Attachment 12 - CEQA Clearance Documentation (including attachments) — City Council Meeting Agenda, February 9, 2026 (part 17 of 19)

Back
lacounty.gov | Public Works FAQ | Privacy / Terms of Use | ADA / Accessibility | |   Feedback 6/8/22, 9:31 AM County of Los Angeles Environmental Resources https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/CleanLA/OpenFileReview.aspx 1/1 Public Works
pw.lacounty.gov
Managed by the Los Angeles County Public Works, Environmental Programs Division Toll Free Phone Number: 1(888) CLEAN LA
Clean LA Home | Clean LA FAQ | About Clean LA | Clean LA Site Index | Contact Clean LA

Clean LA for Residents
Solid Waste Information
Management System
(SWIMS)
Clean LA for Business
Clean LA for Government
Clean LA is for ALL
Los Angeles County
Organic Waste Management
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,
Rethink
Trash Collection / Illegal
Dumping
Household Hazardous Waste
/ Electronic Waste
Used Motor Oil Recycling
Industrial Waste
Underground Storage Tanks
Solid Waste
Stormwater
Water Conservation
Youth Education
Online File Review
Industrial Waste / Underground Storage Tanks / Stormwater Back
You searched the following address:

Street Number: 5819 Street Name: Uplander Way
Our office does not have any records (related to industrial waste/underground storage tanks/stormwater) for the requested site address.

Please double check the spelling of the street name or search a different address. Both street number and street name must be exact and spelled correctly as they appear for the facility on file. Do not include street direction prefix (i.e. N, S, E, W, etc...) or suffix (i.e. ST, AVE, RD, BLVD, etc...) unless they appear in the street name (i.e. AVENUE K, AVENIDA CESAR CHAVEZ, 10TH ST EAST, CROSSROADS PKWY N, etc...). Do not include any extra spaces after the street number or after the street name.

Back
lacounty.gov | Public Works FAQ | Privacy / Terms of Use | ADA / Accessibility | |   Feedback 6/8/22, 9:32 AM County of Los Angeles Environmental Resources https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/CleanLA/OpenFileReview.aspx 1/1 Public Works
pw.lacounty.gov
Managed by the Los Angeles County Public Works, Environmental Programs Division Toll Free Phone Number: 1(888) CLEAN LA
Clean LA Home | Clean LA FAQ | About Clean LA | Clean LA Site Index | Contact Clean LA

Street Number: 5835A Street Name: Uplander Way
Our office does not have any records (related to industrial waste/underground storage tanks/stormwater) for the requested site address.

Back
lacounty.gov | Public Works FAQ | Privacy / Terms of Use | ADA / Accessibility | |   Feedback 6/8/22, 9:33 AM County of Los Angeles Environmental Resources https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/CleanLA/OpenFileReview.aspx 1/1 Public Works
pw.lacounty.gov
Managed by the Los Angeles County Public Works, Environmental Programs Division Toll Free Phone Number: 1(888) CLEAN LA
Clean LA Home | Clean LA FAQ | About Clean LA | Clean LA Site Index | Contact Clean LA

Street Number: 5859 Street Name: Uplander Way
Our office does not have any records (related to industrial waste/underground storage tanks/stormwater) for the requested site address.

Back
lacounty.gov | Public Works FAQ | Privacy / Terms of Use | ADA / Accessibility | |   Feedback 6/8/22, 9:34 AM County of Los Angeles Environmental Resources https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/CleanLA/OpenFileReview.aspx 1/1 Public Works
pw.lacounty.gov
Managed by the Los Angeles County Public Works, Environmental Programs Division Toll Free Phone Number: 1(888) CLEAN LA
Clean LA Home | Clean LA FAQ | About Clean LA | Clean LA Site Index | Contact Clean LA

Street Number: 5860 Street Name: Hannum Avenue
Our office does not have any records (related to industrial waste/underground storage tanks/stormwater) for the requested site address.

Back
lacounty.gov | Public Works FAQ | Privacy / Terms of Use | ADA / Accessibility | |   Feedback 6/8/22, 6:53 PM Gmail - HHMD No File Responsive :: H050609-060822 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=ccfd4569b4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1735084055973410224&simpl=msg-f%3A17350840559… 1/1 Ronald Russell <[email protected]>
HHMD No File Responsive :: H050609-060822
LACoFD <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:18 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: PRA of June 08, 2022, Reference # H050609-060822.

Dear Ron Russell,
The Los Angeles County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Division, being the custodian or keeper of records, certify that a thorough search for the records you requested has been carried out.

Re: 5751 Uplander Way

Culver City CA 90230
The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database.

It should be understood that this does not mean that the records you requested do not exist. It is possible that such records may be misfiled; exist under another spelling, another name, or may have been destroyed based on this Department's Record Retention Policy. However, with the information furnished to our office, and to the best of our knowledge, no records were located.

For businesses in Burbank, Culver City, Downey, City of LA, La Habra, Monrovia, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Torrance & Underground Storage Tanks in Los Angeles County jurisdiction click here.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Site Administrator
Gmail
County of Jl,o,s Angeles
Rre Department
6/8/22, 6:52 PM Gmail - HHMD No File Responsive :: H050610-060822 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=ccfd4569b4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1735084099429086950&simpl=msg-f%3A17350840994… 1/1 Ronald Russell <[email protected]>
HHMD No File Responsive :: H050610-060822
LACoFD <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:19 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: PRA of June 08, 2022, Reference # H050610-060822.

Re: 5769 Uplander Way

Culver City CA 90230
The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database.

For businesses in Burbank, Culver City, Downey, City of LA, La Habra, Monrovia, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Torrance & Underground Storage Tanks in Los Angeles County jurisdiction click here.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Site Administrator
Gmail
County of Jl,o,s Angeles
Rre Department
6/8/22, 6:51 PM Gmail - HHMD No File Responsive :: H050611-060822 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=ccfd4569b4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1735084237652805975&simpl=msg-f%3A17350842376… 1/1 Ronald Russell <[email protected]>
HHMD No File Responsive :: H050611-060822
LACoFD <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:21 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: PRA of June 08, 2022, Reference # H050611-060822.

Re: 5801 Uplander Way

Culver City CA 90230
The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database.

For businesses in Burbank, Culver City, Downey, City of LA, La Habra, Monrovia, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Torrance & Underground Storage Tanks in Los Angeles County jurisdiction click here.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Site Administrator
Gmail
County of Jl,o,s Angeles
Rre Department
6/8/22, 6:49 PM Gmail - HHMD No File Responsive :: H050614-060822 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=ccfd4569b4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1735084302011515041&simpl=msg-f%3A17350843020… 1/1 Ronald Russell <[email protected]>
HHMD No File Responsive :: H050614-060822
LACoFD <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:22 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: PRA of June 08, 2022, Reference # H050614-060822.

Re: 5859 Uplander Way

Culver City CA 90230
The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database.

For businesses in Burbank, Culver City, Downey, City of LA, La Habra, Monrovia, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Torrance & Underground Storage Tanks in Los Angeles County jurisdiction click here.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Site Administrator
Gmail
County of Jl,o,s Angeles
Rre Department
6/8/22, 6:48 PM Gmail - HHMD No File Responsive :: H050615-060822 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=ccfd4569b4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1735084302952899915&simpl=msg-f%3A17350843029… 1/1 Ronald Russell <[email protected]>
HHMD No File Responsive :: H050615-060822
LACoFD <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:22 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: PRA of June 08, 2022, Reference # H050615-060822.

Re: 5800 Hannum Avenue

Culver City CA 90230
The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database.

For businesses in Burbank, Culver City, Downey, City of LA, La Habra, Monrovia, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Torrance & Underground Storage Tanks in Los Angeles County jurisdiction click here.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Site Administrator
Gmail
County of Jl,o,s Angeles
Rre Department
6/8/22, 6:47 PM Gmail - HHMD No File Responsive :: H050616-060822 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=ccfd4569b4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1735084363384792580&simpl=msg-f%3A17350843633… 1/1 Ronald Russell <[email protected]>
HHMD No File Responsive :: H050616-060822
LACoFD <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:23 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: PRA of June 08, 2022, Reference # H050616-060822.

Re: 5860 Hannum Avenue
Culver City CA 90230
The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database.

For businesses in Burbank, Culver City, Downey, City of LA, La Habra, Monrovia, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Torrance &
Underground Storage Tanks in Los Angeles County jurisdiction click here.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Site Administrator
Gmail
County of Jl,o,s Angeles
Rre Department
6/8/22, 6:49 PM Gmail - HHMD No File Responsive :: H050613-060822 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=ccfd4569b4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1735084239555166419&simpl=msg-f%3A17350842395… 1/1 Ronald Russell <[email protected]>
HHMD No File Responsive :: H050613-060822
LACoFD <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:21 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: PRA of June 08, 2022, Reference # H050613-060822.

Re: 5835A Uplander Way

Culver City CA 90230
The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database.

For businesses in Burbank, Culver City, Downey, City of LA, La Habra, Monrovia, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Torrance & Underground Storage Tanks in Los Angeles County jurisdiction click here.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Site Administrator
Gmail
County of Jl,o,s Angeles
Rre Department

APPENDIX F

OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Project No. 462158
June 13, 2022
AEI Consultants
AEI Consultants
PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (Environmental)
Instructions: Please complete the following questionnaire to the best of your knowledge.

SITE INPORMATION -
Street Address( es )/Location: 575"l-':J7'11 V/J~ w~
City: /I .uli~.h~ t41 'f1., County: ~te: /,A- Zip:

Parcel Number(s): I
-Contact Name Phone Number Yrs. Assodated w /Site
Owner: fJ.SJIJ
Site Contact: S~ •4 h~J .I- L ,,,,_ Sl,Z. <ft.S: 77'1'' 2 Key Site Manager:

Previous Owners, Operators
and/or Occupants:

PROP.ERTY USE AND SPECIRCATIONS
□ Residential □ Office/Retail □ Industrial □ Vacant Land □ Agricultural □ Other:

Provide all known current/former addresses and/or parcel numbers:

Are there any plans for site redevelopment or change in use? D No □ Yes If yes, describe:

Total Property Size (acres): Electricity Provider:

Number of Buildings: Heating System Fuel Source(s):

Building Size(s) (SF): Gas Provider:

Original Construction Date(s): Cooling System Power Source:

Date(s) of Renovation(s): Potable Water Source/Provider:

Number of vacant units: Sanitary Sewer Provider:

Any waste water discharge at the site? D Septic Tank/Leachfield D Sanitary Sewer □ Other D None

PROPERTY HISTORY I
-- --
Yeaisof
.

Current and Previous Occupant(s) occupancy Brief description of on-site operations Has the subject site ever been occupied by the following? □ DryOeaner □ Gas Station D Printing Facility □ Manufacturing Facility If yes, provide years of occupancy:

Have any previous investigations been performed at the subject property? D No D Yes If Yes, are copies available? D No D Yes
If Yes, what type: □ Phase I ESA □ Phase II □ Asbestos Survey □ Lead Paint Survey D Radon Sampling D Other:

Project Number: Return via Fax:

Project Manager: Return via Email:

AEI Consultants
ON-Sm ENVIRONMENTAL CONDfflONS
Are you aware of any of the following environmental conditions, either current or former, on the subject site? Envlronmen~I Condition/Issue Rt!!5ponse E_nvlronmental Condition/Issue Respon~ Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) B'Ng □ Yes Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) IB'"~o D Yes Underground Storage Tanks (USfs) 1!3"No O Yes Electrical Transformers 10'No D Yes ~
Hazardous/Toxic Substances/Chemicals 0"No □ Yes Hydraulic Lifts 10"No D Y~ ~
Chemical Spills/Releases IB''N.9 □ Yes Elevators D N9 ~ es Dump Areas/Landfills IB'l!o □Yes Asbestos • [ljj")4o D Yes Waste Treatment Systems 10"N_.o D Yes Lead-Based Paint !ll'f4g □ Yes Wastewater Discharges t0'No O Yes Oil/Gas Wells ~9 □Yes J
Floor Drains, Sumps, fid"'No D Yes Flooding, Leaks, Other Water lia'No □ Yes Clarifiers/Oil Water Separators ~ Intrusion
Pits, Ponds, Lagoons 10 ""1'-~o D Yes Environmental Permits ~ N..o D Yes Stained Soil, Stressed Vegetation IB"fjo D Yes Environmental Cleanups IB'"N;> □ Yes Pesticide/Herbicide Use "er No □ Yes Water Damage, Mold !H""No D Yes

OTHERENVIRONMENTALCONDMONS
Are you aware of any pending, threaten~r past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property? No D Yes If yes, provide brief explanation.

Are you aware of any pending, threatened or past~lnistrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property? No D Yes If yes, provide brief explanation.

Are you aware of any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible~v· tion of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products? No □ Yes If yes, provide brief explanation.

SIGNATURE INFORMATION - - -
Person completing questionnaire: {.µ-1t:r ~~w
Title/Affiliation to property: /L-Ltl~ f/1u /!w 1~ ,
Number of years associated with property: o v 6Jtt,LJ
rr It" / "ZICJ "")r 2-
F
Date:
• SITE VISR' INFORMATION
• A person knowledgeable of current property use/business operations should be present during the site visit. • Access to a percentage of units should be provided as requested by the field professional . • Access to the following areas should be provided: all rommon areas, storage areas, and utility areas; all underground features and chemical storage/disposal areas. • The following documentation should be provided for review if applicable: all hazardous waste manifests, environmental permits, and any previous environmental reports.

Project Number: Return via Fax:

Project Manager: Return via Email:

AEI
Consultants
GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMArlON
PROPERTY NAME:

PCA PRE-SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE (ROI)
SITE ADDRESS: !;;' STATE ~"f-
Current
OccU~f!Cy:

Numl;ler of Stories: Renovation
Date(sJ:

Area of Current a, 1
Vacant Space: ~ 7 TO
Site Area In Acres:

Total Number of
P.arlclng Spaces:
acres
- -
Gross Building
AnN!:

NumberofHC
Parlclng Spaces:

GENERAL ~ROPERTY INFORMATION
Rentable
Bu]ld{ng Area:

Number of Van
HCSpaces:
sq. ft.

Please describe all pertinent building maintenance, renovation, seismic, and upgrade work within the last 15 years. If available, please attached supporting documentation, i.e. work orders, receipts, etc.:

Please describe any ongoing/current major building maintenance, renovation, seismic, and upgrade work:

Please describe any future building maintenance, renovation, seismic, and upgrade work:

Please indicate which of the following items is a Tenant or Landlord responsibility for REPLACEMENT:

Tenant Landlord Tenant Landlord
Paving HVAC Condensing units
Pavement Seal-coating Window AC Units or Other
Pavement Striping Domestic Water Heaters
Sidewalks Fire Sprinkler in Tenant Space
Exterior Paint ✓ Fire Alarm in Tenant Space
Brick Painting Elevators/ Escalators V
Roofing Tenant Space Finishes
HVAC Rooftop Units Toilet Room Fixtures & Finishes
HVAC Air handling/Fan coil units ADA compliance
Please list all major vendors servicing the Property (If addition provided, please attach separate sheet):

Vendor Name Phone No. Vendor Name Phone No.

Roofing Painting
Elevator HVAC
Fire Protection Plumbing
Electrician Trash Disr;>osal
Landscaping Security System
•1Please list all utility providers for the Property:

Domestic Water Gas/ Oil/ Other
Sanitarry Sewer Electricity
Storm Drainage Steam
AEI

QUESTIONNAIRE
Note to Field Observer: Answe,:s should b6 verified during site interview and field observations. YES No UNKNOWN A ves answer miould b6 followed uo thorouahfy and aocumented if issues are aresent. JI. - • Are you aware of any violations the property has been cited for? (If Yes. attach citation) j y Is a tenant monthly fee charged for common area maintenance (CAM)? v ./ Does the Property experience anv site drainage, ground water or flooding problems? v Is the amount of on•site oarkino crovidedinadeauate? I
...,.......

Is there damaged or nonoperational site lighting? ✓
Are the utilities (water, sewer, gas. electric) inadequate to meet needs of the tenants? ✓ Does the Prooertv have anv structural issuesuch as settlement, cracking or deflection? \/ Has the Prooerty experienced any fire related or seismic damage? v ......

Does the ProJ],erty exhibit an1 water/ moisture infiltration? V I Does the Property have any leakage or failures at the roof, walls or cellar? V ,, Is fire retardant plywood (FRT) installed anywhere in the structure(s)? V Are anv oortions of the facades covered with EIFS (synthetic stucco or DrvviO? ✓ Any problems regarding synthetic stucco or EIFS? j v
Roof is inaccessible with no on-site OSHA acoroved ladder or roof hatch? ✓ , Are the HVAC systems inadeauate and/or nori~functioning? V Are there any plumbing leaks or prevalent past leaks? ✓ Are there anv water oressure issues at any time? ✓.

Is galvanized or polybutylene "gray" piping present anywhere in the Property? ✓ Has any active or historical leaks related to oalvanized or polybutylene piping occurred? v Has retrofitting or replacement of galvanized or polybutylene piping taken place? v Are there any electrical problems or inadeQuate electrical service? ✓ Electrical amoerage to each unit is less than 60-amos?? V .

