aqmp-carb-epa- sip-submittal-appendix-vii.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
15 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

revision related to the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards.32 In 2015, the SCAQMD prepared a Supplement to the 24-hour PM2.5 SIP to address Subpart 4 provisions and requirements. On February 12, 2018, USEPA issued a final rule approving and promulgating portions of the SIP revision that addressed the requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM

2.5 standard.33
 The 2016 AQMP provides attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour O3 standards; 1997 standard (0.08 parts per million [ppm]) by 2023 and 2008 standard (0.075 ppm) by 2031, the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022, 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2019 and the annual PM

2.5 standard by 2025. The SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017 and submitted the plan to CARB on March 10, 2017. CARB adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 23, 2017 and submitted it to USEPA as a revision to the California SIP on April 27, 2017.

On February 12, 2019, USEPA issued a final rule approving and promulgating portions of SIP revision that addresses the requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM

2.5 standard.34

2.3.10.2 Culver City
The current Culver City General Plan, adopted originally in 1994, has land use, circulation, housing, open space, noise, conservation, seismic safety, public safety, and recreation elements. One goal of the plan is for clean air that provides a healthy environment.

The City is currently undergoing a General Plan Update, which is expected to be reviewed and adopted in 2024.

2.4 Environmental Setting

2.4.1 Local Air Quality Monitoring Data
The Project is located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. The Northwest Coastal LA County air monitoring station is the station closest to the Project. The Northwest Coastal LA County monitoring station monitors carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3).

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) data was obtained from the next nearest station, the Southwest Coastal LA County monitoring station. Particulate matter (PM) of aerodynamic diameter less than

2.5 microns (PM2.5) and 10 microns (PM10) data were obtained from the Central LA monitoring station.

Table 2-3 lists the five recent years of published data at the monitoring stations for CO, NO2, O3, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10, which shows:
• O3 levels have exceeded the State 1-hour in two of the past five years, and the 8-hour standards and the federal standard in all of the past five years;

32 USEPA. 2014. Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 170, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone. Available at:¬ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2014-09-03/pdf/2014-20790.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 33 USEPA. 2018. Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 29, Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction of Deficiency. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02677.pdf. Accessed:

December 2022.
34 USEPA. 2019. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 29, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Serious Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02- 12/pdf/2019-01922.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
16 Environmental and Regulatory Background Ramboll

• CO levels are below the State and federal standards;
• NO2 levels are below the State and federal standards; • SO2 levels are below the State and federal standards; • PM10 levels exceeded the State 24-hour standard in one of the past five years, and the State annual standards in three of the past five years; PM10 levels are below the federal 24-hour standard; and
• PM2.5 levels exceeded federal 24-hour standards in all of the past five years, and were below State and federal annual levels in all years except 2018 and 2020.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
17 Significance Thresholds Ramboll

3. SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
The analysis provided in this report evaluates the significance of the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions by reference to the following questions from Section III, Air Quality, of Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines35:

Threshold 1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Threshold 2. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Threshold 3. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Threshold 4. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

An evaluation of the Project based on the significance thresholds discussed below is provided in subsequent sections.

3.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds36 to assess the impacts of project- related construction and operational emissions on regional and local ambient air quality.

Table 3-1 shows the mass daily thresholds for construction and operation as adopted by the SCAQMD for criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs. The analysis summarized in this report estimates project-related construction and operational mass emissions and compares the emissions to these mass daily significance thresholds. This report also evaluates the localized ambient air quality impacts from onsite construction activities using SCAQMD’s localized significance threshold (LST) methodology.
37 If emission estimates for the proposed project
activities are below the LST emission levels found in the LST mass look-up tables, the proposed construction or operational activity is not significant for air quality. This report does not include an evaluation of ambient air impacts for operational emissions because the Project does not include any of the land uses that typically require such an analysis to be performed based on SCAQMD’s methodology.
38 The primary emissions from operational
activities that would require an evaluation of project operational emissions relative to ambient air quality significance thresholds include, but are not necessarily limited to, NO X
and CO combustion emissions from stationary sources such as flares and turbines, and/or significant on-site mobile sources such as earth-moving equipment.

35 California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Available at:
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 36 SCAQMD 2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

Accessed: December 2022.
37 SCAQMD. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst- methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed: December 2022. 38 Ibid.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
18 Significance Thresholds Ramboll

The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess health risk impacts of TACs from project-related emissions sources on nearby sensitive receptors including residents and other human populations. These significance thresholds include a maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 in a million, incremental chronic and acute hazards indices of 1.0, and cancer burden of 0.5.39 The analysis summarized in this report evaluates the human health risk impacts from onsite construction activities and from onsite operational emissions to the significance thresholds SCAQMD has established. To evaluate the potential significance of the Project’s emissions, this report evaluates whether the Project’s estimated emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

3.3 Project Approach to Significance
This report, relative to threshold 1, evaluates the Project for consistency with applicable plans related to emissions, including the regional air quality attainment plans. This report, relative to threshold 2, quantifies the Project’s emissions during construction and operations and compares those results to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Relative to threshold 3, this report includes a CO hotspots analysis and summarizes results of the Health Risk Assessment Technical Report which assesses the potential health risk impacts to sensitive receptors. This report, relative to threshold 4, evaluates the potential for odor-generating activities from the Project.

39 SCAQMD. 2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
19 Air Quality Emissions Inventory Ramboll

4. AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS INVENTORY

4.1 This section describes the methodology that Ramboll used to develop the criteria air pollutant emission inventories associated with the Project, which include one-time emissions associated with construction of the Project and annual emissions associated with operation of the Project. Existing operational emissions are quantified for 2021 while emissions due to operation of the Project are quantified for the first year of operations (i.e., 2023).

Sub-categories of operational emissions include the following: area, energy, mobile, and gasoline dispensing facility sources.

Resources

4.1.1 California Emission Estimator Model®
Ramboll primarily utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®) version 2020.4.040 methodology to assist in quantifying the criteria air pollutant emissions in the inventories presented in this report for the proposed project. CalEEMod® provides methodologies to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a land use development project. It calculates daily or annual criteria air pollutant emissions.

Specifically, the model methodology aids the user in the following calculations:
• One-time short-term construction emissions associated with site preparation, grading, building, and paving from off-road construction equipment, and on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling. • Operational emissions associated with the fully built out project, such as on-road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses, emissions from architectural coating, and emissions from consumer products.

CalEEMod® is a statewide program designed to calculate both criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from development projects in California developed under the auspices of the SCAQMD, with input from other California air districts, and is currently supported by numerous lead agencies for use in quantifying the emissions associated with development projects undergoing environmental review. CalEEMod® utilizes widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site-specific information is not available. These models and default estimates use sources such as the USEPA AP-42 emission factors41, CARB’s on-road and off-road equipment emission models such as the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) and the Emissions Inventory Program model (OFFROAD), and studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle.

As mentioned above, CalEEMod ® is based upon t he CARB-approved OFFROAD and EMFAC models. OFFROAD42 is an emission factor model used to calc ulate emission rates from off- road mobile sources (e.g., construction equipment, agricultural equipment). The off-road 40 SCAQMD. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model ®. Available at: http://www.CalEEMod.com/.

Accessed: December 2022.
41 The USEPA maintains a compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors and process information for several air pollution source categories. The data is based on source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air- emissions-factors. Accessed: December 2022.
42 CARB. 2011. Off Road Mobile Source Emission factors. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
20 Air Quality Emissions Inventory Ramboll

diesel emission factors used by CalEEMod® are based on the CARB OFFROAD2011 program.