Is aluminum branch wiring present anywhere in the Property? v ~ If aluminum branch wiring is present. has retrofitting been performed? ✓,, Are there any screw-in fuses present in the Property? ✓ Are there kitchens and bathrooms that are not eciuicoed with GFl's/GFCl's? / ✓ Are there anv elevator or escalator shutdowns or ~deemed out of service? ~ v Are there elevators present not regularly serviced under a full-service maintenance contract? ✓ ~ Are there fire sprinkler systems present and not reaularly serviced and tested? ✓ ...

Are there fire alarm and detection devices not regularly serviced and tested? / ✓ Is common area interior Dainting gerformed as part of routine maintenance? V / Was an "ADA Survev• ever conducted on the propertv? (If Yes, please attach a copy) v Has any ADA improvements been made to the Property or does a Barrier Removal Plan exist ✓ for the Prooertv?
Is there any unresolved ADA related complaints or pending litigation? ✓, Is there anv mold or microbial growth at the Prop,erty? ✓, Have anv tenants or occuoants comolained about mold or microbial growth at the ProDertv? V / Is there a current formal indoor air quality management plan at the Property? v ~ ,. ~
AEI :..\:.:'.:' ,
consultants ...
:LPlease indicate when the following systems have oeen last inspectect: ·- Fire Sprinkler Elevators/ Escalators
Fire Alarm Facades

REPLACEMENT/ REPAIR HISTORY -
Please list the approximate age (in years) of the following, as applicable: - - (Indicate *NA" if tenant-ownecl or not appJlca~; Indicate "ORIG". If from original building conslnlction. If applicable, give an estimated range, Le. aiKmx. 50% are 3 vrs.iln aCHL 25% are 1 O vn.. In acie, etc. - •ase attach additional Daa11S for commenls/ clarifications.

Paving: Yrs, Sealant/Striping: Yrs. Exterior Lighting: Yrs.

Landscaping: Yrs. Irrigation System: Yrs. Building Signage: Yrs.

Masonry Pointing: Yrs. Exterior Paint: Yrs. ElFS: Yrs.

Windows: Yrs. Doors: Yrs. Building Sealants: Yrs.

Roofing: Yrs. Other Roofing: Yrs. Skylights: Yrs.

HVAC{ ): Yrs. HVACC ): Yrs. HVAC( ): Yrs.

Emergency
Electric Service: Yrs. Generator: Yrs. Water Line: Yrs.

Water Pumps: Yrs. Water Heaters: Yrs. Sewer Lines Yrs.

Elevator Finishes: Yrs. Elevator Controller. Yrs. Elevator Machinery: Yrs.

Central Fire Alarm
Escalators: Yrs. Fire Pump: Yrs. Panel: Yrs.

Lobby: Yrs. Common Flooring: Yrs. Common Restrooms: Yrs. -DOCUMENT REVIEW
Please provide us with the following documents prior to our s~e visit, Indicating the availability of each. This , _documentation may 6e, included as an exhibit within the Property Condition Assessment.

Available Available Not
On-site Attached Available
Site Plan and ALTA Survev
Certificate of Occupancy
Coov of Open Building Permits or Code Violations
Coov of Zoning Variances or Easements
Rent Roll (with unit number, tenant name, unit area and occupancy % ) Reduced Floor Plans
Original construction documents (core and shell)
List of Mechanical Equipment
List of Capital e)(penditures for last 5 years
List of Planned Capital expenditures
Local Law #11 Facade lnsoection Reports lNYC)
Roof survey and warranty
Service reports and inspection certificates for (elevator, escalator, HVAC, electrical oenerator. fire alann and s0rinklerl
ADA Survey or Barrier Removal Plan
Previously prepared Property Condition ReDort or enaineerin!l studies ;, Interviewee I Title: I I Date: I
Please fax completed questionnaire to: (###) ###-####

CULVER CITY BUSINESS PARK
5800-5860 HANNUM AVENUE & 5751-5859 UPLANDER WAY - CULVER CITY, CA 90230

SITE PLAN
I.I.I
CD
:z
Cl
::!
= C0
HANNUM AVE.

BUILDING A/B
C: :::::: ::: : : : : : :: : : : :: : '()

BUILDING C

UPLANDER WAY

FOR LEASING

CONTACT

JENNIFER BREY
562.421.6100
[email protected]
Culver City
Water System
Consumer Confidence Report on Water Quality for 2021
Providing Quality Drinking Water in California Since 1929 www.gswater.com/CulverCityCCR facebook.com/GoldenStateH2O @GoldenStateH2O 2022
• •• ••• • • • •
Golden State
Water Company
• • • • • A Subsidiary of American States Water Company Robert Sprowls
President and
Chief Executive Officer
Golden State Water Company
About the
Company
Golden State Water Company
(GSWC) is a wholly owned
subsidiary of American States
Water Company (NYSE:AWR).

GSWC provides water service to
more than 1 million people in
over 80 communities throughout
California. AWR also owns a
contracted services subsidiary,
American States Utility Services,
Inc. (ASUS). ASUS provides
operations, maintenance and
construction management
services for water and wastewater
systems located on military bases
throughout the country under 50-
year privatization contracts with
the U.S. government.

President’s Message
Golden State Water is constantly
working toward 100 percent customer
satisfaction and we encourage you
to visit www.gswater.com and follow
us on Twitter and on Facebook at
@GoldenStateH20
Dear Golden State Water Customer,
Golden State Water Company (GSWC) is pleased to present our 2022 Annual Water Quality Report (Consumer Confidence Report), providing customers with important information regarding local water quality and service during the 2021 calendar year.

GSWC is proud to be the trusted water provider serving local customers and more than 80 communities throughout California, and we appreciate that customers have peace of mind knowing we never stop working to ensure quality, reliable water is available at their taps when they need it.

We recognize the challenges many customers have faced during this pandemic period and now into the continuing drought. During this unprecedented time, our continued dedication to providing the highest levels of service and care to customers has been a driving force for our team of water professionals. We take great pride in the service we provide and embrace our role as essential workers in the community.

For more than 90 years, water quality has always been a top priority for GSWC. Our team of scientists, engineers and water experts is committed to protecting our water systems and ensuring the water we deliver to local homes and businesses meets the stringent standards set by the state and federal governments and is safe to drink. We aggressively monitor and test for hundreds of contaminants in each of our 38 water systems and have consistently scored among the top water companies for compliance with water quality regulations.

GSWC is proud to report that the water delivered to your tap continues to meet all federal and state quality standards established to protect public health and safety. Within this document, you will find information regarding local water supply sources, testing, and the steps GSWC takes to ensure our water is in compliance with standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

To access the most up-to-date Water Quality Report for your area, sampling results, and to learn more about common contaminants, you can visit www.gswater.com/water- quality/. If you have any questions about this report, please contact our 24-hour Customer Service Center at 1.800.999.4033 or email us at [email protected] .

GSWC is constantly working toward 100 percent customer satisfaction and encourages all customers to visit www.gswater.com and follow us on Twitter and on Facebook at @GoldenStateH2O.

On behalf of everyone at GSWC, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to serve you and your community.

Sincerely,
Robert Sprowls Dave Schickling
Dave Schickling
General Manager,
Central District
Golden State Water Company
2 Water delivered to
customers in the Culver
City System is imported
water from the Colorado
River Aqueduct and the
State Water Project (imported and distributed by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California).

Source Water Assessment
In December 2002, the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California (MWD) completed a source
water assessment of its Colorado River and State
Water Project supplies.

Colorado River supplies are considered to be most
vulnerable to the following:
6Increasing urbanization in the watershed
6Recreation
6Urban/storm water runoff
6Wastewater
State Water Project supplies are considered to be most vulnerable to the following:
6Agriculture
6Recreation
6Urban/storm water runoff
6Wastewater
6Wildlife
A copy of the assessment can be obtained by contacting MWD at 1.213.217.6000.

Where Does
My Water
Come From?
Contents
Source Water Assessment 3
Gl
ossary of Terms 4
Ho
w to Read Your Table 5
So
urce Water Quality Table 5
La
boratory Analyses 6
Di
stribution Water Quality Table 6
Ri
sk to Tap and Bottled Water 7
Fo
r Sensitive Immune Systems 7
Cr
oss Connection Control Program 7
Flush
ing 7
C
ontact Us 8
Co
nnect with Us 8
Inf
rastructure Investments 8
Con
serving for California 8
In every one of our water systems, a team of highly-trained employees monitors water quality on an on-going basis to ensure that our customers are receiving high-quality water.
3 r:
_.,,-.., ~
~--------=-- -
"
J_
Unit of Measurement Unit
Abbreviation
Also Known as This can be compared to…
Parts per million (PPM) mg/L milligrams per liter 1 second in 12 days Parts per billion (PPB) µg/L micrograms per liter 1 second in 32 years Parts per trillion (PPT) ng/L nanograms per liter 1 second in 32,000 years Grains per gallon grains/gallon a measurement for water hardness often used for sizing household water softeners
1 grain/gal equals 17.1 mg/L of hardness
Nephelometric Turbidity Units NTU a measurement of the clarity of water Turbidity in excess of 5 NTU is noticeable to the average person
Microsiemens per centimeter µS/cm a measurement of a solution’s ability to conduct electricity
Picocuries per liter pCi/L a measurement of radioactivity in water Delivering drinking water is serious business, and our team of scientists, engineers and water experts is dedicated to protecting our water systems and ensuring the water we deliver to local homes and businesses meets stringent standards set by the state and federal governments and is safe to drink.

Glossary of Terms
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.

Primary MCLs are set as close to the public health goals and maximum contaminant level goals as is economically and technologically feasible.

Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste and appearance of drinking water.

California Notification Level (NL)
Non-regulatory, health-based advisory levels established by the State Board for contaminants in drinking water for which an MCL has not been established.

Level 1 Assessment
A Level 1 assessment is a study of the water system to identify potential problems and determine (if possible) why total coliform bacteria have been found in the water system.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)
The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. Maximum contaminant level goals are set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL)
The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that the addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG)
The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

Primary Drinking Water Standard (PDWS)
MCLs, MRDLs and treatment techniques (TTs) for contaminants that affect health, along with their monitoring and reporting requirements.

Public Health Goal (PHG)
The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. Public health goals are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).

Regulatory Action Level (AL)
The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow .

Treatment Technique (TT)
A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.
4 YOUR WATER MEETS ALL CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS Culver City Water System – Source Water Quality
Primary Standards –
Health Based (units)
Primary
MCL
PHG
(MCLG)
Range of
Detection
Average
Level
Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Turbidity
Highest single measurement of the treated surface
water (NTU) TT = 1.0 n/a n/a 0.06 2021 Soil runoff
Lowest percent of all monthly readings less than 0.3
NTU (%) TT = 95 n/a n/a 100% 2021 Soil runoff
Inorganic Constituents
Aluminum (mg/L) 1 0.6 ND - 0.24 0.12 2021 Erosion of natural deposits; residue from some surface water treatment processes
Barium (mg/L) 1 2 ND - 0.111 ND 2021 Discharges of oil drilling wastes and from metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits
Fluoride (mg/L) 2.0 1 0.6 - 0.9 0.7 2021 Erosion of natural deposits; water additive that promotes strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories Radioactive Constituents
Gross Alpha Activity (pCi/L) 15(a) (0) ND - 3 ND 2021 Erosion of natural deposits Gross Beta Activity (pCi/L) 50(b) (0) ND - 6 ND 2021 Decay of natural and manmade deposits Uranium (pCi/L) 20 0.43 ND - 3 1.3 2021 Erosion of natural deposits Secondary Standards –
Aesthetic (units)
Secondary
MCL
PHG
(MCLG)
Range of
Detection
Average
Level
Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Aluminum (µg/L) 200 n/a ND - 240 120 2021 Erosion of natural deposits; residue from some surface water treatment processes
Color (units) 15 n/a 1 - 2 1 2021 Naturally-occurring organic materials Chloride (mg/L) 500 n/a 65 - 97 88 2021 Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; seawater influence Odor—Threshold (units) 3 n/a 1 - 2 1 2021 Naturally-occurring organic materials Specific Conductance (µS/cm) 1600 n/a 519 - 965 827 2021 Substances that form ions when in water; seawater influence Sulfate (mg/L) 500 n/a 61 - 221 170 2021 Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; industrial wastes Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 1000 n/a 298 - 609 500 2021 Runoff/leaching from natural deposits Other Parameters (units) Notification
Level
PHG
(MCLG)
Range of
Detection
Average
Level
Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Alkalinity (mg/L) n/a n/a 86 - 128 110 2021
Calcium (mg/L) n/a n/a 27 - 70 54 2021
Hardness [as CaCO 3] (mg/L) n/a n/a 110 - 276 220 2021
The sum of polyvalent cations present in the water, generally magnesium and calcium; the cations are usually naturally occurring
Hardness [as CaCO 3] (grains/gal) n/a n/a 6.4 - 16 13 2021 Magnesium (mg/L) n/a n/a 12 - 26 21 2021
pH (pH units) n/a n/a 8.1 - 8.4 8.2 2021
Potassium (mg/L) n/a n/a 2.6 - 4.7 3.9 2021
Sodium (mg/L) n/a n/a 61 - 101 85 2021 Refers to the salt present in the water and is generally naturally occurring
Unregulated Drinking Water Constituents
(units)
Notification
Level
PHG
(MCLG)
Range of
Detection
Average
Level
Most Recent
Sampling Date
HAA6Br [Total of 6 Brominated Haloacetic Acids] (µg/L) n/a n/a 3.2 - 11 8.4 2019 HAA9 [Total of 9 Haloacetic Acids] (µg/L) n/a n/a 4.3 - 15 11 2019 Manganese (µg/L) (c) n/a n/a 0.56 - 1.2 0.94 2019
(a) MCL is based on Gross Alpha minus Uranium. (b) DDW considers 50 pCi/L to be the level of concern for beta particles. (c) Manganese is a regulated contaminant but was not detected in routine samples associated with regulatory compliance and is below all regulatory standards. ND = Not Detected CaCO 3 = Calcium Carbonate This table includes data only on constituents that were detected.

How to
Read Your
Table
Primary Standards -
Health Based (units)
Primary
MCL
PHG
(MCLG)
Range of
Detection
Average
Level
Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Substance A (mg/L) 50 0.6 ND - 40 20 2019 Erosion of natural deposits; residue from some surface water treatment processes
Substance B (µg/L) 6 1 0.1 - 2.8 1.7 2016 Discharge from petroleum refineries; fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder
The highest level of a
constituent allowed in
drinking water.

The highest level for
which the constituent
has no known or
expected health risks.

The range of presence for which
the constituent was detected in
the drinking water.

The average amount of
a constituent detected
in the drinking water.

The most recent
year tests were
conducted.

Describes the most likely ways a
constituent enters the drinking water.

Wording provided by the USEPA.

The consumer confidence report lets you know which constituents, if any, are in your drinking water and how this may affect your health. The constituents presented in this table were detected above the detection limit set by the State Water Resources Control Board. Below is a guide that explains each column of the table. 5 Culver City Water System – Distribution Water Quality Microbiological Constituents
(units)
Primary
MCL
PHG
(MCLG) Value Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Total Coliform Bacteria ≥40 Samples/
Month (Present / Absent)
More than 5% of monthly
samples are positive (0) Highest percent of monthly samples positive was 1.6% for monitoring conducted from January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021 2021 Naturally present in the environment Total Coliform Bacteria ≥40 Samples/
Month (Present / Absent) n/a (0) More than 5% of monthly samples were present for total coliform in September. Level 1 assessment was triggered (d) 2021 Naturally present in the environment Disinfection Byproducts and
Disinfectant Residuals (units)
Primary

MCL (MRDL)
PHG
(MRDLG)
Range of
Detection Average Level Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Bromate (µg/L) 10 0.1 ND - 9.8 1.5 2021 Byproduct of drinking water disinfection Chlorine [as Cl2] (mg/L) (4.0) (4) ND - 2.8 1.6 2021 Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment HAA5 [Sum of 5 Haloacetic Acids] (µg/L) 60 n/a ND - 4.9 5.5 2021 Byproduct of drinking water disinfection TTHMs [Total Trihalomethanes] (µg/L) 80 n/a 12 - 32 22 2021 Byproduct of drinking water disinfection Inorganic Constituents
(units)
Action
Level
PHG
(MCLG)
Sample
Data
90th %
Level
Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Copper (mg/L) 1.3 0.3
None of the 31 samples
collected exceeded the
action level

0.14 2019
Internal corrosion of household plumbing systems;
erosion of natural deposits; leaching from wood
preservatives
Lead sampling in schools and
residential plumbing
Action
Level PHG Sample Data 90th %
Level
Most Recent
Sampling Date Typical Source of Constituent
Number
of Schools
Tested (e)
Lead (µg/L) 15 0.2
None of the 31 samples
collected exceeded the
action level
ND 2019
Internal corrosion of household
water plumbing systems; discharges
from industrial manufacturers;
erosion of natural deposits
8 (d) Although Level 1 assessment was triggered, the system was in compliance. See Level 1 Assessment and Revised Total Coliform Rule sections under Laboratory Analyses. (e) The State of California made lead sampling in schools mandatory with a compliance window through 2019. ND = Not Detected This table includes data only on constituents that were detected.

Laboratory Analyses
Through the years, we have taken thousands of water samples to determine the presence of any radioactive, biological, inorganic, volatile organic, or synthetic organic contaminants in your drinking water. The table we provide shows only detected contaminants in the water.

Even though all the substances listed here are under the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), we feel it is important that you know exactly what was detected and how much of these substances were present in your water. Compliance (unless otherwise noted) is based on the average level of concentration below the MCL. The state allows us to monitor for some contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations do not change frequently. Some of our data, while representative, is more than a year old.

Aluminum — The secondary MCL for aluminum is set for
aesthetic reasons and there is no health concern associated with the aluminum levels in this water system.

Chloramination — The water purchased by GSWC from
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) contains chloramine. Chloramine is added to the water for public health protection. Chloraminated water is safe for people and animals to drink, and for all other general uses. Three special user groups, including kidney dialysis patients, aquarium owners, and businesses or industries that use water in their treatment process, must remove chloramine from the water prior to use.

Hospitals or dialysis centers should be aware of chloramine in the water and should install proper chloramine removal equipment, such as dual carbon adsorption units. Aquarium owners can use readily available products to remove or neutralize chloramine. Businesses and industries that use water in any manufacturing process or for food or beverage preparation should contact their water treatment equipment supplier regarding specific equipment needs.

Fluoridation — Fluoride has been added to the water that GSWC purchases from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) since November 2007. Customers should see no difference in the taste, color or odor of their water as a result of fluoridation.

Fluoridation does not change the way you normally use water for fish, pets or cooking. Parents and guardians of children who receive fluoride supplements should consult the child’s doctor or dentist.

For information regarding fluoridation of your water, please visit the Division of Drinking Water’s fluoridation website at https:// www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/ Fluoridation.html.

Lead — If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. GSWC is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to two minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information about lead in drinking water, testing methods and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1.800.426.4791 or at http://www.epa.gov/ safewater/lead.

Revised Total Coliform Rule — This Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) reflects changes in drinking water regulatory requirements during 2021. These revisions add the requirements of the federal Revised Total Coliform Rule, effective since April 1, 2016, to the existing state Total Coliform Rule. The revised rule maintains the purpose to protect public health by ensuring the integrity of the drinking water distribution system and monitoring for the presence of microbials (i.e., total coliform and E. coli bacteria). The U.S. EPA anticipates greater public health protection as the rule requires water systems that are vulnerable to microbial contamination to identify and fix problems. Water systems that exceed a specified frequency of total coliform occurrences are required to conduct an assessment to determine if any sanitary defects exist. If found, these must be corrected by the water system. The state Revised Total Coliform Rule became effective July 1, 2021.

Level 1 Assessment — Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other, potentially harmful, waterborne pathogens may be present or that a potential pathway exists through which contamination may enter the drinking water distribution system. We found coliforms indicating the need to look for potential problems in water treatment or distribution.

When this occurs, we are required to conduct assessment(s) to identify problems and to correct any problems that were found during these assessments.

During the past year, we were required to conduct one Level 1 assessment. A complete assessment of water sources and distribution system showed no sanitary defects. We also conducted several proactive actions including aggressive flushing and replacing and disinfecting a portion of water main in the area.

Turbidity — Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of the water.

It is monitored because it is a good indicator of the effectiveness of surface water filtration.

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring — Monitoring for
unregulated contaminants helps the USEPA and the State Water Board to determine where certain contaminants occur and whether the contaminants need to be regulated.
6 For People with Sensitive
Immune Systems
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants
in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-
compromised people, such as those individuals with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, those who have undergone
organ transplants, those with HIV/AIDS or other immune
system disorders, some elderly populations, and infants, can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice from their health care providers.

The USEPA and Centers for Disease Control issue guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants. To
obtain a copy of these guidelines, please call the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1.800.426.4791.

For additional information, please contact our 24-hour
Customer Service Center at 1.800.999.4033 or email us at [email protected] . Risk to Tap and Bottled Water Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1.800.426.4791.

The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the layers in the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animal or human activity.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the USEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations and California law also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health.

Contaminants in Drinking Water Sources May Include:
6 Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems,
agricultural livestock operations and wildlife
6 Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, and farming
6 Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff and residential uses
6 Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are byproducts of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff and septic systems 6 Radioactive contaminants that can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities Cross Connection Control Program
Golden State Water Company’s Cross Connection Control
Program provides a level of certainty that the water in the company’s distribution system is protected from possible backflow of contaminated water from commercial or industrial customers’ premises. For additional information, visit
http://www.gswater.com/protecting-our-drinking-water /.

Flushing
Hydrant flushing is an essential maintenance procedure that all water providers must perform periodically to ensure the water delivered to customers meets state and federal drinking water standards. GSWC is using NO-DES (Neutral Output-Discharge Elimination System) flushing in several of our service areas to help flush our distribution systems sustainably.

Traditional hydrant flushing discharges hundreds of thousands of gallons of water onto the street. GSWC’s NO-DES trucks and trailers offer a new maintenance technology, connecting two hydrants to a complex filtration system which cleans the water and returns it to the distribution system.

For more information about hydrant flushing, visit
http://www.gswater.com/flushing.
7 Connect with us to learn more!
Visit www.gswater.com to:
6 Access the latest Water Quality Report for your area
6 Get the latest updates and news regarding the drought and state/local restrictions
6 Learn more about water-use efficiency, including
programs and rebates in your area
6 Understand your water bill and learn about payment
options
6 Obtain information about programs for low-income
customers (Customer Assistance Program or CAP)
6 Sign up to receive email updates about your water
service
For additional information, please contact our 24-hour
Customer Service Center at 1.800.999.4033 or email us
at [email protected] .

Infrastructure Investments
Water providers have a duty to maintain the local water infrastructure to ensure that the delivery of reliable, quality water is not compromised. At GSWC, we take that responsibility seriously.

In 2021, GSWC installed approximately 109,200 feet
of pipeline, 3,000 service lines and 300 fire hydrants
throughout the state. Proactive system investments like these are critical to protect the quality of water we serve to the customers and to avoid the costly and sometimes
dangerous effects of deferring maintenance.

Customers interested in learning more about current and completed infrastructure projects in their service areas are encouraged to visit their service area’s webpage at
www.gswater.com .

A drought-tolerant garden.

Conserving for California
It’s important that all Californians continue using water responsibly, as many parts of our state are experiencing extreme levels of drought. We must all work together to protect available water supplies. As Californians, it is our duty to make conservation a way of life and protect this precious and scarce resource.

GSWC is proud to be your conservation partner. It is important that we all work together to incorporate water-use efficiency into our daily lives.

To learn more about conservation programs and/or water- use restrictions in your area, please visit www.gswater.com/ conservation or call 1.800.999.4033.

If You Have Questions – Contact Us
For information about your water quality or to find out about upcoming opportunities to participate in public meetings, please contact our 24-hour Customer Service Center at

1.800.999.4033. Visit us online at www.gswater.com or email us at [email protected] .

Este informe contiene información muy importante sobre su agua de beber. Tradúzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien. 8 APPENDIX G

QUALIFICATIONS
Project No. 462158
June 13, 2022
AEI Consultants
Ron Russell – Associate Consultant
Education:

BS
Chemical Engineering, New York University
Summary of Professional Experience:

Mr. Russell has experience in Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) since 1995 working as a Senior Project Manager with a major geotechnical engineering firm. As a Senior Project Manager, his duties and responsibilities were to provide oversight for Phase I ESAs and project management implementation inclusive of Phase II and remedial actions to achieve clean closure. He has managed several hundred projects. The types of properties for projects included commercial, industrial, refining, chemical processing and multi-tenant residential.

Select project experience for Mr. Russell includes:
• Assessm
ent and r emediation, various sites, Exxon Mobil Program, Southern California – Mr. Russell acted as Senior Project Manager while working for a major geotechnical engineering firm. He conducted and supervised Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and remediation of numerous retail gasoline stations prior to development as strip malls. The Phase I studies were used to identify LUST sites prior to remediation or closure. • Assessment and r emediation, Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida – Mr.

Russell acted as Senior Project Manager with profit and loss and technical oversight for an assessment and remediation of American Airlines, Terminal C prior to renovation of the baggage handling facility. Some of the issues associated with this project were suspicion of leaked jet fuel below the tarmac at Terminal C. This was confirmed by a Phase I/Phase II Site Assessment.

The ensuing remedial action involved installation of subsurface horizontal wells with above ground soil vapor extraction. The site received a clean closure from the fire department and the FAA.
• Remedial investigation and feasibility study, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama – Mr. Russell acted as Senior Project Manager responsible for the implementation of technical specifications to safely remove and treat pentaborane utilized by NASA. The primary issue associated with this project was the toxicity and flammability of pentaborane which is lethal at

0.5 ppb. The pentaborane was stored in 100 -gallon vessels and distilled yielding elemental boron.
~ AEI Consultants

Margaret Garcia – National Client Manager

B.S. – Environmental Science, Villanova University, 2013 M.S. – Environmental Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2015

OSHA 40-Hour HAZWOPER and Annual 8-Hour Refreshers
EPA/AHERA Accredited Asbestos Inspector
New York State Asbestos Inspector

Ms. Garcia has been in the environmental and due diligence industry since 2013 and provides national client and project management to ensure ASTM compliance and satisfaction of client requirements.

Currently, Ms. Garcia serves as a National Client Manager, providing client services and review of environmental due diligence projects.

Project experience for Ms. Garcia includes:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments in compliance of the American Society for
• Testing and Materials (ASTM E1527 – 13)
• New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Preliminary Assessment
• (PA) reports
• Records Search with Risk Assessments (RSRA) reports
• Transaction Screens and Limited Site Assessments
• Historical Records Reviews
• Regulatory Database Reviews
• File and Database Reviews
• Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Sampling
• Lead in Water Sampling
• Short-Term Radon Sampling

Field Experience for Ms. Garcia includes:
• Soil and Groundwater Sampling
• Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sampling
• Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) Sampling
• Asbestos Surveys
• Asbestos Air Monitoring for Abatements
• Oversight of Soil Disposal and Hazardous Wastes
• Oversight of Soil Boring Advancements and Monitoring Well Installation

Ms. Garcia’s experience also extends to a broad range of enviro nmental disciplines including, but not limited to hazardous waste management, conce pts of biodegradation and bioremediation, and land use planning and management. Ms. G arcia completed her M.S. in Environmental Science with a concentration in Pollution Prevention and Control from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

AEI Consultants

Doane E. Cafferty – National Client Manager / Senior Reviewer

B.A., Geology, University of Vermont
Professional Geologist (PG) – New York (2/2018, #846)
Licensed Geologist (LG) – Washington State (8/2002, #1663) LEED Accredited Professional

Mr. Cafferty has 20+ years supervising, managing, planning, and conducting Phase I ESAs, Phase II subsurface investigations, remedial investigations, vapor intrusion investigations, and remedial construction oversight. Mr. Cafferty has experience consulting for private business owners, private developers, industrial clients, major oil companies, academia, public sector agencies, and rail & transportation. He is knowledgeable of federal, state, and local environmental requirements in several states with experience extending across the spectrum of environmental investigation and remediation, construction management and geologic investigations

Project experience for Mr. Cafferty includes:

 Supervised, managed, planned, and conducted a NJDEP Preliminary Assessment (PA) of the Seth Boyden Terrace public housing complex in Newark, NJ on behalf of the Newark Housing Authority. The subject property is approximately 11 acres and is developed with 12, three-story apartment buildings, a central heating plant, and associated improvements. The PA identified 19 areas of concern (AOCs) with 189 sub-AOCs.
 Served as the Site Reconnaissance Field Team Leader for the Phase I ESA of the largest real estate transaction in United States history (Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town, New York, NY) which was conducted on an expedited schedule. The subject property is a residential development on the east side of Manhattan consisting of 90 acres and 110 hi-rise buildings.  Managed, planned, and conducted Phase I ESAs and subsequent Phase II ESIs for two adjoining commercial properties in Passaic, NJ. One property was an automotive engine rebuilder present on the site since 1929 and the other property was an automobile service center performing oil changes, inspections, brake service, automatic transmission and cooling system flushes, tire rotation and balancing, and bodywork. The Phase II ESIs both consisted of the advancement of soil borings and collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis and the installation of temporary well points with groundwater sampling.  Managed, planned, and conducted a Phase I ESA and subsequent Phase II ESI for nine contiguous properties in Jersey City, NJ. Recognized environmental conditions (RECs) included the potential for USTs, potential for impact from historic fill and/or hexavalent chromium waste, and the potential for vapor migration from an adjoining property with groundwater contamination. The Phase II ESI consisted of the advancement of soil borings and collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis and the installation of temporary well points with groundwater sampling.
 Managed, planned, and conducted a NJDEP PA of four parcels totaling 122 acres on behalf of the Hunterdon County Open Space – Trust Fund Program. The PA

identified three AOCs consisting of potential USTs, historical agricultural use, and surface water bodies.
 Managed, planned, and conducted a NJDEP PA/Phase I ESA of one parcel totaling 37 acres on behalf of the Hunterdon County Open Space – Trust Fund Program.

The PA identified two AOCs consisting of historical pesticide use and historic fill.

The Phase I ESA identified two RECs consisting of historical use of the adjacent properties and historic fill on an adjoining property.
 Supervised, managed, planned, and conducted a NJDEP PA/Phase I ESA and subsequent Phase II ESI for three contiguous parcels comprising approximately five acres on behalf of the Hunterdon County Open Space – Trust Fund Program.

The PA identified five AOCs consisting of potential USTs, hazardous material storage, historical pesticide use, discharge to surface water bodies, and areas which receive flood waters from potentially contaminated areas. The Phase I ESA identified four RECs consisting of potential USTs, historical site use, historical use of the adjacent properties, and an adjoining property listed on the NPL and several other databases. The Phase II ESI consisted of a geophysical investigation, and a soil and groundwater investigation. The site was located within a flood zone and within a regulated wetlands area. The scope of work also included a freshwater wetlands delineation, preparation of a freshwater wetlands permit, and preparation of a Letter of Interpretation to verify the limits of the freshwater wetlands, freshwater wetlands transition areas, and State open water on the site.  Managed, planned, and conducted a Phase I ESA for a 12-acre property developed with an approximately 79,400 SF warehouse building. RECs included the potential for USTs, historically applied pesticides, and the potential for vapor migration and/or groundwater contamination from a nearby property.  Managed, planned, and conducted a Phase I ESA for manufacturing facility with an approximately 30,000 SF warehouse building. RECs included the potential for USTs, the presence of a spray booth used to contain and vent fumes, a nearby dry-cleaning facility, and groundwater contamination (benzene) at a nearby site.

APPENDIX H

LIST OF COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS
Project No. 462158
June 13, 2022
AEI Consultants
UNITS
µg/L Micrograms per Liter pCi/L PicoCuries per Liter
mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram ppb Parts per Billion
mg/L Milligrams per Liter ppm Parts per Million

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACM Asbestos-Containing Material NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
ADJ Adjacent site NFA No Further Action
AEI AEI Consultants NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act NLR No Longer Reporting APN Assessor’s Parcel Number NOV Notice of Violation
AST Aboveground Storage Tank NPL National Priorities List AUL Activity and Use Limitation O&M Operations and Maintenance bgs Below Ground Surface OEC Other Environmental Considerations BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and
Xylenes OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Information
System
PCE,
PERC
Perchloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene,
Tetrachloroethene
CESQGs Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
COC Contaminant of Concern REC Recognized Environmental Condition CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental
Condition
RP Responsible Party
EC Engineering Controls SDS Safety Data Sheet
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System EPA Environmental Protection Agency SF Square Footage/Square Feet ERIS Environmental Risk Information Services SP Subject Property ERNS Emergency Response Notification System SQG Small Quantity Generator ESA Environmental Site Assessment SWLF Solid Waste Landfill GPR Ground-Penetrating Radar SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound HREC Historical Recognized Environmental
Condition
TCE Trichloroethylene, Trichloroethene
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons HWS Hazardous Waste Site TPHd Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (diesel range) IC Institutional Controls TPHg Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (gasoline range) LBP Lead-Based Paint TPHo Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (oil range) LCP Lead-Containing Paint TRPH Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons LLP Landowner Liability Protection TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility LQG Large Quantity Generator USDA United States Department of Agriculture LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank USGS United States Geological Survey MCL Maximum Contaminant Level UST Underground Storage Tank MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program ND None Detected VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Appendix H
Hydrology and Water Quality
Technical Memorandum

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: July 31, 2024
To: Link Logistics
From: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Michael Choi, P.E., LEED AP
CC: Mr. Andy Beck
Subject: 5757 Uplander Way – Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Memorandum Introduction
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. is providing this Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Memorandum as a supplement to the CEQA Document. The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the potential impact of the project to the existing storm drain infrastructure system, and to provide a description of proposed water quality features to meet Low Impact Development (LID) requirements.