EMFAC201743 is the emission factor model used in CalEEMod® to calculate emissions rates from on-road vehicles (e.g., passenger vehicles). EMFAC2017 has been superseded by EMFAC2021. In order to allow for a more accurate representation of mobile source operational emissions associated with the Project, operational mobile source emission factors were estimated using EMFAC2021. These emissions factors were then used to estimate mobile source operational emissions based on CalEEMod
® methodology and defaults along
with Project specific values where available.

In addition, CalEEMod® contains default values and existing regulation methodologies to use in each specific local air district region. Appropriate statewide default values can be utilized if regional default values are not defined. Ramboll used default factors for the Los Angeles County area (within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction) for the emissions inventory, unless otherwise noted in the methodology descriptions below.

4.1.2 Gasoline Dispensing Facility Data
Where possible, Ramboll utilized Facility-specific data to estimate Existing and Project emissions. This data was obtained through communication with facility personnel (e.g., for activity information for construction or gasoline annual throughput dispensed at the GDF).

4.2 Construction Emissions
This section describes the calculation of criteria air pollutant emissions from construction activities at the Project site. While the exact construction schedule and equipment mix may vary from the current analysis, the emissions are not expected to be higher than that calculated given the conservative assumptions included in the analysis.

The major construction phases included in this analysis are:
• Demolition: involves removing buildings or structures. • Grading: involves the cut and fill of land to ensure the proper base and slope for the construction foundation.
• Paving: involves the laying of concrete or asphalt such as in parking lots or roads. • Building Construction: involves the construction of structures and buildings. • Architectural Coating: involves parking and lane striping The proposed schedule for constructing the Project is shown in Table 4-1. Construction- related emissions of ROGs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated using CalEEMod®.

PM emissions are composed of exhaust emissions and fugitive emissions. Exhaust emissions are typically given out by a combustion engine of on-road vehicles and/or off-road equipment. Fugitive emissions are PM dust suspended in the air by wind action and construction related activities. Default on-site equipment lists in CalEEMod ® supplemented
with Project-specific material movement inputs were used for the various construction phases.

43 CARB. 2015. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools. Accessed: January 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
21 Air Quality Emissions Inventory Ramboll

4.2.1 Emissions from Construction Equipment
The emission calculations associated with construction equipment are from off-road equipment engine use based on the equipment list and phase length, and on-road vehicle trips and phase length.

Since the majority of the off-road construction equipment used for construction projects are diesel fueled, CalEEMod® methodology assumes all of the equipment operates on diesel fuel.

The calculations include the running exhaust emissions from off-road equipment. Since the equipment is assumed to be diesel, there are no starting emissions associated with the equipment, as these are de minimis for diesel-fueled equipment. CalEEMod ® calculates the
exhaust emissions based on default values for horsepower and load factor from CARB’s OFFROAD2011.44
Project construction would include on-site equipment during grading/excavation and site preparation that generates fugitive dust. The construction-related equipment mix assumptions are CalEEMod
® default. The combustion emissions from this equipment were calculated using CalEEMod® methodology; the fugitive dust emissions from this equipment were calculated using the quantity of material moved and AP-42 emissions factors. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from fugitive dust will be controlled by watering the construction site in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control. CalEEMod® defaults assume watering the construction site twice a day reduces the fugitive dust emissions by 55%.

4.2.2 Emissions from On-Road Construction Trips
Construction generates on-road vehicle criteria air pollutant emissions from personal vehicles for worker and vendor commuting.

These emissions are calculated in CalEEMod® based on the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) along with emission factors from EMFAC2017. The numbers of worker and vendor trips represent defaults from CalEEMod® based on the construction equipment to be used. The number of haul trips was estimated based on the volume of soil to be imported/exported (Table 4-2) and the square footage to be demolished (Table 4-3).

4.2.3 Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust contributes to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions and is generated by the various construction activities occurring at the Project site including entrained road dust, grading, demolition, and truck loading.

Entrained road dust is generated by vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads. Emission factors for entrained road dust are on a “per mile” basis. In CalEEMod®, entrained road dust emission factors are based on the equations presented in the Paved Roads and Unpaved Roads chapters of USEPA’s AP-42 and are then multiplied by the total VMT for Project-related trips. Emissions from entrained road dust were estimated using CalEEMod® and are presented in Appendix A.

Fugitive dust emissions from bulldozing equipment (i.e., rubber-tired dozers), grading equipment (i.e., graders, rubber-tired dozers, and scrapers), and demolition activity occur during the Project construction. In addition, truck loading activities would generate fugitive dust emissions. The construction material movement and demolition assumptions are

44 SCAQMD. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model® User’s Guide, Appendix A. Available at:
http://www.CalEEMod.com/. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
22 Air Quality Emissions Inventory Ramboll

presented in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, respectively. Emissions from these sources were estimated using CalEEMod® and are presented in Appendix A.

4.2.4 Architectural Coating
VOC off-gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings, and from the painting of stripes, handicap symbols, directional arrows, and car space descriptions in parking lots. CalEEMod® was used to estimate VOC evaporative emissions from application of surface coatings and painting of parking lots. These emissions are presented in Appendix A.

4.2.5 Paving
CalEEMod® methodology was used to estimate the VOC off-gassing emissions associated with asphalt paving. The emissions associated with paving are presented in Table 4-4.

4.2.6 Stationary Back-up Generator
There is a stationary back-up generator planned to be utilized during construction. This analysis conservatively assumes that the generator will be needed during the entire duration of construction. The unit is a Tier 4 Final diesel-powered portable internal combustion engine rated at 95 brake-horsepower (bhp). Emission factors were extracted from CalEEMod®.

Maximum daily emissions were calculated based on Project-specific estimates of the number of hours per day the generator would be used during construction. The emissions associated with this stationary back-up generator during construction are presented in Table 4-5.

4.2.7 Construction Project Design Feature
The following construction project design feature was incorporated into the analysis, which is quantified in the construction inventory:
• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment, as feasible, greater than 50 horsepower shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

4.2.8 Total Construction Emissions
The daily criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction are shown in Table 4-6. The maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions are below the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds.

4.3 Operational Emissions
This section describes the calculation of criteria air pollutant emissions from operational activities at the Project site. Operational emissions are evaluated for Existing conditions in 2021 and for the first year of Project Operation in 2023.

4.3.1 Area Sources
Area sources are those emissions that are generally too small to be uniquely identified as point sources and are thus generally aggregated as a group. CalEEMod® estimates emissions for the following sources, which are included under the category of “area” sources:
landscaping equipment (e.g., lawn mowers), consumer products, and architectural coatings.

Criteria air pollutant emissions due to natural gas combustion in buildings, could also be considered area sources, but are reported by CalEEMod
® in the emissions associated with
building energy use (described below).

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
23 Air Quality Emissions Inventory Ramboll

The criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the Project were calculated using CalEEMod® defaults and can be viewed in Appendix A.

4.3.2 Energy Sources
Criteria air pollutant emissions are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which natural gas is typically used as an energy source. Combustion of fossil fuels, such as natural gas, emits criteria air pollutants directly into the atmosphere. Climate Zone 11 was selected based on the CEC forecast climate zone map shown in the CalEEMod® User’s Guide. The analysis assumes that the Project’s land uses accord to the 2019 Title 24 Standards, as that code cycle became effective on January 1, 2020. To calculate the total building natural gas input for the Project, Ramboll utilized default values provided in CalEEMod®, which are based on the Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS).

Criteria air pollutant emissions from the natural gas consumption were estimated in CalEEMod® and can be viewed in Appendix A.

4.3.3 Mobile Sources
The criteria air pollutant emissions associated with on-road mobile sources are generated from customers and fuel delivery trucks travelling to and from the Project site. The emissions associated with on-road mobile sources include running, idling and starting exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, tirewear, brakewear, and entrained road dust. Running emissions are dependent on VMT. Starting and evaporative emissions are associated with the number of starts or time between vehicle uses and the assumptions used in determining these values are described below. Ramboll calculated mobile source emissions using the trip rates and trip length information provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Kittelson).