The Project site is comprised of approximately 8.34 acres. The site is bounded by Hannum Ave to the north, Bristol Pkwy to the west, Uplander Way to the east, and Uplander Way/Sumner Way to the south, per the ALTA/NSPS Survey, completed October 27,2021. The existing improvements include 4 mixed- use two-story buildings, totaling 103,027 SF, surrounded by ground level parking. The proposed development proposes to construct three, seven-story, multi-family buildings with 2 levels of subterranean parking. To provide for the new use, the existing surface parking lot and existing commercial buildings will be demolished.

Hydrology
Existing Conditions
The existing project site is currently developed and is comprised of a surface parking lot and four existing office buildings. The majority of the site is impervious, including the existing building, concrete hardscape areas, and asphalt concrete paving for the surface parking lots. The remaining pervious areas are limited to the landscape area fronting the site, landscaped parking islands and small landscaped planters adjacent to the existing commercial buildings.  Existing Impervious Area = 7.2 AC (87%)
 Existing 50-Year Runoff = 16.00 CFS
The existing site elevations range from approximately 100-118 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The existing site gradient and stormwater runoff generally flows northerly/westerly for the northern half of the site and southerly/westerly for the southern half of the site.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 2 ends

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040
The onsite stormwater flows into the shared access driveway drains relocated throughout the site. The northern, southern, and western landscaped portions of the site drain in their respective directions towards the adjacent streets. Within the property as shown in Figure 1, site drainage sheet flows offsite to the gutter within either Hannum Avenue or Uplander/Sumner way. The overflow points of the existing onsite catch basins and roof drains are undetermined at this time and require further investigation.

Once runoff has left the site and is in the public right-of-way, it is directed via concrete gutter west and south along either Hannum Avenue, Bristol Parkway, and Sumner Way, respectively, until it enters the Culver City storm drain system through a curb opening catch basin. The storm drain system ultimately discharges into Centinela Creek Lower which leads to Ballona Creek. See Figure 2 below for LA County Storm Drain System Map.

Figure 1. Existing Drainage Conditions.

Kimley>>> Horn
,._
-
><(
~ a:
<(
Q.
...J
g
!:2 a:

CD
l,l:lll,)
-11,-,11,:,.~
.. ,~--~
:!::'IIIIW-
llf'II 41~~,

HANNUM AVE

UPLANDER WAY/SUMNER WAY

PER ALTA/NSPS SURVEY

Page 3 ends

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040

Kimley>>> Horn
ffi
Fo.. Hoh Pl> :ui
SlloJlPlngC. n1e,
/
..._
H .do

1.-.11101111I
CREEK '~ .__.,.. __

Page 4 ends

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040
Figure 2. LA County Storm Drain Map.

Proposed Conditions
The project proposes to construct 3 mixed-use, seven-story multi-family and retail buildings totaling 1,019,267 SF with two levels of subterranean parking. A majority of the site will be impervious, comprised of the new building. Perimeter site areas will be pervious and comprised of landscaped drainage swales.
 Proposed Impervious Area = 7.2 AC (86%)
 Proposed 50-year Runoff = 16.00 CFS
Stormwater runoff from the proposed site will be entirely captured and treated by the LID system (further discussed in the Water Quality section of this report). Building roof drainage will be captured by roof drains and routed via plumbing to the LID system located under the building, within the subterranean parking. Site drainage will be captured by drainage swales and inlets, then routed to the LID system.

Any overflow stormwater runoff beyond the required volume will be discharged into adjacent street or public storm system. See Appendix 3 for Preliminary Grading and Drainage.

Water Quality
The project is required to comply with County and City LID requirements, which require implementation of a stormwater treatment system that captures the 85 th percentile runoff volume for treatment. The stormwater treatment system must be selected in the following order as approved by the City:
infiltration, rainwater capture and reuse, or combination / alternative compliance systems.

Kimley>>> Horn
.1 '1! ' I ·1. on1v

Page 5 ends

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040
Based on the project geotechnical investigation, infiltration is feasible for the project due to high infiltration rate and low groundwater table relative to the subterranean parking garage.

Geotechnologies, Inc. determined that the infiltration rate was 26.9 inches per hour in their geotechnical report dated May 8, 2024 and groundwater was not detected at their maximum exploration depth of 80 feet. Any additional factor of safety requirement for design infiltration rates will need to be coordinated with the City. The highest historic groundwater depth for the project site was noted to be roughly 40 feet below grade. The project proposes three MaxWell IV drywell systems to treat and infiltrate the 85th percentile storm runoff. See Appendices 1 and 2 for Torrent Resources drywell calculations and MaxWell IV standard detail.

As described in the Proposed Hydrology section of this report, all site and building runoff will be captured and directed to the drywell system. The project proposes three MaxWell IV drywells with a combined storage volume of approximately 27,321 cubic feet (CF). The required mitigated volume is 27,084 CF, but is fully infiltrated with the rate of 26.9 in/hr. The drywells will be located underground, within the respective buildings lowest parking structure. See Appendix 4 for Preliminary LID.

Conclusion
No significant impacts to hydrology or water quality are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed project does not change the impervious area and thus will not increase runoff from the existing condition. While there is uncertainty as to whether there are currently existing drainage features or water quality measures on site, the project proposes to introduce both which would improve the current condition.
 Existing Impervious Area = 7.2 AC (87%)
 Proposed Impervious Area = 7.2 AC (86%)
 Existing 50-Year Runoff = 16.00 CFS
 Proposed 50-Runoff Volume = 16.00 CFS
 Proposed 85th Percentile Runoff Volume = 27,084 CF
 Proposed drywell system for LID requirement.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 6 ends

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040
Appendix 1 – LID Calculations
Kimley>>> Horn
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/LDT_LDEV/194590001-Culver City - Office Redev/Reports/Environmental/LID/LID Calcs/2024.07.30 - Culver City Link - Existing Whole Site.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Culver City Link
Subarea ID Existing Whole Site
Area (ac) 8.34
Flow Path Length (ft) 955.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.22
Percent Impervious 0.87
Soil Type 13
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.22
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.15
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8449
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8928
Time of Concentration (min) 11.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 16.0095
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 16.0095
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.8978
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 126227.8664
18 Hydrograph (Culver City Link: Existing Whole Site)
16 14 ~
12 oo 10 ~
~
3:
0 8 u::::
6~
4 2~
~ 0 I I I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/LDT_LDEV/194590001-Culver City - Office Redev/Reports/Environmental/LID/Appendix/2024.07.30 - Culver City Link - Proposed Whole Site.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Culver City Link
Subarea ID Proposed Whole Site
Area (ac) 8.34
Flow Path Length (ft) 955.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.22
Percent Impervious 0.86
Soil Type 13
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.22
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.15
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8449
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8923
Time of Concentration (min) 11.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 15.9996
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 15.9996
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.8716
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 125087.4741
16 Hydrograph (Culver City Link: Proposed Whole Site)
14 ~
12 10
00 ~ 8 3:
0 u::::
6 4
2 ~ 0 I I I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/LDT_LDEV/194590001-Culver City - Office Redev/Reports/LID/Calculations/2024.07.29 - Culver City - LID - TA 1.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Culver City - LID
Subarea ID TA 1
Area (ac) 3.27
Flow Path Length (ft) 670.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 1.1
Percent Impervious 0.9
Soil Type 13
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.1 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.292
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.82
Time of Concentration (min) 28.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.7831
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.7831
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2438
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 10618.4501

0.8 Hydrograph (Culver City - LID: TA 1)

0.7 ~

0.6 ~

0.5 ~
't
i' 04
0 u::

0.3 0.2

0.1 I
00 I I I I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/LDT_LDEV/194590001-Culver City - Office Redev/Reports/LID/Calculations/2024.07.29 - Culver City - LID - TA 2.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Culver City - LID
Subarea ID TA 2
Area (ac) 2.39
Flow Path Length (ft) 500.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 1.1
Percent Impervious 0.9
Soil Type 13
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.1 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.3203
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.82
Time of Concentration (min) 23.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6278
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6278
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1782
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 7760.8601

0.7 Hydrograph (Culver City - LID: TA 2)

0.6 ~

0.5 "7ii" 0.4
~
3:
0 U:: 0.3

0.2 0.1
~ I
00 I I I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/LDT_LDEV/194590001-Culver City - Office Redev/Reports/LID/Calculations/2024.07.29 - Culver City - LID - TA 3.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Culver City - LID
Subarea ID TA 3
Area (ac) 2.68
Flow Path Length (ft) 600.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 1.1
Percent Impervious 0.9
Soil Type 13
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.1 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.3024
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.82
Time of Concentration (min) 26.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6645
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.6645
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1998
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 8702.5709

0.7 Hydrograph (Culver City - LID: TA 3)

0.6 ~

0.5 "7ii" 0.4
~
3:
0 U:: 0.3

0.2 0.1
~ I
00 I I I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)

Page 7 ends

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040
Appendix 2 – Preliminary Grading
Kimley>>> Horn
UP
EX. BUILDING
APN: 4134-005-902

UPLANDER WAY
CL

BRISTOL PKWY
CL
CL

HANNUM AVENUE
102.69() FS
JOIN EX.
104.10( )FS
JOIN EX.
104.48FF
107.71FS
106.68() FS
JOIN EX.
108.77( )FS
JOIN EX.
100
105
110
115
101
102
103
104
106
107
108109111112113114
116
102
102
103
104
104
103
105
104
106
105
107110
111
112113114
117
101
101
102.00() FS
JOIN EX.
104.04FS
LEVEL P1-P2

GARAGE PARKING BELOW
101.40BW
101.08BW
100.89BW
100.70TC
108
114.37FS
113.83FS
127.00 FS (LVL 02 - P2)
114.00 FF (LVL 01 - P2)
102.00 FF (LVL P1 - P2)

92.00 FF (LVL P2 - P2)
118.00 FS (LVL 02-P1)
103.00 FF (LVL 01-P1)

90.50 FF (LVL P1-P1)
103.95( )TC
102.01FS
103.00FS103.00FS103.00FS103.00FS
114.00FS
LEVEL 01-P2

GARAGE PARKING BELOW
LEVEL 01-P1

GARAGE PARKING BELOW
100.11LIP
100.03FL
100.04LIP

99.98FL
100.38( )TC
100.06() FL
JOIN EX.
100.71( )TC

99.89() FL
JOIN EX.
100.04FL103.00FS
102.81FS
102.50FS
103.89FS

3.98%

3.80%
102.99() FS
JOIN EX.
102.35() FS
JOIN EX.
102.63() FS
JOIN EX.
(102.88) FL
103.57( )TC
103.27() FL
JOIN EX.

4.36%
103.80BW

1.62%

1.85%
103.57() FS
JOIN EX.
103.10() FS
JOIN EX.
104.61( )FS
JOIN EX.
105.54( )FS
JOIN EX.
100.82() FS
JOIN EX.
100.45() FS
JOIN EX.
101.00BW
102.07() FS
JOIN EX.
102.54() FS
JOIN EX.
104.13FS
107.87FS
109.91FS
106.06FS
114.00FS
114.37FS
115.00FS
114.79BW
115.53BW
114.18LIP
114.12 FL
115.79FS
117.00FS
117.00FS
103.26FS
103.00FS
103.79FS
103.00FS
102.93FS
102.50FS
102.50FS
114.59FS
115.04FS

11.24%1.95%
115.48FS
118.00FS
103.96FS
104.33FS
118.00FS
118.00FS
127.00FS
111.52( )FS
JOIN EX.
113.44( )FS
JOIN EX.
116.84( )FS
JOIN EX.
116.83( )FS
JOIN EX.
100.43TC

99.97FL
103.72BW
104.14FS
103.65() FS
JOIN EX.

4.87%
GB
GB
122.00FS- BRIDGE
- LEVEL 1 102.69FS
101.17FS
101.79FS
104.48FF
104.15FS
GB
104.12FS
104.18FS
103.97BW
103.79( )TC
103.49( )TC
(102.81) FL
104.39FS
GB

1.80%

1.80%
104.23FS
114.68 TC
114.01FL
115.64 TC
114.97FL
114.92LIP
114.86FL
114.72FS
115.46FS
114.82BW
115.78BW

1.43%
118.00FS
118.00 FS (LVL 02-P1)
103.00 FF (LVL 01-P1)

90.50 FF (LVL P1-P1)
127.00FS
104.14BW
118.00FS

1.49%
9 (6") RISERS
7 (6") RISERS
6 (6") RISERS
5 (6") RISERS
108.68FS
108.75FS
112.25FS
112.33FS
115.33FS
115.43FS
117.93FS

8.3% MAX

8.3% MAX
127.00FS
127.00FS
102.00FS
103.55FS
103.50FS
113.00() FS
JOIN EX.

PROP. RETAINING
WALL
(MAX = 10')
102.50FS
PROP. FIRE LANE
RAMP
113.92FS
115.02FS
GB
102.91FS
102.50FS
104.50FF
104.50FF
107.00FS
107.90() FS
JOIN EX.
114.56FS
114.37FS

0.52%
115.72FS
PROP. PROPERTY LINE
EX. PROPERTY LINE
GB
660 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2050, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
PHONE: 213-261-4040
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

NORTH
THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE BASED ON AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE

CONTRACTOR MUST FIELD DETERMINE THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REPORT DISCREPANCIES AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED UTILITIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PIPING.

EXISTING UTILITY NOTE
>>>>

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

EASEMENT LINE

CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK LINE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE

FLOW LINE

EXISTING NORTHERN OUTFALL

REPLACEMENT SEWER
SD
LEGEND

SEE NEXT SHEET FOR CONTINUATION

CULVER CITY OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT

FINE GRADING EXHIBIT
July 30, 2024
-
,,
cc
C
= <
C:

C
z
v:

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I iii I
I
I
I I
I gi I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I gi I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I !il I
I I
-----
' I
'
'
in
-+
I I-,
I LJ
I I '
I
I
I
,r
I I
"
I I
'
I I
I
I
r
I
---,
el --SD ------SD -------'-'--SD ------SD ------SD ------SD -------SD------SD--"'-----SD-------.... ,-1 -
D
!_
-------,
' '
-~~~~-,,~ "' ...-~c..--=---=---=---~-= // \
-~, //
l .__ _ __. ____ ____,.__ ____ ___._ ,.,__ _________ --I I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I ", .9;-
1 I
I
I
I
I
•
_,,-\\ \, \,
), \
_____ __./\\ \
/
--~1
l
II
II ! II
11 \
1,
'I
\
11 )
/,•
--~~:/'
' ' I
I
' .

I
'
I
I
!
!
!
\ \
\_ \_
\ ' ,I
' \
'
I c------j/
\ \ N
\ \ ,'1
\ ·, '
' ' '
;7>
' ,,
(
\\,
\
\
\
" ,,
'
"-.>,-----~--~
I
r
[
I,-
/
-
I ' --
LJ
_j
' ' ' ' I '
' ' ' ' II '
[
' ' ' ' ' ' '
II
[
II
/
·---------~./
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I
' ' ' I
' ' ' '
'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' '
I.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I I
_J .
l
l
I I
..

I
--/
I
I
•

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 10 20 40
1 1 1 1
EX. BUILDING
APN: 4134-005-025

UPLANDER WAY
CL

SUMNER WAY
CL

BRISTOL PKWYCL
113.71FS
112.07FS
112.78BW
110.31( )FS
JOIN EX.
107.83( )FS
JOIN EX.
107.26( )TC
113.00() FS
JOIN EX.
112.60( )FS
JOIN EX.
111.74FS
112.32FS
110
106
107
108
109
111
115
113
114
116
114
114113
113
112
112
113112111
110
110
109
108
107
108
109
110110
106
107
108
116
LEVEL 01-P3

GARAGE PARKING BELOW
111.95FS
111.95FS
112.00FS
112.50FS
126.00FS
126.00 FF (LVL 02-P3)
112.00 FF (LVL 01-P3)
102.00 FF (LVL P1-P3)

91.00 FF (LVL P2-P3)
112.35FS
113.59FS
112.00FS
112.26FS
112.19FS
126.00FS
126.00FS
117.00FS
112.50FS
112.00FS
112.00FS
114.50LIP
114.44 FL
114.85LIP
114.79FL
115.25BW
115.60BW
106.00( )TC
106.57() FL
JOIN EX.
107.68TC
107.01FL
108.19( )FS
JOIN EX.
107.39LIP
107.33FL
108.64( )FS
JOIN EX.
109.92( )FS
JOIN EX.
109.95( )FS
JOIN EX.
112.00FS112.00FS
110.01( )FS
JOIN EX.
110.05( )FS
JOIN EX.
110.35( )FS
JOIN EX.
126.50FS
113.18FS
- BRIDGE
- BRIDGE

CEILING
GB

2.64%

2.74%
107.72BW
108.00FS

1.50%

1.18%

2.00%
110.98FS 112.00FS 112.00FS 112.00FS 112.00FS 112.00FS 112.00FS 108.40( )FS
JOIN EX.109.54( )FS
JOIN EX.
109.20( )FS
JOIN EX.
108.93( )FS
JOIN EX.
108.78( )FS
JOIN EX.
112.16FS
115.51 TC
114.84FL
108.04 TC
107.37FL
107.72TC
107.05FL
GB
115.06 TC
114.39FL
111.82FS
111.82FS
111.11FS

1.41%
113.20BW
111.63BW
111.51 TC
110.84FL
112.62 TC
111.95FL
113.07 TC
112.40FL
111.07BW
110.93 TC
110.26FL
110.54BW
110.40 TC
109.73FL
111.04FS
118.09FS
12 (6") RISERS
4 (6") RISERS
12 (6") RISERS
118.14FS
119.90FS
119.95FS
125.95FS
126.00FS

8.3% MAX

8.3% MAX
112.18FS
117.64FS
123.10FS
114.91FS
120.37FS
125.84FS

8.3% MAX
112.73FS
113.99FS
112.73FS112.79FS
113.78FS113.78FS113.78FS
660 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2050, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
PHONE: 213-261-4040
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE BASED ON AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE

EXISTING UTILITY NOTE
NORTH
>>>>

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

EASEMENT LINE

CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK LINE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE

FLOW LINE

EXISTING NORTHERN OUTFALL

REPLACEMENT SEWER
SD
LEGEND

SEE PREVIOUS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION

CULVER CITY OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT

FINE GRADING EXHIBIT
July 30, 2024
C
C
,_;
C
(_'_:

Cl
<.