The analysis includes the benefit of reductions from some adopted regulatory programs, which are accounted for within the EMFAC2021 model as follows:
• AB 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) required CARB to adopt regulations by January 1, 2005, to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter. CalEEMod ® and EMFAC2021 include
emission reductions for non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2017 – 2025.
• The ACC program, introduced in 2012, combines the control of smog, soot causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2015 through 2025. CalEEMod
® and EMFAC2021 include reductions
associated with this regulation that are represented in this analysis. While ACC focuses on the reduction of GHG emissions, it is anticipated that this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants.
• The USEPA/NHTSA advanced fuel economy and GHG standards (Phase 1) were adopted in 2011 for medium and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014-2018.45 This Heavy-Duty National Program is intended to reduce fuel use and GHG emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, semi-trucks, pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses in between. CalEEMod® and EMFAC2021 include reductions associated with this regulation that are represented in this analysis.

45 USEPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2011. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011- 09-15/pdf/2011-20740.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
24 Air Quality Emissions Inventory Ramboll

• The USEPA/NHTSA advanced fuel economy and GHG standards (Phase 2) were adopted in 2016 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2018 and beyond.46 The Phase 2 program includes technology-advancing standards that substantially reduce GHG and criteria pollutant emissions and fuel consumption resulting in an ambitious, yet achievable, program that will allow manufacturers to meet the applicable standards over time, at reasonable cost, through a mix of different technologies. The Phase 2 program’s standards will be phased in, beginning with model year 2021 and culminating with model year 2027.
47 In November 2019, CARB released EMFAC off-model adjustment factors to account for the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One,48 however, the NHTSA finalized the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Pre-emption rulemaking to withdraw its portions of the SAFE I Rule on December 21, 2021.49 The SAFE Rule has been incorporated into EMFAC2021, which is used in this analysis making this analysis a conservative estimate for the mobile emissions.

4.3.3.1 Calculating Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile source emissions calculation requires trip rates and trip lengths for each different trip type in the Project (e.g., passenger vehicles and fuel delivery trucks). The following sections describe the methodology to derive the necessary inputs. a) Trip Generation Rates
The trip generation rates for Project and Existing Trips were provided by Kittelson and are shown in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. The peak daily trips were used to establish maximum daily vehicle miles traveled for the Existing and Project conditions. The number of truck trips associated with fuel delivery are provided by Costco. b) Trip Lengths
Passenger vehicle trip lengths were based on default trip lengths for Los Angeles County in CalEEMod
®. The fuel delivery truck trip length of 17 miles was provided by Kittelson. These trip lengths are represented in Appendix B and Appendix C. c) Fleet Mix
The CalEEMod® default fleet mix was used to determine the mix of light-duty vehicles used for passenger vehicles. Fuel delivery trucks were assumed to be heavy-heavy-duty trucks.

The fleet mixes utilized for the operational mobile trips are shown in Appendix B and Appendix C.

46 USEPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2016. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016- 10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.
47 The emission reductions attributable to Phase 2 of the regulations for medium- and heavy-duty trucks were not included in the Project's emissions inventory due to the difficulty in quantifying the reductions. Excluding these reductions results in a more conservative (i.e., higher) estimate of emissions for the Project. 48 CARB. 2019. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 49 NHTSA. Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy. Accessed:

February 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
25 Air Quality Emissions Inventory Ramboll

d) Mobile Source Emission Factors
Exhaust, evaporative, tire wear, and brake wear emission factors were obtained from EMFAC2021 for Los Angeles County (South Coast) and are presented in Appendix B (Project) and Appendix C (Existing). Emission factors for passenger vehicles were calculated as a fleet-weighted average. Entrained road dust emission factors were calculated following guidance in the CalEEMod® User’s Guide, Appendix A, which is based on AP-42, Section

13.2.1 for vehicles traveling on paved roads. Entrained road dust emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in Appendix B.

4.3.3.2 Mobile Source Emissions
The emission factors for each vehicle type were calculated from EMFAC2021 model outputs.

The emission factors used to estimate mobile emissions from running exhaust, running losses, tire wear, brake wear, and entrained road dust are on a “per mile” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated VMT for each vehicle type. The emission factors for starting exhaust and non-running evaporative processes are on a “per trip” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated number of trips for each vehicle type. The emission factors used to estimate criteria air pollutant emissions from idling are on a “per minute of idling” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated idle duration for each vehicle type.

The overall mobile source emissions are shown in Appendix B (Project) and Appendix C (Existing).

4.3.4 Operational Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing
Emissions from gasoline transfer and dispensing mainly occur during loading, breathing, refueling, spillage, and from hose permeation. Emission factors were obtained from Table X-1 of SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.50 Emissions were calculated based on the existing average annual throughput and the permitted annual throughput of 26.64 million gallons per year. These emissions are presented in Table 4-7.

4.3.5 Stationary Back-Up Generator
In the event that electrical power supply is not established by the Project’s opening date, a stationary back-up generator may be utilized to power the facility. This unit is a Tier 4 Final diesel-powered portable internal combustion engine rated at 109 bhp. Emission factors were extracted from CalEEMod
®. The emissions associated with this stationary back-up generator during operation are presented in Table 4-8.

4.3.6 Total Operational Emissions
Table 4-9 summarizes the Existing and Project operational criteria air pollutant emissions.

As shown in Table 4-9, the Project reduces emissions for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 as compared to the Existing scenario. Additionally, the maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions are below the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for VOC, CO, and SOx. The VOC emissions show the greatest increase due to the lower existing throughput relative the permitted throughput.

50 SCAQMD. 2017. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212. Version 8.1. September.

Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk-assessment/riskassessproc- v8-1.pdf?sfvrsn=12. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
26 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

5. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
This HRA evaluates the estimated cancer risk, non-cancer chronic hazard index (HIC), acute hazard index, and cancer burden associated with construction and operation of the Project.

To meet these objectives, this HRA was conducted consistent with Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines developed by the the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).51 The health risks associated with the existing operation are not included in this analysis to be conservative.

5.1 Estimated Air Concentrations
To evaluate the health risks and concentration of air toxics in the surrounding community, SCAQMD recommends estimating concentrations using air pollution dispersion modeling. The methodologies used to evaluate emissions for the Project are based on the most recent SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidelines and the most recent Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines from OEHHA.
52,53
Air concentrations of TACs from Project emissions are estimated using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency regulatory air dispersion model (AERMOD) at off-site receptors. Details on the inputs and methodology used in the dispersion modeling are discussed further in the sections below.

5.1.1 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Ramboll evaluated excess lifetime cancer risk and chronic hazard index (HIC) for off-site receptors from Project construction emissions. In particular, the construction HRA assesses the lifetime cancer risk and HIC associated with DPM emissions from off-road diesel construction equipment, hauling and vendor trucks, and backup generator operation during construction of the Project. Diesel exhaust, a complex mixture that includes hundreds of individual constituents, is identified by the State of California as a known carcinogen. 54,55
Under California regulatory guidelines, DPM is used as a surrogate measure of exposure for the mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust as a whole. We conservatively assumed that all PM
10 from diesel fueled equipment and trucks is DPM.

Additionally, Ramboll evaluated excess lifetime cancer risk, HIC, and acute hazard index for off-site sensitive receptors from Project operational emissions. In particular, the lifetime cancer risk, HIC, and acute hazard index analysis in the operational HRA assesses impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions associated with Costco members’ passenger cars travel, starting, and idling, fuel delivery trucks travel, starting, and idling, gasoline transfer and dispensing, and backup generator operation. The mobile source air toxics speciation

51 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 52 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 53 SCAQMD. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212. Version 8.1. October. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/risk-assessment. Accessed: December 2022. 54 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 1998. Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on The Report on Diesel Exhaust, as adopted at the Panel’s April 22, 1998, meeting.
55 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2018. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. May.

Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/contable.pdf. Accessed: June 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
27 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

profiles are presented in Table 5-1. Emission calculations for the construction and operational HRAs are presented in Appendix D.

There is currently no acute non-cancer toxicity value available for DPM and acute HI from gasoline-fueled vehicle activity is expected to be minimal. Thus, an acute HI from the Project’s construction was not estimated.

5.1.2 Air Dispersion Modeling Methodology
Ramboll used the most recent version of AERMOD (Version 23132)56 to estimate ambient air concentrations and evaluate the health risks of TACs from Project operation at off-site receptors.57,58 For each receptor location, the model generates air concentrations (or air dispersion factors if unit emissions [i.e., 1 g/s] were modeled) that result from emissions from multiple sources.

Air dispersion models such as AERMOD require a variety of inputs such as source parameters, meteorological data, topography information, and receptor parameters. When site-specific information was unknown, default parameter sets that are designed to produce conservative (i.e., overestimates of) air concentrations were used.

5.1.2.1 AERMOD
AERMOD has been approved for use by USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD, and incorporates multiple variables in its algorithms including:
• Meteorological data representative of surface and upper air conditions; • Local terrain data to account for elevation changes; and • Physical specification of emission sources including information such as:
 Location;
 Release height; and
 Source dimensions.

Dispersion model averaging times are specified based on the averaging times of ambient air quality standards and the air quality significance thresholds established by the appropriate regulatory agencies. For the HRA, the 1-hour averaging time was used to evaluate acute (short-term) effects and the PERIOD averaging time (average concentration for the 5-year meteorological data set) was used to calculate chronic (long-term) health effects.

The following other options in AERMOD were selected for use in this analysis. The regulatory default option was selected based the SCAQMD modeling recommendations, 59 which

56 USEPA. 2023. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). August. Available at:
https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf. Accessed: February 2024.
57 USEPA. 2004. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model - AERMOD. April. Available at:
https://www.rosemonteis.us/sites/default/files/references/usepa-2004b.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 58 USEPA. 2017. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, Appendix W.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. January. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act- permit-modeling-guidance. Accessed: December 2022.
59 SCAQMD. South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
28 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

established the settings for variables such as urban modeling dispersion option, receptor heights, and off-site receptor grid spacing. The air dispersion model was run using a unit emission factor approach. The model output based on a unit emission factor approach was incorporated into a post-processing step with the calculated emission rates to estimate the air concentrations at each receptor.

5.1.2.2 Source Characterization
For construction, area sources were used to represent the on-site construction exhaust and fugitive dust sources from grading, demolition, and truck hauling during construction in AERMOD. Off-site construction vehicle travel was evaluated for assumed roadway links within

0.25 miles of site boundary. Haul trucks and vendor vehicle travel were modeled as line-area sources.60 The construction backup generator was modeled as a point source. The modeled construction source locations are presented in Figure 4. Source parameters for construction equipment and on-road mobile sources were developed based on USEPA’s Particulate Matter Conformity Guidance for Hotspot Analysis
61, the USEPA AERMOD user guide,62 and SCAQMD
Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.63 Source parameters for the backup generator were developed based on BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol.64 For operation, off-site vehicle travel was evaluated for roadway links in the Project vicinity, extending approximately 0.25 miles from the fueling station boundary. Line (area) sources were used in the air dispersion model to represent the on-site and off-site passenger vehicle and fuel delivery truck travel. Areapoly sources were used to represent on-site passenger vehicle and fuel delivery truck idling. The GDF emission sources were modeled as point sources (loading and breathing emissions) and volume sources (refueling, hose permeation, and spillage). The operational backup generator was modeled as a point source. Modeled source locations are shown in Figure 1.

Source parameters for mobile sources (Appendix E) were developed based on USEPA’s Particulate Matter Conformity Guidance for Hotspot Analysis 65 and the USEPA AERMOD user
guide.66 Appendix E presents a list of mobile sources and modeled emission rates. A source

60 USEPA. 2015. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Appendices. November. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPdf.cgi?. Accessed: June 2022. 61 EPA. 2015. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Appendix J: Additional Reference Information on Air Quality Models and Data Inputs. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPdf.cgi?Dockey=P100NN22.pdf. Accessed: June 2022. 62 USEPA. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). Available at:
https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf. Accessed: June 2022. 63 SCAQMD. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst- methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed: June 2022. 64 BAAQMD. 2020. Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-risk- reduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: February 2024. 65 EPA. 2015. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Appendix J: Additional Reference Information on Air Quality Models and Data Inputs. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPdf.cgi?Dockey=P100NN22.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.
66 USEPA. 2004. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). Available at:
https://www.rosemonteis.us/sites/default/files/references/usepa-2004b.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
29 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

group was created for each roadway segment. As described earlier, modeling was done using the /Q method and emission rates were set to 1 gram per second for each source group.

Source parameters for the GDF emission sources (Appendix E) were developed based on SCAQMD Risk Assessment Guidance and the dimensions of the proposed GDF.67 Source parameters for the backup generator were developed based on BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol.68 The emission rate for each source was modeled as 1 gram per second.

5.1.2.3 Meteorology
SCAQMD provides AERMOD model-ready meteorological data sets for use in air quality and risk impact analyses in the SCAB. SCAQMD’s Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) meteorological data set was selected based on that station’s close geographic proximity to the Project. The SCAQMD meteorological data set for January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 was used for the analysis.69 The meteorological station location is presented in Figure 2.

5.1.2.4 Land Use
The land uses surrounding the Project alignment are primarily a mix of developed residential and commercial areas. Land use classification was confirmed based on aerial photos.

AERMOD offers the option of using either rural or urban dispersion characteristics. Selection of rural or urban dispersion characteristics depends on the predominant land use within a three-kilometer radius of the site. SCAQMD recommends that the urban land use option be chosen for all sources in its jurisdiction. The population of Los Angeles County where the Project is located was used to model urban effects.
70 Data specifying terrain elevations of sources and receptors are imported into the model.

Elevations are based on National Elevation Datasets (NEDs) and consist of an array of regularly spaced points on a horizontal plane for which an elevation is specified. NEDs used in this analysis were obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and are spaced at 10 meters by 10 meters.71

5.1.2.5 Emission Rates
Emissions were modeled using the χ/Q (“chi over q”) method, such that each source group has a unit emission rate (i.e., 1 gram per second [g/s]), and the model estimates dispersion factors (with units of [µg/m3]/[g/s]). Actual emissions were multiplied by the dispersion factors to obtain concentrations.

Emissions from construction vehicle activity and the construction backup generator were assumed to occur between the hours of 8AM and 8PM on Monday-Friday, 9AM and 7PM on

67 The exact location of the proposed storage tank is unknown. Therefore, the loading and breathing emission sources associated with the storage tank were placed in the center of the gas station canopy. 68 BAAQMD. 2020. Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-risk- reduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: February 2024. 69 SCAQMD Meteorological Data for AERMOD. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorological- data/data-for-aermod. Accessed: December 2022.
70 SCAQMD. South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance. Accessed: December 2022. 71 USGS National Elevation Dataset. Available at: https://www.mrlc.gov/tools. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
30 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

Saturdays, and 10AM and 7PM on Sundays. Construction will occur 7 days per week from February 2023 to April 2024.