C
\
I
<
,,
(')
<
C
C
~
I I / I I I~
I I
j)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
---
/
/
I
/
I
I
-------------------------
-I
I
I I
I ljl I
I I
I I
I
I
ljl I
en
"'
en en
ljl
(/)
en
ljl
"' en
ljl
I
I
I
- ------ti L::
r
------
I
I
I I
I .I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·r l
1--
I
I
I
I
I
I
----------
□
I
,~--~
L
--------~/l
j
---□
.:;.JI 11
<>>;.,_
\),
"
~ ',
/
' '
' ' '
______ _,....,.
' ' '
~
" ' .,
' ' ' ' '
_,,,,,
(
' ' ' ' ' ' '
\~
I, c -------._
-I-
.1
!
'
j
--.,.------ , ---~-
1111111 ----• ----
©
,
I
I ;
I
r
I;
~
I
I
I
j,,
-~--w__ I ljl I
_ S ---W---------W---------W---------W-m: '-----
3'
s~ ~ -~ oj
-------~ W---+------w---------W-.,....;;;::. ___ ---w-:::0--------w ----_ 1V-""---------W------____ ,,-----::_ ____ --'Yi" ------W------W-------W------ -------s:s__ ----~s~sc-----~1~1~1~s~s---------<>ss---------s~s--·-----ss-----"------------~.s-------'----~ss--------ss------eo I I I
I I
I ljl I
-----
/
I
!
/
I
I
' ' '
' ' ' '
'----I
I
I
' ' '
I
I
'
1/ '

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 10 20 40
1 1 1 1

Page 8 ends

kimley-
horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 26 1 4040
Appendix 3 – Site LID
Kimley>>> Horn
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6
0 06 6 66 6 66 6 66 6 66 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
6 6 66 6 66 6 66 6 66 6 6
66 6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
666 6 66 6 66 6 60 6
06 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 66 6
7 7 7 7 7

LOADING
TRASH
TRASH
ME&HRM
UP
EX. BUILDING
APN: 4134-005-902
EX. BUILDING
APN: 4134-005-025

UPLANDER WAY
CL

SUMNER WAY
CL

BRISTOL PKWYCL

BRISTOL PKWY
CL
CL
TRIBUTARY AREA 1
(SEE TABULATION HEREON)
TRIBUTARY AREA 2
(SEE TABULATION HEREON)
TRIBUTARY AREA 3
(SEE TABULATION HEREON)
EXISTING 12"

STORM DRAIN LINE

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN
EXISTING 150" RCP

NORTHERN OUTFALL

REPLACEMENT SEWER LINE

HANNUM AVENUE
PROPOSED P1-P1

MAXWELL DRYWELL

INFILTRATION SYSTEM

PLUS SETTLING CHAMBER

EXISTING SIDE

OPENING CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED P1-P2

PLUMBING POC
PROPOSED P1-P3

PLUMBING POC

INTERNAL STORM DRAIN

ROUTING PER PLUMBING
PROPOSED P1-P1 OVERFLOW

CONTROL STRUCTURE

EXISTING SIDE

OPENING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING 42" RCP

STORM DRAIN LINE
PROPOSED P1-P3 TREATMENT

FLOW PIPING PER PLUMBING

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

CONTROL STRUCTURE
PROPOSED P1-P3 TREATMENT

FLOW PIPING PER MEP

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

CONTROL STRUCTURE

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

CONTROL STRUCTURE
PROPOSED P1-P3 TREATMENT

FLOW PIPING PER PLUMBING

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

CONTROL STRUCTURE

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

CONTROL STRUCTURE
PROPOSED P1-P1 TREATMENT

PIPING PER PLUMBING

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

CONTROL STRUCTURE
PROPOSED P1-P1 TREATMENT

FLOW PIPING PER PLUMBING

INTERNAL ROUTING

PER PLUMBING

PROPOSED OVERFLOW

PARKWAY DRAIN

PROPOSED OVERFLOW
CONTROL STRUCTURE PROPOSED P1-P2 PLUMBING POC
PROPOSED P1-P2

MAXWELL DRYWELL

INFILTRATION SYSTEM

PLUS SETTLING CHAMBER
PROPOSED P1-P3

MAXWELL DRYWELL

INFILTRATION SYSTEM

PLUS SETTLING CHAMBER

INTERNAL ROUTING

PER PLUMBING
PROPOSED P1-P3 TREATMENT FLOW

PIPING PER PLUMBING
660 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2050, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
PHONE: 213-261-4040
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CULVER CITY OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT
July 30, 2024
NORTH

LID SUMMARY TABLE

TRIBUTARY AREAPROPOSED LID BMPDISTURBED

AREA (AC)

IMPERVIOUS

AREA (AC)

PERVIOUS

AREA (AC)

TREATMENT
VOLUME

REQUIRED (CF)

TREATMENT
VOLUME

PROVIDED
(CF)

REQUIRED

DETENTION
TA 1INFILTRATION DRYWELL &
SETTLING CHAMBER3.242.860.3810,62010,675N/A
TA 2INFILTRATION DRYWELL &
SETTLING CHAMBER2.382.050.337,7617,817N/A
TA 3INFILTRATION DRYWELL &
SETTLING CHAMBER2.692.280.418,7038,829N/A
DEDICATED AREAN/A0.030.030N/AN/AN/A
TOTAL8.347.221.1227,08427,321N/A

PROPERTY LINE

CENTER LINE

EASEMENT OR SETBACK LINE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE

EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPE

INTERNAL PIPING PER PLUMBING

LIMIT OF WORK

SETTLING CHAMBER / PRE-TREATMENT

DRYWELL
LEGEND

1. DESIGN PARAMETERS BASED ON GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY GEOTECHNOLOGIES DATED MAY 8, 2024.

1.1. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED AT DEPTHS OF UP TO 80 FT BGS

1.2. INFILTRATION RATE = 26.9 INCHES PER HOUR INCLUDING REDUCTION FACTOR

2. REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS FOR INTERNAL ROUTING TO THE RESPECTIVE LID BMP AND OVERFLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE.

GENERAL NOTES
1 MAXWELL PLUS SETTLING CHAMBER DETAIL
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
' LJ
:..:,_
' LJ
LJ
4 0
I
LJ
Q
'
LJ
<(
LJ
,,
0 ' LJ
LJ
LJ
''
LJ ,_,
C:

L
C,
·,
C,
'
/
' '
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
u,
ril 1
11 I I I
. '
I I I
r,v
I, I
I I
I I
,I
I/ I
I II I•
I
...,
I I' '
I I :
-f/,,11
I I
I
I
I
I
I
1 UI , ,
I
I I
I I
I I
Uk___
ri1
I I
I I
I I
UI
ri1
I I
I I
I I
UI
ri1
I I
11 I I
UI
ri1
I I
I I
I I
UI
ri1
I I
I I
I I
~I I I I
•
□
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
' •si
1-kB
:,1
1-l
-
'
-
·-
w
.f R
"
-----I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I ,
I
t~ -=-=-:;:..:-=---=...J
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
1:

I I
I I I
□
II
mnmJTTI
'
H
'
0 -
('
I
/4 _J_ -
I tlf I II '
/ I t-1---it-1
'
p
-
I Fl
--,...
-
'I
- ----
,. ,.
--·r---r-I""""'
!cl
,--:, .,,,,...,,
:::; :;::;
'.....'..o ~
R
•
•
' ' " "
•
----
'
"11 lrll I l'I I lrll I l'I I lrl
'
l'I Fl
---- - -
...,... __ ...... -
---.----,--
n
' " '
- -rs:~ -
r-:-'"
_]
•
• •
-
"
•
•
I
I
-
.,
-I
-•
•
•
III 11 IIFIII 11 IIFIII 11 IIFIII ~'.111 i,~ 11 ~
--
'
'
----+-----, I
---11--1 ~II
~ "
'
~EIU/j
w -
H
\ - ~~
I ;, , I
I ' I
: f \\ I
: :11~
_J ' '' ·•,\1
,! ' L,,
'
~ :
3:'
Ill
---
I
0 -----
0 --...;, ·W-----------
0 -l· W __ ;y~ --------W--
0 --,.c','~.-:.... ---W---~ -------.. <J.v-·· -------
0 .. ---W-• ,. c..., '·-'--' -
__ _'.__j
---------,s----
1 I
I I
11 I
•
-~
/
------
~i \ / --
/\
-
I
I
M~Well" Plus
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DET.O.ILS AND SPEGIFICAT:o. .. ,NS
5835 Sumner Way -TA1
Culver City, CA
Ol.is. PL-6-SS-CA
"'"'""'·><. 11-28-23 ,os,.-;wu.·,,. 07-29-24 ,,:.,c,. N.TS (~; 1'.J)
\
----SD----
o
----SD----
-----
• •
,w 30"0 SOLID I
/

C) ITEM NUMBERS
1 MANHOLE CONE -MODIFi:D FLAT BOTTOM

2. MIN. 6' 0 DRILLEOSl-lAFT.
~-STABILIZED BACKFILL -l'J\JO-SACK SLURRY MIX

4. 6 PERFORATIONS MINIMUM PER ROW. 2 ROI/VS IIIINIMUM.

5. INLET PIPEoOUTLET PIPE !BY OTHERS). SEE SEPARATE PLAN FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS

6. GRAIJEO BASIN OR PAI/ING •JIY OTHERS)

7. COMPACTED BASE IIIATERIAL, II' ~E(llJIREll lbY lll HERSI ~-FREEBOARDOEPTH \/ARIES v,I IH l~I f-I f-'lf-'f-H f-'JAIIIIN INt:RCA~r Kr I IIIm; l:HAMHf-R IIr:~IH A~ NEED~l"J ro ;/IAINlAIN .ALI. l~'L~T PIPE EI.EVAflCNS AHO•·~ RISE~ PIPE

9. NON-WOii EN GEO TEXTILE SLEEVE· MIRAFI 140 NL. r.llN. 6 FT 0. HELD APPROX. 1U FEET OFF TdE BOTT Or.I OF EXCAW,Tl·:JN
10 PURE FLO~' DEBRIS SHIELD -ROLLED '16GA STEEL X 24'. LEN-8TH • .,..ITH VENTED ANTI-SIPHON AND INT~RNAL Q <W' MAX SWO FI_ATT~N.CJ) EXP.,Nl)EI) STEH SCR~EN X 1 t' LENGTH FUSION BONDED

EPOXY COATED
11 MIN.6'0DRILLEDSHAFT.
12 RISER PIPE -SGd. 40 PVC ~•ATED TO DRAlllJ._,:;.c. PIP.". AT BASE SEJ.L 13 DRAll>IAGE PIPE -ADS r:IGHWAY GF<.ADE OR ~CH. 40 P'JC 'NITH TRI-A CO'JPLER SUSPEND PIPE OU RING BACKFILL CPERATICNS Cl/,METERAS NOTED
14 ROCK -WASHED, SIZED BErJl'EEN ~/8" AND ·I-·l/2"'

15. FLOFAST"' DRAINAGE SCREEN -SCH. 4,J P'/C O 120" SLOTTED \','ELL SCREEN WITH t-1IN. 32 SLOTS PER RO'N.'l'T ()\/Eel.ALL L~NGTH '/ARIES. UP TO 12,J" WITH TRl-3 COU?LER

16. ABSORBENT -HYt.:HOl-'HO~IC :~1:1 H.OCHl:r.'ICAL ~f-'ONt;I: Ml~'-IW Oi. CAPAC.:I I Y. I Yf-'ICAL, 2 f-'l:H.

CiAMt:11:1<
17 FABRIC SEAL· U.V, RESISTANT t;EO IEXllLC • TO 6E Rl:MOVEO 6Y CUSTOMER AT PROJECT COMPLET:ON GR;.TEDONLY

18. BOLTED RING & GRATE/COVER -DL~METER & TYPE MS SHOWN. CLE/,N ,.:;;._ST IRO.\I '."!IIH WORDING "STORMWATER ONLY" 1,\1 RAISED L~HERS. BOLTED IN 2 LOCATIONS ANO SECURED TO CONE V'/ITH M:JRTAR. RIM ELEVATION H•.02" OF PLANS

19. BASE SEAL -CONCRETE SLURRY.

20. PRE-CAST LINER -40·JO PSI CONCRET-': "8" ID. X 5'-" OD. C::NTER IN HOL-': AND ALIGN SECTIO.\IS TO MAXll✓IZE 3EARlt,;G cURFACE
:1 NOT US::D.

22. INTAKE SCREEN -G";J SCH. 4C PVC ,J 120" t,ICDIFIED SLOTTED 'o'\IELL SCREEN WITr: MIN 32 SLOTS PER ROW/FT 4ff' OVERAU. LENGTH \11ITH TRI-C E~'D CAP

23. VENTED ANTI-SIPHON INTAKE.

24. CONNECTOR PIPE -6" 0 SCI I. 40 ?'IC.

An evolutlon of McG"cl<ln Drilllng
.,,...,_ to """''"" o ""'"" • co m
-----0 N.T.S.

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 2040 BO
1 1~~1 1
Appendix I
Noise Data

I.1 Noise Measurements
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.051.s Computer's File Name LxT_0007057-20200729 034606-LxT_Data.051.ldbin Meter LxT1 0007057 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2020-07-29 03:46:06 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2020-07-29 04:01:06 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2020-07-29 00:01:55 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 57.2 dB
LAE 86.7 dB SEA --- dB
EA 52.5 µPa²h
EA8 1.7 mPa²h
EA40 8.4 mPa²h
LASpeak 94.0 dB 2020-07-29 04:00:53
LASmax 68.0 dB 2020-07-29 04:00:52
LASmin 54.3 dB 2020-07-29 03:46:06
LAeq 57.2 dB
LCeq 66.5 dB LCeq - LAeq 9.3 dB
LAIeq 59.3 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.1 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 57.2 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 68.0 dB 2020-07-29 04:00:52 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 54.3 dB 2020-07-29 03:46:06 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 94.0 dB 2020-07-29 04:00:53 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 59.5 dB
LAS 10.0 57.8 dB
LAS 33.3 56.9 dB
LAS 50.0 56.5 dB
LAS 66.6 56.2 dB
LAS 90.0 55.6 dB
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.048.s Computer's File Name LxT_0007057-20200729 024629-LxT_Data.048.ldbin Meter LxT1 0007057 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2020-07-29 02:46:29 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2020-07-29 03:01:29 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2020-07-29 00:01:55 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 64.6 dB
LAE 94.1 dB SEA --- dB
EA 288.4 µPa²h
EA8 9.2 mPa²h
EA40 46.1 mPa²h
LASpeak 97.7 dB 2020-07-29 02:48:24
LASmax 83.6 dB 2020-07-29 02:48:25
LASmin 47.6 dB 2020-07-29 02:58:47
LAeq 64.6 dB
LCeq 70.9 dB LCeq - LAeq 6.3 dB
LAIeq 67.1 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.5 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 64.6 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 83.6 dB 2020-07-29 02:48:25 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 47.6 dB 2020-07-29 02:58:47 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 97.7 dB 2020-07-29 02:48:24 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 70.6 dB
LAS 10.0 68.4 dB
LAS 33.3 62.1 dB
LAS 50.0 55.5 dB
LAS 66.6 51.3 dB
LAS 90.0 49.4 dB
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.049.s Computer's File Name LxT_0007057-20200729 030816-LxT_Data.049.ldbin Meter LxT1 0007057 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2020-07-29 03:08:16 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2020-07-29 03:23:16 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2020-07-29 00:01:55 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 56.2 dB
LAE 85.7 dB SEA --- dB
EA 41.7 µPa²h
EA8 1.3 mPa²h
EA40 6.7 mPa²h
LASpeak 83.0 dB 2020-07-29 03:15:44
LASmax 60.0 dB 2020-07-29 03:15:44
LASmin 54.5 dB 2020-07-29 03:09:03
LAeq 56.2 dB
LCeq 67.0 dB LCeq - LAeq 10.8 dB
LAIeq 57.3 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.1 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 56.2 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 60.0 dB 2020-07-29 03:15:44 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 54.5 dB 2020-07-29 03:09:03 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 83.0 dB 2020-07-29 03:15:44 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 57.5 dB
LAS 10.0 57.1 dB
LAS 33.3 56.3 dB
LAS 50.0 56.0 dB
LAS 66.6 55.7 dB
LAS 90.0 55.2 dB
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.050.s Computer's File Name LxT_0007057-20200729 032746-LxT_Data.050.ldbin Meter LxT1 0007057 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2020-07-29 03:27:46 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2020-07-29 03:42:46 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2020-07-29 00:01:55 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 57.8 dB
LAE 87.3 dB SEA --- dB
EA 60.3 µPa²h
EA8 1.9 mPa²h
EA40 9.6 mPa²h
LASpeak 90.5 dB 2020-07-29 03:29:24
LASmax 70.3 dB 2020-07-29 03:33:27
LASmin 53.1 dB 2020-07-29 03:39:42
LAeq 57.8 dB
LCeq 67.6 dB LCeq - LAeq 9.8 dB
LAIeq 59.6 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.8 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 57.8 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 70.3 dB 2020-07-29 03:33:27 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 53.1 dB 2020-07-29 03:39:42 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 90.5 dB 2020-07-29 03:29:24 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 62.5 dB
LAS 10.0 59.9 dB
LAS 33.3 56.7 dB
LAS 50.0 55.7 dB
LAS 66.6 55.1 dB
LAS 90.0 54.4 dB
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.052.s Computer's File Name LxT_0007057-20200729 040757-LxT_Data.052.ldbin Meter LxT1 0007057 Firmware 2.404
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2020-07-29 04:07:57 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2020-07-29 04:22:57 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2020-07-29 00:01:55 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 64.6 dB
LAE 94.1 dB SEA --- dB
EA 288.4 µPa²h
EA8 9.2 mPa²h
EA40 46.1 mPa²h
LASpeak 95.7 dB 2020-07-29 04:16:25
LASmax 74.4 dB 2020-07-29 04:13:37
LASmin 56.9 dB 2020-07-29 04:08:54
LAeq 64.6 dB
LCeq 74.5 dB LCeq - LAeq 9.9 dB
LAIeq 65.8 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.2 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LASpk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 64.6 dB --- dB --- dB
Ls(max) 74.4 dB 2020-07-29 04:13:37 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 56.9 dB 2020-07-29 04:08:54 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 95.7 dB 2020-07-29 04:16:25 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 70.1 dB
LAS 10.0 68.8 dB
LAS 33.3 64.0 dB
LAS 50.0 61.4 dB
LAS 66.6 59.9 dB
LAS 90.0 58.3 dB
I.2 Construction Noise
Calculations
Project: Link Culver City Exterior Mitigated with East Barrier Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Leq to L10 factor 3
A 13 dB reduction is applied for interior noise with
windows open and a 25 db reduction is applied for
interior with windows closed.

Construction Phase
Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Demolition 69 65 53 49 70 66 65 61 63 59
Excavator 1 81 40% 50 68 64 67 13 420 50 46 49 13 250 67 63 66 0 75 64 60 63 13 100 62 58 61 13 Excavator 1 81 40% 150 58 54 57 13 600 46 42 45 13 300 65 61 64 0 350 51 47 50 13 200 56 52 55 13 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 300 50 46 49 13 700 43 39 42 13 500 59 55 58 0 450 47 43 46 13 400 48 44 47 13 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 400 48 44 47 13 800 42 38 41 13 700 56 52 55 0 550 45 41 44 13 600 44 40 43 13 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 500 46 42 45 13 900 41 37 40 13 900 54 50 53 0 650 44 40 43 13 800 42 38 41 13 Generator 1 81 50% 600 46 43 46 13 1075 41 38 41 13 1120 54 51 54 0 750 44 41 44 13 950 42 39 42 13 Grading/Excavation 67 61 54 50 71 66 65 59 64 58
Drill Rig Truck 1 79 20% 50 66 59 62 13 420 48 41 44 13 250 65 58 61 0 75 62 55 58 13 100 60 53 56 13 Drill Rig Truck 1 79 20% 150 56 49 52 13 500 46 39 42 13 300 63 56 59 0 150 56 49 52 13 150 56 49 52 13 Excavator 1 81 40% 250 54 50 53 13 550 47 43 46 13 350 64 60 63 0 200 56 52 55 13 200 56 52 55 13 Excavator 1 81 40% 300 52 48 51 13 600 46 42 45 13 400 63 59 62 0 250 54 50 53 13 250 54 50 53 13 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 78 40% 350 48 44 47 13 650 43 39 42 13 450 59 55 58 0 300 49 45 48 13 300 49 45 48 13 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 78 40% 400 47 43 46 13 700 42 38 41 13 500 58 54 57 0 350 48 44 47 13 400 47 43 46 13 Forklift 1 75 10% 450 43 33 36 13 750 38 28 31 13 550 54 44 47 0 400 44 34 37 13 500 42 32 35 13 Forklift 1 75 10% 500 42 32 35 13 800 38 28 31 13 600 53 43 46 0 450 43 33 36 13 600 40 30 33 13 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 525 46 42 45 13 850 41 37 40 13 650 57 53 56 0 500 46 42 45 13 700 43 39 42 13 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 550 45 41 44 13 950 40 36 39 13 750 55 51 54 0 600 44 40 43 13 800 42 38 41 13 Generator 1 81 50% 600 46 43 46 13 1075 41 38 41 13 1120 54 51 54 0 750 44 41 44 13 950 42 39 42 13 Concrete Structure 69 62 54 49 71 66 65 59 63 56
Crane 1 81 16% 50 68 60 63 13 420 50 42 45 13 250 67 59 62 0 75 64 57 60 13 100 62 54 57 13 Generator 1 81 50% 200 56 53 56 13 500 48 45 48 13 300 65 62 65 0 200 56 53 56 13 300 52 49 52 13 Pumps 1 81 50% 240 54 51 54 13 600 46 43 46 13 400 63 60 63 0 300 52 49 52 13 500 48 45 48 13 Pumps 1 81 50% 300 52 49 52 13 700 45 42 45 13 600 59 56 59 0 400 50 47 50 13 700 45 42 45 13 Dump Truck 1 76 40% 350 46 42 45 13 900 38 34 37 13 800 52 48 51 0 550 42 38 41 13 800 39 35 38 13 Dump Truck 1 76 40% 600 41 37 40 13 1075 36 32 35 13 1120 49 45 48 0 750 39 35 38 13 950 37 33 36 13 Framing/Building Enclosure 68 60 50 43 67 60 65 57 62 54 Crane 1 81 16% 50 68 60 63 13 420 50 42 45 13 250 67 59 62 0 75 64 57 60 13 100 62 54 57 13 Forklift 1 75 10% 300 46 36 39 13 700 39 29 32 13 600 53 43 46 0 400 44 34 37 13 500 42 32 35 13 Generator 1 81 50% 600 46 43 46 13 1075 41 38 41 13 1120 54 51 54 0 750 44 41 44 13 950 42 39 42 13 Finishes 65 61 47 43 64 60 61 57 59 55
Compressor (air) 1 78 40% 50 65 61 64 13 420 47 43 46 13 250 64 60 63 0 75 61 57 60 13 100 59 55 58 13 Paving 77 70 60 53 77 70 74 67 71 64
Pavement Scarafier 1 90 20% 50 77 70 73 13 420 59 52 55 13 250 76 69 72 0 75 73 66 69 13 100 71 64 67 13 Roller 1 80 20% 100 61 54 57 13 500 47 40 43 13 350 63 56 59 0 200 55 48 51 13 300 51 44 47 13 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 200 54 50 53 13 600 44 40 43 13 450 60 56 59 0 300 50 46 49 13 500 46 42 45 13 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 78 40% 300 49 45 48 13 700 42 38 41 13 550 57 53 56 0 400 47 43 46 13 700 42 38 41 13 Tractor 1 84 40% 400 53 49 52 13 800 47 43 46 13 650 62 58 61 0 500 51 47 50 13 800 47 43 46 13 Other Equipment 1 85 50% 500 52 49 52 13 900 47 44 47 13 750 61 58 61 0 600 50 47 50 13 900 47 44 47 13 Vacuum Street Sweeper 1 82 10% 600 47 37 40 13 1075 42 32 35 13 1120 55 45 48 0 750 45 35 38 13 950 43 33 36 13 Phase 1 Framing +Phase 2 Demolition 66.0 50.1 67.0 62.3 60.4 Phase 1 Finishing + Phase 2 Grading + Excavation 63.8 50.3 67.0 61.4 59.7 Phase 1 Finishing + Phase 2 Concrete Structure 64.3 50.3 67.1 61.3 58.5 Phase 1 Paving + Phase 2 Concrete Structure 70.8 54.8 71.6 67.4 64.8 Phase 1 Paving + Phase 1 Finishing + Phase 2 Concrete Structure 71.7 56.1 72.9 68.3 65.7 Phase 2 Framing + Phase 3 Demolition 66.0 50.1 67.0 62.3 60.4 Phase 2 Finishing + Phase 3 Grading + Excavation 63.8 50.3 67.0 61.4 59.7 Phase 2 Finishing + Phase 3 Concrete Structure 64.3 50.3 67.1 61.3 58.5 Phase 2 Paving + Phase 3 Concrete Structure 70.8 54.8 71.6 67.4 64.8 Phase 2 Paving + Phase 2 Finishing + Phase 3 Concrete Structure 71.7 56.1 72.9 68.3 65.7 Max Noise Level 71.7 56.1 72.9 68.3 65.7
Ambient Noise Level 57.2 64.6 56.2 57.8 64.6
Threshold (Ambient + 5 dB) 62.2 69.6 61.2 62.8 69.6
Significant Impact? Yes No Yes Yes No
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: LA CEQA Guides, 2006 & FHWA RCNM, 2005 #REF! R1-Fire Station R2 - Apartments to the east R3 - Park/Open Space to the south R4 - Vet Center Office to the East R5 - Office Uses to the North - -- -- -- -- -- -
f----
f----
f----
f----
f----
f----
-
I
I
I
I I
- - - - -
Project: Link Culver City Interior with Windows Closed
Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Parameters
Leq to L10 factor 3
A 13 dB reduction is applied for interior noise with
windows open and a 25 db reduction is applied for
interior with windows closed.

Construction Phase
Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.

Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Distance
(ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding,
dBA
Demolition 57 53 41 37 70 66 53 49 51 47
Excavator 1 81 40% 50 56 52 55 25 420 38 34 37 25 250 67 63 66 0 75 52 48 51 25 100 50 46 49 25 Excavator 1 81 40% 150 46 42 45 25 600 34 30 33 25 300 65 61 64 0 350 39 35 38 25 200 44 40 43 25 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 300 38 34 37 25 700 31 27 30 25 500 59 55 58 0 450 35 31 34 25 400 36 32 35 25 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 400 36 32 35 25 800 30 26 29 25 700 56 52 55 0 550 33 29 32 25 600 32 28 31 25 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 500 34 30 33 25 900 29 25 28 25 900 54 50 53 0 650 32 28 31 25 800 30 26 29 25 Generator 1 81 50% 600 34 31 34 25 1075 29 26 29 25 1120 54 51 54 0 750 32 29 32 25 950 30 27 30 25 Grading/Excavation 55 49 42 38 71 66 53 47 52 46
Drill Rig Truck 1 79 20% 50 54 47 50 25 420 36 29 32 25 250 65 58 61 0 75 50 43 46 25 100 48 41 44 25 Drill Rig Truck 1 79 20% 150 44 37 40 25 500 34 27 30 25 300 63 56 59 0 150 44 37 40 25 150 44 37 40 25 Excavator 1 81 40% 250 42 38 41 25 550 35 31 34 25 350 64 60 63 0 200 44 40 43 25 200 44 40 43 25 Excavator 1 81 40% 300 40 36 39 25 600 34 30 33 25 400 63 59 62 0 250 42 38 41 25 250 42 38 41 25 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 78 40% 350 36 32 35 25 650 31 27 30 25 450 59 55 58 0 300 37 33 36 25 300 37 33 36 25 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 78 40% 400 35 31 34 25 700 30 26 29 25 500 58 54 57 0 350 36 32 35 25 400 35 31 34 25 Forklift 1 75 10% 450 31 21 24 25 750 26 16 19 25 550 54 44 47 0 400 32 22 25 25 500 30 20 23 25 Forklift 1 75 10% 500 30 20 23 25 800 26 16 19 25 600 53 43 46 0 450 31 21 24 25 600 28 18 21 25 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 525 34 30 33 25 850 29 25 28 25 650 57 53 56 0 500 34 30 33 25 700 31 27 30 25 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 550 33 29 32 25 950 28 24 27 25 750 55 51 54 0 600 32 28 31 25 800 30 26 29 25 Generator 1 81 50% 600 34 31 34 25 1075 29 26 29 25 1120 54 51 54 0 750 32 29 32 25 950 30 27 30 25 Concrete Structure 57 50 42 37 71 66 53 47 51 44
Crane 1 81 16% 50 56 48 51 25 420 38 30 33 25 250 67 59 62 0 75 52 45 48 25 100 50 42 45 25 Generator 1 81 50% 200 44 41 44 25 500 36 33 36 25 300 65 62 65 0 200 44 41 44 25 300 40 37 40 25 Pumps 1 81 50% 240 42 39 42 25 600 34 31 34 25 400 63 60 63 0 300 40 37 40 25 500 36 33 36 25 Pumps 1 81 50% 300 40 37 40 25 700 33 30 33 25 600 59 56 59 0 400 38 35 38 25 700 33 30 33 25 Dump Truck 1 76 40% 350 34 30 33 25 900 26 22 25 25 800 52 48 51 0 550 30 26 29 25 800 27 23 26 25 Dump Truck 1 76 40% 600 29 25 28 25 1075 24 20 23 25 1120 49 45 48 0 750 27 23 26 25 950 25 21 24 25 Framing/Building Enclosure 56 48 38 31 67 60 53 45 50 42 Crane 1 81 16% 50 56 48 51 25 420 38 30 33 25 250 67 59 62 0 75 52 45 48 25 100 50 42 45 25 Forklift 1 75 10% 300 34 24 27 25 700 27 17 20 25 600 53 43 46 0 400 32 22 25 25 500 30 20 23 25 Generator 1 81 50% 600 34 31 34 25 1075 29 26 29 25 1120 54 51 54 0 750 32 29 32 25 950 30 27 30 25 Finishes 53 49 35 31 64 60 49 45 47 43
Compressor (air) 1 78 40% 50 53 49 52 25 420 35 31 34 25 250 64 60 63 0 75 49 45 48 25 100 47 43 46 25 Paving 65 58 48 41 77 70 62 55 59 52
Pavement Scarafier 1 90 20% 50 65 58 61 25 420 47 40 43 25 250 76 69 72 0 75 61 54 57 25 100 59 52 55 25 Roller 1 80 20% 100 49 42 45 25 500 35 28 31 25 350 63 56 59 0 200 43 36 39 25 300 39 32 35 25 Front End Loader 1 79 40% 200 42 38 41 25 600 32 28 31 25 450 60 56 59 0 300 38 34 37 25 500 34 30 33 25 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 78 40% 300 37 33 36 25 700 30 26 29 25 550 57 53 56 0 400 35 31 34 25 700 30 26 29 25 Tractor 1 84 40% 400 41 37 40 25 800 35 31 34 25 650 62 58 61 0 500 39 35 38 25 800 35 31 34 25 Other Equipment 1 85 50% 500 40 37 40 25 900 35 32 35 25 750 61 58 61 0 600 38 35 38 25 900 35 32 35 25 Vacuum Street Sweeper 1 82 10% 600 35 25 28 25 1075 30 20 23 25 1120 55 45 48 0 750 33 23 26 25 950 31 21 24 25 Phase 1 Framing +Phase 2 Demolition 54.0 38.1 67.0 50.3 48.4 Phase 1 Finishing + Phase 2 Grading + Excavation 51.8 38.3 67.0 49.4 47.7 Phase 1 Finishing + Phase 2 Concrete Structure 52.3 38.3 67.1 49.3 46.5 Phase 1 Paving + Phase 2 Concrete Structure 58.8 42.8 71.6 55.4 52.8 Phase 1 Paving + Phase 1 Finishing + Phase 2 Concrete Structure 59.7 44.1 72.9 56.3 53.7 Phase 2 Framing + Phase 3 Demolition 54.0 38.1 67.0 50.3 48.4 Phase 2 Finishing + Phase 3 Grading + Excavation 51.8 38.3 67.0 49.4 47.7 Phase 2 Finishing + Phase 3 Concrete Structure 52.3 38.3 67.1 49.3 46.5 Phase 2 Paving + Phase 3 Concrete Structure 58.8 42.8 71.6 55.4 52.8 Phase 2 Paving + Phase 2 Finishing + Phase 3 Concrete Structure 59.7 44.1 72.9 56.3 53.7 Max Noise Level 59.7 44.1 72.9 56.3 53.7
Ambient Noise Level 57.2 64.6 56.2 57.8 64.6
Threshold (Ambient + 5 dB) 62.2 69.6 61.2 62.8 69.6
Significant Impact? No No Yes No No
Source for Ref. Noise Levels: LA CEQA Guides, 2006 & FHWA RCNM, 2005 R1-Fire Station R2 - Apartments to the east R3 - Park/Open Space to the south R4 - Vet Center Office to the East R5 - Office Uses to the North - -- -- -- -- -- -
f----
f----
f----
f----
f----
f----
-
I
I
I
I I
- - - - -
filename: EQUIPLST.xls
revised: 7/26/05 Acoustical Spec 721.560 Actual Measured No. of Actual Impact Use Factor Lmax @ 50ft Lmax @ 50ft Data Samples
Equipment Description Device ? ( % ) (dBA, slow) (dBA, slow) (Count) (samples averaged)
Other Equipment No 50% 85 -- N/A -- 0
Auger Drill Rig No 20% 85 84 36
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe No 40% 80 78 372
Bar Bender No 20% 80 -- N/A -- 0
Blasting Yes #VALUE! 94 -- N/A -- 0
Boring Jack Power Unit No 50% 80 83 1
Chain Saw No 20% 85 84 46
Clam Shovel (dropping) Yes 20% 93 87 4
Compactor (ground) No 20% 80 83 57
Compressor (air) No 40% 80 78 18
Concrete Batch Plant No 15% 83 -- N/A -- 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40% 85 79 40
Concrete Pump Truck No 20% 82 81 30
Concrete Saw No 20% 90 90 55
Crane No 16% 85 81 405
Dozer No 40% 85 82 55
Drill Rig Truck No 20% 84 79 22
Drum Mixer No 50% 80 80 1
Dump Truck No 40% 84 76 31
Excavator No 40% 85 81 170
Flat Bed Truck No 40% 84 74 4
Forklift No 10% 75 75
Front End Loader No 40% 80 79 96
Generator No 50% 82 81 19
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50% 70 73 74
Gradall No 40% 85 83 70
Grader No 40% 85 -- N/A -- 0
Grapple (on backhoe) No 40% 85 87 1
Horizontal Boring Hydr. Jack No 25% 80 82 6
Hydra Break Ram Yes 10% 90 -- N/A -- 0
Impact Pile Driver Yes 20% 95 101 11
Jackhammer Yes 20% 85 89 133
Man Lift No 20% 85 75 23
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20% 90 90 212
Pavement Scarafier No 20% 85 90 2
Paver No 50% 85 77 9
Pickup Truck No 40% 55 75 1
Pneumatic Tools No 50% 85 85 90
Pumps No 50% 77 81 17
Refrigerator Unit No 100% 82 73 3
Rivit Buster/chipping gun Yes 20% 85 79 19
Rock Drill No 20% 85 81 3
Roller No 20% 85 80 16
Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) No 20% 85 96 9
Scraper No 40% 85 84 12
Shears (on backhoe) No 40% 85 96 5
Slurry Plant No 100% 78 78 1
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50% 82 80 75
Soil Mix Drill Rig No 50% 80 -- N/A -- 0
Tractor No 40% 84 -- N/A -- 0
Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) No 40% 85 85 149
Vacuum Street Sweeper No 10% 80 82 19
Ventilation Fan No 100% 85 79 13
Vibrating Hopper No 50% 85 87 1
Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20% 80 80 1
Vibratory Pile Driver No 20% 95 101 44
Warning Horn No 5% 85 83 12
Welder No 40% 73 74 5
RCNM User’s Guide Construction Noise Prediction Table 1. CA/T equipment noise emissions and acoustical usage factors database.