Emissions from refueling, hose permeation, and spillage from gasoline dispensing activities as well as passenger vehicle activity were assumed to occur between the hours of 5:30 AM and 9:30 PM, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year based on the anticipated operating schedule of the fueling station. Emissions from fuel delivery truck activity were to occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year based on the potential for fuel to be delivered at any time of day. Emissions from the backup generator were assumed to occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, for the first two months of project operation based on the potential for a delay in establishing a permanent power source at the start of operation.

5.1.2.6 Receptors
In order to evaluate health impacts to off-site receptors, nearby sensitive receptor populations were identified. SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors:
long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, daycare centers, and athletic facilities.72 The following receptors are included in the AERMOD modeling per SCAQMD guidance:73 • Fine Grid 25 m x 25 m up to 200 m from modeled Project sources; and • Coarse Grid 100 m x 100 m from 200 m to ¼-mile from the Project;74 and • Discrete sensitive receptors.

Non-residential sensitive receptor locations were identified within a one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) radius of the modeled Project sources, based on publicly available databases.75 Google Earth Pro was also used to identify schools and day care centers in the Project vicinity.

Residential areas are located north of the Project across Zanja St, west of the Project across Walnut Ave, and east of the Project across Glencoe Ave. Additionally, a 5-m spacing receptor grid was placed over the closest residential parcel to the proposed project. Spatial averaging of the predicted air concentrations within the nearest residence was used to better represent the air concentration that a resident may be exposed to.

72 SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993). Accessed: December 2022. 73 SCAQMD. South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance#. Accessed: December 2022. 74 Because construction also occurs at the External Map Improvements areas, receptors were conservatively placed within 1,000-m of these areas as well.
75 California Department of Education, California School Directory. Available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd.

Accessed: December 2022.

California Community Care Licensing Division - licensed care facilities including adult residential facilities and daycares. Available at: https://www.ccld.dss.ca.gov/carefacilitysearch/. Accessed: December 2022.

California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Automated Licensing Information and Report Tracking System - hospitals and long-term care facilities Available at:
http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/hid/Products/Listings.html. Accessed: December 2022.

Davis Demographics School Site Locator – K-12 Schools. Available at:
https://www.davisdemographics.com/videos/schoolsite-locator/. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
31 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

The locations of all receptors are illustrated on Figure 3.76 Receptor heights were assumed to be ground-level based on SCAQMD guidance.77

5.2 Risk Characterization Methods
The HRA was conducted in accordance with SCAQMD risk assessment guidelines.78 These guidelines are based on OEHHA’s 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.79 The 2015 OEHHA Guidelines include various updates that are protective of human health, particularly related to estimating potential risks in infants, children, and other sensitive receptors. Lifetime cancer risk, chronic hazard index (HIC), and acute hazard index (HIA) were calculated at each receptor. Details of this methodology are discussed below.

5.3 Exposure Assessment
To calculate health impacts for comparison to SCAQMD thresholds, this report assesses risk to the sensitive receptors. The exposure rate for the residential scenario is more conservative than those for other sensitive receptor types (i.e. school child, daycare child, and patients) as residents have the highest exposure frequency, exposure time, and exposure duration, thus for this analysis, sensitive receptors were evaluated using residential exposure assumptions.

Exposure Assumptions: The exposure parameters used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks for exposed populations were obtained using risk assessment guidelines from OEHHA and SCAQMD.80,81
Calculation of Intake: The dose estimated for each exposure pathway is a function of the concentration of a chemical and the intake of that chemical. The intake factor for inhalation, IFinh, can be calculated as follows:

76 SCAQMD. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst- methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed: December 2022. 77 SCAQMD. South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance#. Accessed: December 2022. 78 SCAQMD. 2017. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212. Version 8.1. October. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/risk-assessment. Accessed: December 2022. 79 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 80 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 81 SCAQMD. 2017. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212. Version 8.1. September. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/risk-assessment. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
32 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

IFinh = DBR * FAH * EF * ED * CF
AT
Where:

IFinh = Intake Factor for Inhalation (m 3/kg-day)
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)
FAH = Frequency of time at Home (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
CF = Conversion Factor, 0.001 (m
3/L)
AT = Averaging Time (days)
The chemical intake or dose is estimated by multiplying the inhalation intake factor, IFinh, by the chemical concentration in air, Ci. When coupled with the chemical concentration, this calculation is mathematically equivalent to the dose algorithm given in the current OEHHA Hot Spots guidance.82

5.3.1 Age Sensitivity Factors
As a conservative and health-protective measure, the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks for a resident will be adjusted using age sensitivity factors (ASFs) that account for an “anticipated special sensitivity to carcinogens” of infants and children as recommended in the OEHHA 2009 Technical Support Document and OEHHA 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.
83,84 Cancer risk estimates were weighted by a factor of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to two years of age and by a factor of three for exposures that occur from two years through 15 years of age. No weighting factor (i.e., an ASF of one, which is equivalent to no adjustment) is applied to ages 16 and older.

5.3.2 Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment characterizes the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the nature and magnitude of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure.

For purposes of calculating exposure criteria to be used in risk assessments, adverse health effects are classified into two broad categories – cancer and non-cancer endpoints. Toxicity values that are used to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels are identified as part of the toxicity assessment component of a risk assessment.

82 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Appendix D. February.

Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015gmappendices.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 83 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2009. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for Derivation, Listing of Available Values, and Adjustment to Allow for Early Life Stage Exposures. May. Available online at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/technical-support-document-cancer-potency-factors-2009. Accessed: December 2022.
84 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Appendix D: February.

Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015gmappendices.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
33 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

5.3.3 Risk Characterization

5.3.3.1 Estimation of Cancer Risks
Excess lifetime cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF).

The equation used to calculate the potential excess lifetime cancer risk for the inhalation pathway is as follows:

𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛ℎ ൌ𝐶 𝑖 𝑥 𝐶𝐹 𝑥 𝐼𝐹𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝑥 𝐶𝑃𝐹𝑖 𝑥 𝐴𝑆𝐹

Where:

Riskinh = Cancer risk; the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of inhalation exposure to a particular potential carcinogen (unitless)
Ci = Annual average air concentration for chemical (µg/m 3)
CF = Conversion factor (mg/µg)
IFinh = Intake factor for inhalation (m 3/kg-day)
CPFi = Cancer potency factor for chemical
(mg chemical/kg body weight-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor (unitless)

5.3.3.2 Estimation of Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Indices The potential for exposure to result in adverse chronic non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated annual average air concentration (which is equivalent to the average daily air concentration) to the non-cancer chronic reference exposure level (cREL) for each chemical. When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient (HQ). To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic non-cancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the HQs for all chemicals are summed, yielding a HI:

𝐻𝑄𝑖 ൌ𝐶 𝑖 / 𝑐𝑅𝐸𝐿
𝐻𝐼 ൌ ∑ 𝐻𝑄
Where:

HI = Hazard index
HQi = Chronic hazard quotient for chemical i
Ci = Annual average concentration of chemical i (µg/m
3)
cRELi = Chronic noncancer reference exposure level for chemical i (µg/m³)
Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
34 Health Risk Assessment Ramboll

5.3.3.3 Estimation of Cancer Burden
As defined in the SCAQMD Rule 1401 risk assessment guidelines, “the cancer burden is the estimated increase in the occurrence of cancer cases in a population as a result of exposures to TAC emissions over a 70-year exposure duration.” A cancer burden evaluation is only required by SCAQMD if the maximum residential cancer risk over the 30-year exposure is greater than one in a million. The estimate of cancer burden is included in this HRA following the steps below:

1. The area of impact is first determined based on the results of the residential cancer analysis, assuming 30-year exposure.

2. All census receptors within the 1 in a million-risk contour are identified. The cancer burden is then estimated using the lifetime 70-year exposure duration.

3. Cancer burden is then calculated for each census tract using the 2020 census population multiplied by the estimated 70-year residential cancer risk.

5.4 Health Risk Results
Using the health risk assessment options detailed in Table 5-2, the cancer risk, non-cancer chronic hazard index (HIC), and acute hazard index for the maximally impacted residential, worker, and sensitive receptors were estimated. The results of the operational, construction, and combined health risk assessments are presented in Table 5-3, Table 5-4, and Table 5-5, respectively. The calculated cancer burden for operation, construction, and combined construction and operation are presented in Table 5-6.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
35 CO Hotspots Ramboll

6. CO HOTSPOTS
Mobile-source impacts occur on two basic scales of motion. Regionally, Project-related travel will add to regional trip generation and increase the VMT within the local airshed and the SCAB. Locally, Project traffic will be added to the City’s roadway system. There is a potential for the formation of microscale CO “hotspots” in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Because of continued improvement in mobile emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the basin is steadily decreasing.

Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots.

To verify that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hotspots was conducted. The Project Traffic Impact Report evaluated the level of service (LOS) (i.e., increased congestion) impacts at intersections affected by the Project. The potential for CO hotspots was evaluated based on the results of the traffic report.

Project Evaluation
Based on the analysis below, the Project would not result in a CO “hot spot” and a CO “hot spots” analysis is not needed to determine whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection in the Project area would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, 85 primarily when idling at intersections.86,87 Accordingly, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent. Before the first vehicle emission regulations, cars in the 1950s were typically emitting about 87 grams of CO per mile.88 Since the first regulation of CO emissions from vehicles (model year 1966) in California, vehicle emissions standards for CO applicable to light duty vehicles have decreased by 96% for automobiles,89,90 and new cold weather CO standards have been implemented, effective for the 1996 model year.91 Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 4.2 grams/mile for passenger cars (with provisions for certain cars to emit less).92 With the turnover of older vehicles,

85 USEPA. 2000. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide. EPA 600/P-099/001F. June. 86 SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Section 4.5. April. 87 SCAQMD. 2003. Air Quality Management Plan. August. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp. Accessed: December 2022. 88 USEPA. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/timeline-major- accomplishments-transportation-air. Accessed: December 2022. 89 National Academy Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. 2008. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership. Appendix D: Vehicle Emission Regulations [excerpt from. Available at:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12258&page=107] Accessed: December 2022. 90 Kavanagh, Jason. 2008. Untangling U.S. Vehicle Emissions Regulations. 91 Title 13. California Code of Regulations. Section 1960.1(f)(2) [for 50,000 mile half-life] 92 CARB. 2018. California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles. December 19. Available at:
http://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
02/ldtps_2015%2B%20CP%20or%202017%2B%20GHG%20MY_lev%20iii_clean%20complete_4- 19_accessible.pdf. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
36 CO Hotspots Ramboll

introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SCAQMD have steadily declined.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAB by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the SCAB. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). 93 As discussed in the
1992 CO Plan, peak CO concentrations in the SCAB are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region’s unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans.

In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included: Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave. (Westwood); Sunset Blvd. and Highland Ave. (Hollywood); and La Cienega Blvd. and Century Blvd. (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave., which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm, which indicates that the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm) would likely not be exceeded until the daily traffic at the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicles per day. 94 An analysis of the Project’s intersections shows that the highest average daily traffic volumes would be approximately 67,000 vehicles95 at the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard and Washington Boulevard, which is well below the daily traffic volumes that would be expected to generate CO exceedances as evaluated in the 2003 AQMP. This daily trip estimate is based on the future daily peak hour traffic volumes plus the Project contribution. There is no reason unique to SCAB meteorology to conclude that the CO concentrations at the Washington Blvd/Lincoln Blvd intersection would exceed the 1-hour CO standard if modeled in detail, based on the studies undertaken for the 2003 AQMP.

93 SCAQMD. 2005. Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide. Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. February. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sccosip05/sccosip_redesig_mplan.pdf. Accessed: December 2022. 94 Based on the ratio of the CO standard (20.0 ppm) and the modeled value (4.6 ppm). 95 A daily traffic volume was estimated from Kittelson & Associates by taking the maximum traffic volume for the Saturday midday peak hour, multiplying by ten, and summing all of the turn movements at the intersection.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
37 Project Inventory in Context Ramboll

7. PROJECT INVENTORY IN CONTEXT
This section assesses the significance of the Project’s emissions for purposes of CEQA.

7.1 Threshold 1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As discussed in Section 4, estimated emissions for the Project show that the maximum mass daily emissions for construction and operations are less than the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. In fact, as shown in Table 4-9, the Project will result in a net reduction in criteria pollutant emissions. The Project would result in a less than significant impact on regional air quality.

As discussed in Section 2.3, the most current air quality plan for the region is the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP, which is based on demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories developed by SCAG for their 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Thus, consistency with the planning assumptions contained within the RTP/SCS demonstrates consistency with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP.

The SCAG RTP is a long-range transportation plan that is developed and updated by SCAG every four years. The RTP provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. Using growth forecasts and economic trends that project out over a 20-year period, the RTP considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address our mobility needs. The SCS is a required element of the RTP. The SCS integrates land use and transportation strategies that will achieve CARB emissions reduction targets.
96 The Project would not create any overall population growth; therefore, it has no effect on the growth assumptions used in the 2022 AQMP and 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal. The Project is consistent with these plans and would not impair the region’s ability to achieve the SCAQMD’s goals for attainment of air quality standards.

7.2 Threshold 2
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Project is located within Los Angeles County, which is currently designated as nonattainment for the federal and State O
3 standards, the State PM10 standards, the federal
and State PM2.5 standards, and the federal Pb standards. Ozone precursors include VOC and NOX. As discussed in Section 4, estimated emissions for the Project show that the maximum daily mass emissions for construction and operations are less than the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts for criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non- attainment. The Project includes a Project Design Feature:

96 SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. September. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-connect-socal-2020. Accessed: February 2024.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
38 Project Inventory in Context Ramboll

 All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment, as feasible, greater than 50 horsepower shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

7.3 Threshold 3
Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

7.3.1 Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD’s LST methodology was used to evaluate localized ambient air quality impacts from onsite construction and operation activities and whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The maximum on-site emissions from Project construction and operation are below the SCAQMD LST thresholds, as shown in Table 7-1. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

7.3.2 Health Risk Thresholds
The operational, construction, and combined health risk assessment results were used to assess if the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The operational analysis evaluated cancer and non-cancer health impacts of TAC emissions from the Project operation, and the construction analysis evaluated cancer and non-cancer health impacts of DPM emissions from the Project construction. The results of the combined health risk analysis are presented in Table 5-5, and the calculated combined cancer burden is presented in Table 5-6.

The results of the operational, construction, and combined analyses show that the cancer and non-cancer health impacts of the Project-related operational, construction, and combined emissions are less than significant. The operational, construction, and combined cancer burden results are less than the SCAQMD threshold of 0.5.

7.3.3 Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts
Per Section 6, the Project would not result in a CO “hot spot” and a CO “hot spots” analysis is not needed to determine whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection in the Project area would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

7.4 Threshold 4
Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
According to the SCAQMD, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding.97 The Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors, and thus the Project would not result in odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

97 SCAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available at: https://www.dtsc- ssfl.com/files/lib_ceqa/ref_draft_peir/Chap4_2-AirQuality/SCAQMD_1993_-_CEQA_Handbook.pdf. Accessed:

February 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
39 Cumulative Analysis Ramboll

8. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
The cumulative analysis for air quality is based on guidance provided by SCAQMD.98 “As Lead Agency, the [SCAQMD] uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the HI significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project- specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.”

8.1 AQMP Consistency
The cumulative analysis can also be evaluated in terms of consistency with SCAQMD’s AQMP.

As discussed in Section 2.3, SCAQMD and SCAG are jointly responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the SCAB. SCAG’s Regional Mobility Plan and Growth Management Plan form the basis for the land use and transportation control portion of the AQMP. Thus, consistency with the planning assumptions contained within the RTP/SCS demonstrates consistency with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP.

The Project would not create any overall population growth; therefore, it would have no effect on the growth assumptions used in the 2022 AQMP and Connect SoCal. As a result, the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP and would not impair the region’s ability to achieve the SCAQMD’s goals for attainment of air quality standards.

8.2 Construction Impacts
As discussed above, if a project exceeds the SCAQMD’s recommended significance thresholds for project-specific impacts, then the project would be viewed as having a cumulatively significant impact. As shown in Section 4.2, the Project’s estimated maximum mass daily emissions due to construction would be less than the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants.

Therefore, the Project’s construction-related contribution to regional air emissions of these pollutants would not be cumulatively considerable.

Similarly, Section 7.3.1 evaluates Project-related construction emissions on localized ambient air quality concentrations of NO2, CO, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 using SCAQMD LST methodology, and demonstrates that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

Therefore, according to SCAQMD guidance, the Project’s construction-related contribution to localized air quality concentrations of these pollutants would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Project would generate DPM emissions related to the construction activities, which are assessed in the construction health risk assessment. Given the less-than-significant health risk impacts, and consistent with the SCAQMD’s guidance on the assessment of cumulative

98 SCAQMD. 2003. Cumulative Impacts White Pa per-Appendix D. August. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working- group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper-appendix.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed: December 2022.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California
40 Cumulative Analysis Ramboll

impacts, the Project construction-related contribution to toxics would not be cumulatively considerable.

8.3 Operational Impacts
As discussed in Section 4, the estimated maximum mass daily emissions due to Project operations would be less than the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, according to SCAQMD guidance, the Project’s operation-related contribution to regional air emissions of these pollutants would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Project would generate TAC emissions related to the gasoline dispensing facility operational activities, which are assessed in the operational health risk assessment. Given the less-than-significant health risk impacts, and consistent with the SCAQMD’s guidance on the assessment of cumulative impacts, the Project operation-related contribution to toxics would not be cumulatively considerable.

8.4 Odor Impacts
With respect to other emissions, such as those leading to potential odor impacts, the Project would not include any land uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Thus, potential odor impacts from the Project would be less than significant and, consistent with the SCAQMD approach to assessing cumulative impacts, the Project operation-related contribution to odors would not be cumulatively considerable.

Costco Culver City
Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report
Culver City, California

Ramboll

TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of NAAQS and CAAQS
Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
1 hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) ---
8 hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)

0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual 20 µg/m3 ---
24 hour --- 35 µg/m3
Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
1 hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8 hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
1 hour3 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)

0.100 ppm
(188 µg/m3)
Annual 0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)

0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
30 day average 1.5 µg/m3 ---
Rolling 3-month average --- 0.15 µg/m3
1 hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)

0.075 ppm
(196 µg/m3)
24 hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(367 µg/m3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3) ---
Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3) ---
Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 ---
Source:

Abbreviations:
µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter mg/m 3 - milligrams per cubic meter CAAQS - California Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB - California Air Resources Board ppm - parts per million Lead (Pb)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1 CARB. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf.

Accessed: September 2021.

Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Pollutant Averaging Period California Standard Federal Standard Ozone (O3)

Table 2-2. NAAQS and CAAQS Attainment Status
Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
California Standard Federal Standard
1 hour Nonattainment ---
8 hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
24 hour Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Annual Nonattainment ---
24 hour --- Serious Nonattainment
Annual Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
1 hour Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
8 hour Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
1 hour Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Annual Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
30 day average Attainment ---
Rolling 3-month average --- Nonattainment
1 hour Attainment Attainment
3 hour --- Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H
2S) 1 hour Unclassified ---
Vinyl Chloride 24 hour No Information Available ---
Sulfates 24 hour Attainment ---
Notes:

Source:

Abbreviations:

CAAQS - California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB - California Air Resources Board
NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
Fine Particulate Matter (PM

2.5)
1 Attainment status for the California standard is for the year 2018. 2 Nonattainment applies to the southern portion of Los Angeles County only.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Lead (Pb)1,2
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
CARB. Area Designations Maps / State and National. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed: Septmeber 2021.

USEPA. EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/. Accessed on: September 2021.

Pollutant Averaging Period
Los Angeles County Attainment Status
Ozone (O3)
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10)

Table 2-3. Air Quality Data for Nearest SCAQMD Monitoring Station Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Pollutant 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3)1
Maximum Concentration 1-hr period, ppm 0.085 0.099 0.094 0.086 0.134 Maximum Concentration 8-hr period, ppm 0.073 0.077 0.073 0.075 0.092 Annual 4th Highest 8-hr maximum over 3 years 0.066 0.069 0.068 0.064 0.078 Days of Exceedances, California 1-hr Standard 01006
Days of Exceedances, California 8-hr Standard 23218
Days of Exceedances, Federal 8-hr Standard 23218
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 Maximum Concentration 1-hr period, ppm 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.9 2.0 Maximum Concentration 8-hr period, ppm 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 Number of Exceedances, California 1-hr Standard 00000
Number of Exceedances, California 8-hr Standard 00000
Number of Exceedances, Federal 1-hr Standard 00000
Number of Exceedances, Federal 8-hr Standard 00000
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
2)1
Maximum Concentration 1-hr period, ppm 0.055 0.056 0.065 0.049 0.077 98th Percentile Daily Maximum Concentration 1-hr period, ppm 0.049 0.046 0.046 0.043 0.044 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM), ppm 0.012 0.010 0.013 0.010 0.011 Number of Exceedances, California 1-hr Standard 00000
Exceed California Annual Standard? No No No No No
Number of Exceedances, Federal 1-hr Standard 00000
Exceed Federal Annual Standard? No No No No No
Sulfur Dioxide (SO
2)2
Maximum Concentration 1-hr period, ppm 0.010 0.010 0.012 0.008 0.006 99th Percentile Daily Maximum Concentration 1-hr period, ppm 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.003 Number of Exceedances, California 1-hr Standard 00000
Number of Exceedances, Federal 1-hr Standard 00000
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM
10)2
Maximum Concentration 24-hr period, µg/m3 43 46 45 62 43 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM), µg/m3 21.6 19.8 20.5 19.2 22.5 Number of Exceedances, California 24-hr Standard 00020
Exceed California Annual Standard? Yes No Yes No Yes
Number of Exceedances, Federal 24-hr Standard 00000
Fine Particulate Matter (PM

2.5)3
Maximum Concentration 24-hr period, µg/m3 44.4 49.2 43.8 43.5 47.3 98th Percentile Concentration 24-hr period, µg/m3 27.3 27.8 30.5 28.3 28.0 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM), µg/m3 11.8 11.9 12.6 10.9 12.3 Exceed California Annual Standard? No No Yes No Yes
Number of Exceedances, Federal 24-hr Standard 25312
Exceed Federal Annual Standard? No No Yes No Yes
Notes:
1 Data presented is for the Northwest Coastal LA County air quality monitoring station. 2 Data presented is for the Southwest Coastal LA County air quality monitoring station. 3 Data presented is for the Central LA air quality monitoring station.

Source:

Abbreviations:
µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter
hr - hour
ppb - parts per billion
ppm - parts per million
SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAQMD. Historical Data by Year. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-data- by-year. Accessed: September 2021.

Table 3-1. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOX 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
TACs
Odor
GHG
NO2
1-hour average
Annual Arithmetic Mean
PM10
24-hour Average
Annual Average
PM2.5 24-hour Average
SO2
1-hour Average
24-hour Average
CO
1-hour Average
8-hour Average
Source:
µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 - fine particulate matter CO - carbon monoxide ppm - parts per million
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalents SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District GHG - greenhouse gases SO2 - sulfur dioxide
lbs - pounds SOx - sulfur oxides
MT - metric ton TACs - toxic air contaminants
NO2 - nitrogen dioxide VOC - volatile organic compounds NOx - nitrogen oxides yr - year
PM10 - respirable particulate matter
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:

0.18 ppm (state)

0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)

10.4 µg/m3 (construction); 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)

1.0 µg/m3

10.4 µg/m3 (construction); 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)

0.25 ppm (state); 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th percentile)

0.04 ppm (state)
Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day)
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor, and GHG Thresholds Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial facilities
1 SCAQMD. 2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. Accessed:

September 2021.

Abbreviations:

SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal)

9.0 ppm (state/federal)

Table 4-1. Construction Schedule
Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Construction Phase Name1
CalEEMod®
Phase Type1
Phase Duration2
(days)
Phase 1 Demolition Demolition 28
Phase 1 SP, Grading, and Utilities Grading 35
Phase 1 Paving Paving 5
Phase 1 Parking and Lane Striping Architectural Coating 3 Phase 2 and 3 Building Construction Building Construction 86 Phase 2 and 3 Paving Paving 2
Phase 2 and 3 Lane Striping Architectural Coating 1
Phase 4 Demolition Demolition 9
Phase 4 Demolition Material Export Grading 9
Phase 4 SP, Grading, and Utilities Grading 55
Phase 4 Paving Paving 3
Phase 4 Parking and Lane Striping Architectural Coating 3 Notes:
1 Construction phases and duration are based on Project-specific estimates. 2 The construction work week was assumed to be 7 days per week.

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model

Table 4-2. Construction Material Movement
Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Phase Name
Material Imported1
(yd3)
Material Exported1
(yd3)
Phase 4 Demolition Material Export 0 1,145
Phase 4 SP, Grading, and Utilities 1,272 0
Notes:
1 Soil import and export quantities based on project-specific data.

Abbreviations:
yd3 - cubic yard

# Confidential Ramboll
Table 4-3. Construction Demolition Assumptions
Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Phase Name Size Metric Unit Amount 1
Phase 1 Demolition Square Footage 8,480
Phase 4 Demolition Square Footage 4,750
Notes:
1 Square-footage quantity based on project-specific data.

# Confidential Ramboll
Table 4-4. Construction Paving Emissions
Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Project Activity
Project
Sub-Activity
Number
of Work
Days
Total Area
Paved
(acres)
Emission
Factor1
(lb/acre)
Emissions
(lb/day)
Phase 1 Paving Paving 6 0.57 0.25
Phase 2 and 3 Paving inside
new Fuel Station Paving 2 0.32 0.42
Phase 4 Paving Paving 2 0.64 0.84
Notes:

Abbreviations:
lb - pounds
Conversion Factors:
5,280 ft/mile
43,560 sqft/acre
1 Emission factor for asphalt paving off-gassing emissions obtained from CalEEMod Appendix A. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

Accessed: September 2021.

2.62

#
Ramboll
Table 4-5. Back-up Generator CAP Emissions Calculations for Construction Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Parameter Value
Engine Make Isuzu
Engine Model BR-4JJ1X
Number of Generators 1
Gross Engine Power Output (bhp)1 95
Schedule2
hours/
engine/day
Maximum 12
Emissions
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 0.05 0.01 0.13
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 0.26 0.05 0.65
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 3.70 0.77 9.30
Sulfur Dioxides (SOX) 0.01 0.00 0.02
Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.01 0.00 0.03
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 0.01 0.00 0.03
Notes:

Conversion Factors
453.59 grams/lb
Abbreviations/Acronyms
CAP - criteria air pollutant
CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model
g - gram
bhp - brake-horsepower
hr - hour
lb(s) - pound(s)
PM10 - particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 - particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter yr - year
2 The stationary back-up generator is assumed to operate up to 12 hours per day, per Project- specific information.

Operating Parameters
3 Combustion emission factors are based on CalEEMod® default emission factors for Tier 4 diesel- powered generator sets with an engine rating between 75 and 119.9 horsepower.

Pollutant
Combustion
Emission
Factors3
(g/bhp-hr)
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emissions2
(lbs/day)
1 The gross engine power output for the Isuzu BR-4JJ1X generator was extracted from the unit's Statewide Portable Equipment Registration form.

Table 4-6. Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Construction Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
VOC2 NOx CO SOX
3 PM10 PM2.5
2023 48.2 6.8 34.1 0.06 0.6 0.3
2024 15.8 5.9 36.4 0.08 4.2 1.9
SCAQMD Mass Daily
Significance Thresholds4 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold for any
Year of Construction? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Notes:

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - CALifornia Emissions Estimator MODel PM10 - particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter CO - carbon monoxide ROG - reactive organic gases
hp - horsepower SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District lbs - pounds SO2 - sulfur dioxide
NOx - nitrogen oxide compounds (NO + NO2) SO x - sulfur oxide compounds PM2.5 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter VOC - volatile organic compounds 4 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air- quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed: September 2021. 1 Emissions for project construction were estimated using CalEEMod® (see Appendix A). Construction emissions include construction of the fuel station and parking lot, demolition of the existing Goodyear Tire Facility, and back-up generator use. Project construction emissions assume watering control consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the use of Tier 4 construction equipment greater than 50 hp.
2 For purposes of this analysis VOC emissions are assumed to be equal to ROG. 3 For purposes of this analysis SOX emissions are assumed to be equal to SO2.

Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates1 Scenario1 (lb/day)

Table 4-7. Gasoline Dispensing Facility Operational VOC Emissions Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Loading Breathing Refueling
Hose
Permeation Spillage Total
Existing 13.18 26.8
Project 26.64 54.2
Notes:

Abbreviations:
lb - pounds
SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
VOC - volatile organic compounds
Emissions
(lb/day)
1 Emission factors obtained from Table X-1 of SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk- assessment/riskassessproc-v8-1.pdf?sfvrsn=12. Accessed: September 2021.

VOC Emission Factor
1 (lb/1,000 gallons) Throughput
(million
gallons/
year)Scenario

0.15 0.024 0.32 0.009 0.24 0.743

Table 4-8. Back-up Generator CAP Emissions Calculations for Operation Culver City Costco Fuel Station
Culver City, California
Parameter Value
Engine Make JCB Power
Systems LTD
Engine Model 444 TA4-81 I3A
Number of Generators 1
Gross Engine Power Output (bhp)1 109
Schedule2
hours/
engine/day
Maximum 24
Emissions
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 0.05 0.01 0.29
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 0.26 0.06 1.50
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 3.70 0.89 21.34
Sulfur Dioxides (SOX) 0.01 0.00 0.04
Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.01 0.00 0.06
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 0.01 0.00 0.06
Notes:

Conversion Factors
453.59 grams/lb
Abbreviations/Acronyms
CAP - criteria air pollutant
CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model
g - gram
bhp - brake-horsepower
hr - hour
lb(s) - pound(s)
PM10 - particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 - particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter yr - year
1 The gross engine power output for the JCB Power Systems 444 TA4-81 I3A generator was extracted from the unit's Statewide Portable Equipment Registration form. 3 Combustion emission factors are based on CalEEMod® default emission factors for Tier 4 diesel- powered generator sets with an engine rating between 75 and 119.9 horsepower.

Operating Parameters
Pollutant
Combustion
Emission
Factors3
(g/bhp-hr)
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emissions2
(lbs/day)
2 The stationary back-up generator is assumed to operate up to 24 hours per day, per Project- specific information.