CA/T Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I.3 Traffic Noise
Calculations

TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TOOL
Project Name: Link Culver City EIR
Analysis Scenario: Existing (2025)
Source of Traffic Volumes: Fehr & Peers
Auto MT HT Auto MT HT
Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 920 19 9 67.1 67.4 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 728 15 8 66.1 66.4 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 993 20 10 67.4 67.7 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 58 1 1 55.1 55.4 Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 784 16 8 66.4 66.7 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 257 5 3 61.5 61.8 Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 177 4 2 59.9 60.2 Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 473 10 5 64.2 64.5 Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 270 6 3 61.7 62.0 Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 450 9 5 64.0 64.3 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 585 12 6 65.1 65.4 Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 816 17 8 66.5 66.8 Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 983 20 10 67.4 67.7 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 1149 24 12 68.0 68.3 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1206 25 12 68.2 68.5 Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 816 17 8 66.5 66.8 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1065 22 11 67.7 68.0 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 1718 35 18 69.8 70.1 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 523 11 5 67.6 67.9 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 539 11 6 67.8 68.1 La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 973 20 10 70.3 70.6 La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 199 4 2 63.4 63.7 Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 259 5 3 61.6 61.9 Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 383 8 4 63.3 63.6 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 4092 84 42 76.6 76.9 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 4253 88 44 76.7 77.0 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3906 81 40 76.4 76.7 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 3858 80 40 76.3 76.6 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3333 69 34 75.7 76.0 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 3741 77 39 76.2 76.5 Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3016 62 31 75.2 75.5 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 954 20 10 70.2 70.5 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 114 2 1 58.0 58.3 Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 100 2 1 57.4 57.7 Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 115 2 1 58.1 58.4 Peak Hour Noise
Level (Leq(h)
dBA)
Segment Ground
Type
Distance from
Roadway to
Receiver (feet)
Speed (mph) Peak Hour Volume Noise Level
dBA CNEL
01 Traffic Noise - Existing ESA 4/2/2025
r- ESA
_...,.j
Link Culver City EIR Traffic Segment Volumes
Roadway Segment AM PM Max Auto MT HT
Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 292 841 841 816 17 8 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 692 751 751 728 15 8 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 265 225 265 257 5 3 Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way 948 919 948 920 19 9 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir 1,024 911 1,024 993 20 10 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave 1,771 1,532 1,771 1,718 35 18 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 39 60 60 58 1 1
Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave 52 103 103 100 2 1
Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 160 182 182 177 4 2
Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave 267 226 267 259 5 3
Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave 237 278 278 270 6 3
La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave 979 1,003 1,003 973 20 10 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave 250 539 539 523 11 5 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave 448 603 603 585 12 6
Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir 749 808 808 784 16 8
Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave 88 119 119 115 2 1
Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave 445 488 488 473 10 5
Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave 395 349 395 383 8 4
Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave 251 464 464 450 9 5
La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave 153 205 205 199 4 2 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave 556 279 556 539 11 6 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy 3,977 2,537 3,977 3,858 80 40 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy 4,219 2,994 4,219 4,092 84 42 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave 4,385 3,763 4,385 4,253 88 44 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave 3,857 3,292 3,857 3,741 77 39 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) 4,027 3,858 4,027 3,906 81 40 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) 3,178 3,436 3,436 3,333 69 34 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy 789 1,243 1,243 1,206 25 12 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way 771 1,185 1,185 1,149 24 12 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy 648 1,098 1,098 1,065 22 11 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy 104 118 118 114 2 1
Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy 841 831 841 816 17 8
Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) 2,715 3,109 3,109 3,016 62 31 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave 898 983 983 954 20 10
Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy 1,013 745 1,013 983 20 10

TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TOOL
Project Name: Link Culver City EIR
Analysis Scenario: Existing + Project (2025)
Source of Traffic Volumes: Fehr & Peers
Auto MT HT Auto MT HT
Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 954 20 10 67.2 67.5 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 745 15 8 66.1 66.4 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 1026 21 11 67.5 67.8 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 58 1 1 55.1 55.4 Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 810 17 8 66.5 66.8 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 303 6 3 62.2 62.5 Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 177 4 2 59.9 60.2 Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 476 10 5 64.2 64.5 Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 270 6 3 61.7 62.0 Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 450 9 5 64.0 64.3 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 589 12 6 65.1 65.4 Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 820 17 8 66.6 66.9 Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 988 20 10 67.4 67.7 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 1216 25 13 68.3 68.6 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1281 26 13 68.5 68.8 Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 889 18 9 66.9 67.2 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1148 24 12 68.0 68.3 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 1762 36 18 69.9 70.2 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 522 11 5 67.6 67.9 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 529 11 5 67.7 68.0 La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 996 21 10 70.4 70.7 La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 198 4 2 63.4 63.7 Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 259 5 3 61.6 61.9 Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 383 8 4 63.3 63.6 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 4092 84 42 76.6 76.9 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 4325 89 45 76.8 77.1 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3990 82 41 76.4 76.7 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 3880 80 40 76.3 76.6 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3391 70 35 75.7 76.0 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 3813 79 39 76.2 76.5 Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3048 63 31 75.3 75.6 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 953 20 10 70.2 70.5 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 154 3 2 59.3 59.6 Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 100 2 1 57.4 57.7 Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 260 5 3 61.6 61.9 Noise Level
dBA CNEL
Peak Hour Noise
Level (Leq(h)
dBA)
Segment Ground
Type
Distance from
Roadway to
Receiver (feet)
Speed (mph) Peak Hour Volume
01 Traffic Noise - Existing + Project ESA 4/2/2025
r- ESA
_...,.j
Link Culver City EIR Traffic Segment Volumes
Roadway Segment AM PM Max Auto MT HT
Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 264 917 917 889 18 9 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 708 768 768 745 15 8 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 232 312 312 303 6 3 Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way 984 959 984 954 20 10 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir 1,058 946 1,058 1,026 21 11 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave 1,816 1,586 1,816 1,762 36 18 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 39 60 60 58 1 1
Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave 52 103 103 100 2 1
Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 160 182 182 177 4 2
Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave 267 226 267 259 5 3
Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave 237 278 278 270 6 3
La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave 970 1,027 1,027 996 21 10 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave 277 538 538 522 11 5 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave 452 607 607 589 12 6
Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir 775 835 835 810 17 8
Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave 154 268 268 260 5 3
Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave 448 491 491 476 10 5
Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave 395 349 395 383 8 4
Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave 251 464 464 450 9 5
La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave 189 204 204 198 4 2 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave 545 307 545 529 11 5 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy 4,000 2,536 4,000 3,880 80 40 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy 4,219 2,994 4,219 4,092 84 42 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave 4,459 3,846 4,459 4,325 89 45 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave 3,931 3,375 3,931 3,813 79 39 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) 4,113 3,913 4,113 3,990 82 41 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) 3,225 3,496 3,496 3,391 70 35 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy 857 1,321 1,321 1,281 26 13 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way 848 1,254 1,254 1,216 25 13 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy 725 1,184 1,184 1,148 24 12 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy 142 159 159 154 3 2
Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy 845 835 845 820 17 8
Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) 2,746 3,142 3,142 3,048 63 31 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave 924 982 982 953 20 10
Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy 1,019 745 1,019 988 20 10

TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TOOL
Project Name: Link Culver City EIR
Analysis Scenario: Existing (2025) + Construction
Source of Traffic Volumes: Fehr & Peer
Auto MT HT Auto MT HT
Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 983 28 21 68.0 68.3 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 791 24 20 67.3 67.6 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 1056 29 22 68.3 68.6 Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 536 19 17 65.9 66.2 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1128 31 23 68.6 68.9 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 4155 93 54 76.7 77.0 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 4316 97 56 76.9 77.2 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3969 90 52 76.5 76.8 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 3921 89 52 76.5 76.8 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3396 78 46 75.9 76.2 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 3804 86 51 76.4 76.7 Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3079 71 43 75.5 75.8 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 177 11 13 62.8 63.1 Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 178 11 13 62.8 63.1 Peak Hour Noise
Level (Leq(h)
dBA)
Segment Ground
Type
Distance from
Roadway to
Receiver (feet)
Speed (mph) Peak Hour Volume Noise Level
dBA CNEL
01 Traffic Noise - Construction ESA 4/2/2025
r- ESA
_...,.j

TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TOOL
Project Name: Link Culver City EIR
Analysis Scenario: Future (2031)
Source of Traffic Volumes: Fehr & Peers
Auto MT HT Auto MT HT
Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 1045 22 11 67.6 67.9 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 769 16 8 66.3 66.6 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 1098 23 11 67.8 68.1 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 58 1 1 55.1 55.4 Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 841 17 9 66.7 67.0 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 429 9 4 63.8 64.1 Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 177 4 2 59.9 60.2 Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 503 10 5 64.4 64.7 Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 272 6 3 61.8 62.1 Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 453 9 5 64.0 64.3 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 598 12 6 65.2 65.5 Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 857 18 9 66.8 67.1 Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1019 21 11 67.5 67.8 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 1274 26 13 68.5 68.8 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1343 28 14 68.7 69.0 Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 925 19 10 67.1 67.4 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1252 26 13 68.4 68.7 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 1885 39 19 70.2 70.5 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 531 11 5 67.7 68.0 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 562 12 6 67.9 68.2 La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 1012 21 10 70.5 70.8 La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 206 4 2 63.6 63.9 Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 271 6 3 61.8 62.1 Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 400 8 4 63.4 63.7 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 4289 88 44 76.8 77.1 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 4588 95 47 77.1 77.4 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) Hard 30 45 45 40 4225 87 44 76.7 77.0 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 4072 84 42 76.5 76.8 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3461 71 36 75.8 76.1 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 4054 84 42 76.5 76.8 Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3094 64 32 75.3 75.6 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 958 20 10 70.2 70.5 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 225 5 2 61.0 61.3 Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 100 2 1 57.4 57.7 Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 237 5 2 61.2 61.5 Peak Hour Noise
Level (Leq(h)
dBA)
Segment Ground
Type
Distance from
Roadway to
Receiver (feet)
Speed (mph) Peak Hour Volume Noise Level
dBA CNEL
01 Traffic Noise - Future ESA 4/2/2025
r- ESA
_...,.j
Link Culver City EIR Traffic Segment Volumes
Roadway Segment AM PM Max Auto MT HT
Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 295 954 954 925 19 10 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 754 793 793 769 16 8 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 175 442 442 429 9 4 Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way 1,077 1,031 1,077 1,045 22 11 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir 1,132 991 1,132 1,098 23 11 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave 1,943 1,631 1,943 1,885 39 19 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 40 60 60 58 1 1
Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave 54 103 103 100 2 1
Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 168 182 182 177 4 2
Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave 279 227 279 271 6 3
Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave 248 280 280 272 6 3
La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave 1,023 1,043 1,043 1,012 21 10 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave 301 547 547 531 11 5 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave 474 616 616 598 12 6
Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir 829 867 867 841 17 9
Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave 214 244 244 237 5 2
Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave 489 519 519 503 10 5
Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave 412 351 412 400 8 4
Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave 261 467 467 453 9 5
La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave 210 212 212 206 4 2 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave 579 323 579 562 12 6 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy 4,198 2,555 4,198 4,072 84 42 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy 4,422 3,011 4,422 4,289 88 44 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave 4,730 3,935 4,730 4,588 95 47 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave 4,179 3,461 4,179 4,054 84 42 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) 4,356 4,031 4,356 4,225 87 44 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) 3,418 3,568 3,568 3,461 71 36 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy 945 1,385 1,385 1,343 28 14 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way 912 1,313 1,313 1,274 26 13 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy 783 1,291 1,291 1,252 26 13 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy 213 232 232 225 5 2
Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy 884 846 884 857 18 9
Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) 2,895 3,190 3,190 3,094 64 32 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave 974 988 988 958 20 10
Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy 1,050 753 1,050 1,019 21 11

TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TOOL
Project Name: Link Culver City EIR
Analysis Scenario: Future + Project (2031)
Source of Traffic Volumes: Fehr & Peers
Auto MT HT Auto MT HT
Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 1080 22 11 67.8 68.1 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 786 16 8 66.4 66.7 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 1131 23 12 68.0 68.3 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 58 1 1 55.1 55.4 Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir Hard 30 35 35 30 867 18 9 66.8 67.1 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 513 11 5 64.5 64.8 Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 177 4 2 59.9 60.2 Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 506 10 5 64.5 64.8 Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 272 6 3 61.8 62.1 Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 453 9 5 64.0 64.3 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 601 12 6 65.2 65.5 Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 861 18 9 66.8 67.1 Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1024 21 11 67.5 67.8 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way Hard 30 35 35 30 1341 28 14 68.7 69.0 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1419 29 15 68.9 69.2 Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 999 21 10 67.4 67.7 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 1336 28 14 68.7 69.0 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 1928 40 20 70.3 70.6 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 530 11 5 67.7 68.0 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 551 11 6 67.8 68.1 La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 1035 21 11 70.6 70.9 La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 239 5 2 64.2 64.5 Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 271 6 3 61.8 62.1 Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 400 8 4 63.4 63.7 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 4289 88 44 76.8 77.1 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 4660 96 48 77.1 77.4 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) Hard 30 45 45 40 4309 89 44 76.8 77.1 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 45 45 40 4094 84 42 76.6 76.9 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3519 73 36 75.9 76.2 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 4125 85 43 76.6 76.9 Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) Hard 30 45 45 40 3126 64 32 75.4 75.7 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 45 45 40 970 20 10 70.3 70.6 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy Hard 30 35 35 30 265 5 3 61.7 62.0 Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 100 2 1 57.4 57.7 Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave Hard 30 35 35 30 381 8 4 63.2 63.5 Peak Hour Noise
Level (Leq(h)
dBA)
Segment Ground
Type
Distance from
Roadway to
Receiver (feet)
Speed (mph) Peak Hour Volume Noise Level
dBA CNEL
01 Traffic Noise - Future + Project ESA 4/2/2025
r- ESA
_...,.j
Link Culver City EIR Traffic Segment Volumes
Roadway Segment AM PM Max Auto MT HT
Hannum Ave between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 267 1,030 1,030 999 21 10 Bristol Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 770 810 810 786 16 8 Buckingham Pkwy between Slauson Ave and Hannum Ave 142 529 529 513 11 5 Bristol Pkwy between Hannum Ave and Uplander Way 1,113 1,071 1,113 1,080 22 11 Bristol Pkwy between Uplander Way and Green Valley Cir 1,166 1,026 1,166 1,131 23 12 Hannum Ave n/o Slauson Ave 1,988 1,685 1,988 1,928 40 20 Bristol Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 40 60 60 58 1 1
Uplander Way n/o Hannum Ave 54 103 103 100 2 1
Buckingham Pkwy n/o Slauson Ave 168 182 182 177 4 2
Shenandoah Ave n/o Slauson Ave 279 227 279 271 6 3
Corning Ave n/o Slauson Ave 248 280 280 272 6 3
La Cienega Blvd (SB) n/o Slauson Ave 1,014 1,067 1,067 1,035 21 11 La Cienega Blvd (NB) n/o Slauson Ave 328 546 546 530 11 5 Fox Hills Dr s/o Hannum Ave 478 620 620 601 12 6
Bristol Pkwy s/o Green Valley Cir 855 894 894 867 18 9
Uplander Way s/o Hannum Ave 280 393 393 381 8 4
Buckingham Pkwy s/o Hannum Ave 492 522 522 506 10 5
Shenandoah Ave s/o Slauson Ave 412 351 412 400 8 4
Corning Ave s/o Slauson Ave 261 467 467 453 9 5
La Cienega Blvd (SB) s/o Slauson Ave 246 211 246 239 5 2 La Cienega Blvd (NB) s/o Slauson Ave 568 351 568 551 11 6 Slauson Ave between Hannum Ave and Bristol Pkwy 4,221 2,554 4,221 4,094 84 42 Slauson Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Buckingham Pkwy 4,422 3,011 4,422 4,289 88 44 Slauson Ave between Buckingham Pkwy and Shenandoah Ave 4,804 4,018 4,804 4,660 96 48 Slauson Ave between Shenandoah Ave and Corning Ave 4,253 3,544 4,253 4,125 85 43 Slauson Ave between Corning Ave and La Cienega Blvd (SB) 4,442 4,086 4,442 4,309 89 44 Slauson Ave between La Cienega Blvd (SB) and La Cienega Blvd (NB) 3,465 3,628 3,628 3,519 73 36 Hannum Ave between Fox Hills Dr and Bristol Pkwy 1,013 1,463 1,463 1,419 29 15 Hannum Ave between Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way 989 1,382 1,382 1,341 28 14 Hannum Ave between Uplander Way and Buckingham Pkwy 860 1,377 1,377 1,336 28 14 Uplander Way e/o Bristol Pkwy 251 273 273 265 5 3
Green Valley Cir e/o Bristol Pkwy 888 850 888 861 18 9
Slauson Ave e/o La Cienega Blvd (NB) 2,926 3,223 3,223 3,126 64 32 Slauson Ave w/o Hannum Ave 1,000 987 1,000 970 20 10
Green Valley Cir w/o Bristol Pkwy 1,056 753 1,056 1,024 21 11 I.4 Operational Noise
Calculations
Project: Link Culver City
Loading Dock and Trash Collection Area Noise Calculations Receptor Location R1 Receptor Location R2
Loading Dock and Trash Collection
Area Noise Levels 59.2 dBA
Loading Dock and Trash Collection
Area Noise Levels 59.2 dBA
Reference Distance 50 ft Reference Distance 50 ft
Distance to Receptor 80 ft Distance to Receptor 470 ft
-4 dBA -19 dBA

55.1 dBA 39.7 dBA
Noise Reduction by Project buildings 0 dBA Noise Reduction by Project buildings 0 dBA Noise Reduction by
Existing/Proposed Barriers dBA
Noise Reduction by
Existing/Proposed Barriers or
Buildings dBA
Noise Levels at R1 55.1 dBA Noise Levels at R2 39.7 dBA Receptor Location R3 Receptor Location R4
Loading Dock and Trash Collection
Area Noise Levels 59.2 dBA
Loading Dock and Trash Collection
Area Noise Levels 59.2 dBA
Reference Distance 50 ft Reference Distance 50 ft
Distance to Receptor 480 ft Distance to Receptor 175 ft -20 dBA -11 dBA

39.6 dBA 48.3 dBA
Noise Reduction by Project buildings 0 dBA Noise Reduction by Project buildings 0 dBA Noise Reduction by
Existing/Proposed Barriers dBA
Noise Reduction by
Existing/Proposed Barriers dBA
Noise Levels at R3 39.6 dBA Noise Levels at R4 48.3 dBA Receptor Location R5
Loading Dock and Trash Collection
Area Noise Levels 59.2 dBA
Reference Distance 50 ft
Distance to Receptor 150 ft
-10 dBA

49.7 dBA
Noise Reduction by Project buildings 0 dBA
Noise Reduction by
Existing/Proposed Barriers dBA
Noise Levels at R4 49.7 dBA
* Reference noise level of 70.5 dBA Leq is combine noise levels of loading dock activity (namely idling semi-trucks and backup alarm beeps) noise levels of approximately 70 dBA Leq and trash compactors noise levels of approxmately 66 dBA Leq.

I I I I

I I I I
I I
Project: Link Culver City
Mechanical Equipment Noise Calculations
Receptor Location R1 Receptor Location R2
Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels 81.9 dBA Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels 81.9 dBA Reference Distance 5 ft Reference Distance 5 ft
Distance to Receptor 50 ft Distance to Receptor 420 ft
-20 dBA -38 dBA

61.9 dBA 43.4 dBA
Noise Reduction by
Building/Enclosure of HVAC 5 dBA
Noise Reduction by
Building/Enclosure of HVAC 5 dBA
Noise Levels at R1 56.9 dBA Noise Levels at R4 38.4 dBA Receptor Location R3 Receptor Location R4
Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels 81.9 dBA Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels 81.9 dBA Reference Distance 5 ft Reference Distance 5 ft
Distance to Receptor 250 ft Distance to Receptor 75 ft
-34 dBA -24 dBA

47.9 dBA 58.4 dBA
Noise Reduction by
Building/Enclosure of HVAC 5 dBA
Noise Reduction by
Building/Enclosure of HVAC 5 dBA
Noise Levels at R3 42.9 dBA Noise Levels at R4 53.4 dBA Receptor Location R5
Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels 81.9 dBA
Reference Distance 5 ft
Distance to Receptor 100 ft
-26 dBA

55.9 dBA
Noise Reduction by NOISE-PDF-2 0 dBA
Noise Reduction by
Building/Enclosure of HVAC 5 dBA
Noise Levels at R4 50.9 dBA
* Exterior reference noise levels for air condenser units, fans, and related equipment, the primary sources of noise from fixed mechanical equipment, would be 81.9 dBA Leq measured at a distance of 5 feet (based on noise data from large shopping center projects in Southern California). Refer to: City of Moreno Valley, Moreno Valley Walmart Noise Impact Analysis, Table 9- 1, Page 71, February 10, 2015; and City of Pomona, Pomona Ranch Plaza Walmart Expansion Project, Table 4.4-5, Pg. 4.4-33, August 2014. ** Distance to receptors assumes that mechanical equipment would be located on the rooftop of the nearest Project Building. Distance of the receptor to the nearest Building rooftop calcualted using the Pythagorean theorem (a2+b2=c2)
r I r I
r I r I
I I
Project: Link Culver City
Parking Structure Noise
Receptor Location R1 Receptor Location R2
Parking Structure Noise Level 52.7 dBA Parking Structure Noise Level 52.7 dBA Reference Distance 50 ft Reference Distance 50 ft
Distance to Receptor 75 ft Distance to Receptor 450 ft
-4 dBA -19 dBA

49.2 dBA 33.6 dBA
Noise Reduction by Existing Buildings 0 dBA Noise Reduction by Existing Buildings 0 dBA Noise Levels at R1 49 dBA Noise Levels at R2 34 dBA
Receptor Location R3 Receptor Location R4
Parking Structure Noise Level 52.7 dBA Parking Structure Noise Level 52.7 dBA Reference Distance 50 ft Reference Distance 50 ft
Distance to Receptor 260 ft Distance to Receptor 90 ft
-14 dBA -5 dBA

38.4 dBA 47.6 dBA
Noise Reduction by Existing Buildings 0 dBA Noise Reduction by Existing Buildings 0 dBA Noise Levels at R3 38.4 dBA Noise Levels at R4 47.6 dBA Receptor Location R5
Parking Structure Noise Level 52.7 dBA
Reference Distance 50 ft
Distance to Receptor 150 ft
-10 dBA

43.1 dBA
Noise Reduction by NOISE-PDF-2 dBA
Noise Reduction by Existing Buildings 0 dBA
Noise Levels at R4 43.1 dBA
AM or PM Peak Hour Trips 425 trips
Leq 53 dBA
Leq(h) = SELref + 10log(NA/1000) – 35.6
Where: Leq(h) = hourly Leq noise level at 50 feet
SELref (92 dBA SEL) = reference noise level for stationary noise source represented in sound exposure level (SEL) at 50 feet

I I I I

I I I I
I I
Link Culver City
Composite Noise Levels
Exterior
Mechanica
l Parking Loading
Dock
R1 56.9 49.2 55.1 59.5 57.2 61.5 4.3 62.2 No
R2 38.4 33.6 39.7 42.7 64.6 64.6 0.0 69.6 No
R3 42.9 38.4 39.6 45.5 56.2 56.6 0.4 61.2 No
R4 53.4 47.6 48.3 55.4 57.8 59.8 2.0 62.8 No
R5 50.9 43.1 49.7 53.7 64.6 64.9 0.3 69.6 No
Interior with Windows Open
Mechanica
l Parking Loading
Dock
R1 43.9 36.2 42.1 46.5 57.2 57.6 0.4 62.2 No
R2 25.4 20.6 26.7 29.7 64.6 64.6 0.0 69.6 No
R3 29.9 25.4 26.6 32.5 56.2 56.2 0.0 61.2 No
R4 40.4 34.6 35.3 42.4 58.2 58.3 0.1 63.2 No
R5 37.9 30.1 36.7 40.7 64.6 64.6 0.0 69.6 No
Interior with Windows Closed
Mechanica
l Parking Loading
Dock
R1 31.9 24.2 30.1 34.5 57.2 57.2 0.0 62.2 No
R2 13.4 8.6 14.7 17.8 64.6 64.6 0.0 69.6 No
R3 17.9 13.4 14.6 20.5 56.2 56.2 0.0 61.2 No
R4 28.4 22.6 23.3 30.4 58.2 58.2 0.0 63.2 No
R5 25.9 18.1 24.7 28.7 64.6 64.6 0.0 69.6 No
SOURCE: ESA, 2025.

Receptor
Location
Project
Composite
Noise
Levels,
Ambient
Noise
Levels,a
(dBA)
Ambient
Plus
Project
Composite
Increase in
Noise
Levels Due
to Project,
Calculated Project-Related Noise Levels (dBA)
a The ambient noise level is based on the measured daytime and morning noise levels shown in Table IV.G-5, and the lower value (daytime or morning) is used for the purposes of impact determination.

Significan
ce
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
NOTES:
a The ambient noise level is based on the measured daytime and morning noise levels shown in Table IV.G-5, and the lower value (daytime or morning) is used for the purposes of impact determination.

SOURCE: ESA, 2025.

Increase in
Noise
Levels Due
to Project,
(dBA)
Significan
ce
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
NOTES:
a The ambient noise level is based on the measured daytime and morning noise levels shown in Table IV.G-5, and the lower value (daytime or morning) is used for the purposes of impact determination.

Receptor
Location
Project
Composite
Noise
Levels,
(dBA)
Ambient
Noise
Levels,a
(dBA)
Ambient
Plus
Project
Composite
Noise
Levels,
(dBA)
Calculated Project-Related Noise Levels (dBA)
SOURCE: ESA, 2025.

Increase in
Noise
Levels Due
to Project,
(dBA)
Significan
ce
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
NOTES:

Calculated Project-Related Noise Levels (dBA)Receptor
Location
Project
Composite
Noise
Levels,
(dBA)
Ambient
Noise
Levels,a
(dBA)
Ambient
Plus
Project
Composite
Noise
Appendix J
Water Civil Technical
Memorandum

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213 261 4040

WATER CIVIL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: April 24, 2024
To: Link Logistics
From: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

CC: Mr. Andy Beck
Subject: 5757 Uplander Way – Water Civil Technical Memorandum Introduction
The Project site is comprised of approximately 8.34 acres and existing improvements include 4 separate, 2-story buildings totaling to be 103,027 sf. Existing improvements also include landscaping along the perimeter of the site along the frontage streets with surface parking lots adjacent to the existing buildings. The proposed development will construct 7-story multifamily buildings with subterranean parking.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is providing this water civil technical memorandum based on our review of the PPR Re-Submittal Concept Plan received February 2, 2024, prepared by AC Martin and our understanding of the existing utilities surrounding the site. A summary of our water utility analysis for the proposed development is provided below.

Existing Improvements
Existing water lines within Culver City are operated and maintained by the Golden State Water. The existing water system adjacent to the project site is based on available record documents obtained from the Golden State Water and is described further below:

Figure 1: Water Atlas Map
Kimley>>> Horn
#725 V861 89-0413 V1634
12"AC
V226 77-0873
V223
V 1602 #647
V670
• #693
!6 V2654
V1434
11D1 aNnER WAY

Page 2 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040 · Bristol Pkwy: Along Bristol Parkway, there is an existing 12” diameter, asbestos cement water, main line located approximately 25 feet west of the center line. Based on record documents received by Golden State Water, there are 4 fire hydrants and 1 fire service connected to the water main located within Bristol Parkway, between the Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way intersections.
· Hannum Avenue: Along Hannum Avenue, there is an existing 12” diameter, asbestos cement water line located approximately 36 feet south of the center line. Based on the record documents received by Golden State Water, there are 3 fire hydrants connected to the water main located within Hannum Ave, between the Bristol Pkwy and Uplander Way intersections. Of those 3 laterals connected to the main, there is 1 existing fire hydrant located at the northwest corner of the property, near the Hannum Avenue and Bristol Pkwy intersection. · Uplander Way (eastern segment): Along Uplander Way, there is an existing 10” diameter, asbestos cement water line. Based on record documents received by Golden State Water, there are 4 fire hydrants connected to the water main located within Uplander Way along with 7 fire services. All 4 of the fire hydrants, along with 3 fire services are located along the westerly sidewalk, along the property line of our project site.
· Uplander Way (southern segment): Along Uplander/Sumner Way, there is an existing 10” diameter, asbestos cement water line. Based on record documents received by Golden State Water, there are 2 fire hydrants and 9 fire service connected to the water main. The two hydrants are located on the south side of Uplander Way, opposite of the project site.

Proposed Improvements
The following are based on PPR Re-Submittal Concept Plan received February 2, 2024, prepared by AC Martin:

Proposed Project Development Programming: The project will develop or include the following:
· Residential – 851,607 sf
· Retail – 5,259 sf
Table 1: Existing vs. Proposed Water Demand Table
Existing Water Usage
(gpm)*
Construction Water
Usage (gpm)**
Proposed Peak Water
Demand (gpm)***
Available Capacity
(gpm)
17 0.05 360 2,983 – 6,119
*Estimated existing water usage was determined using the “Office Building” Category from the Connection Fee Rate and Mean Loadings per Unit of Usage for County of Sanitation District No. 5 of Los Angeles County (200 GPD / 1,000 SF). ** Construction water usage is estimated based on contractor estimate of 75 gpd. *** Peak water demand is based on sewer peaking factor of 2.5 per LA County.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 3 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040 Table 2: Estimated Water Use Table
Land Use Units
Wastewater
Generation Rate
(GPD)
Total Estimated
Water Use
(GPD)
Total
Estimated
Water Use
(gpm)
Existing
Office**** 103,027 sf 200/1,000 sf 20,605 14.3
Total Estimated Existing Water Use 20,605 14.3
Total Estimated Existing Irrigation Use*** 4,121 2.9
Total Estimated Existing Water Use with Irrigation*** 24,726 17.2 Proposed
Residential:

Studio
1 Bed
2 Bed
163 Units
638 Units
305 Units
156/Dwelling
Unit 172,536 119.8
Commercial
Store** 5,259 sf 100 gal/1000 sf
gross floor area 526 0.4
Total Estimated Proposed Water Use 173,062 120.2
Total Estimated Proposed Irrigation Use*** 34,612 24
Total Estimated Proposed Water Use with Irrigation*** 207,674 144.2 *Estimated water usage is estimated as being equivalent to the estimated sewage generation for the Project. These rates are assessed using LA County Sanitation’s Estimated Wastewater Generation Tables (District 5). Table shall be used for estimating daily water consumption only. Refer to Appendix 3 for tables. **Commercial: Wholesale Outlet is selected for conservative analysis for potential commercial uses ***A 20% factor is included to account for landscape and irrigation needs for the project. ****Office: Office is being selected for purpose of City of Culver calculations Proposed Water and Fire Service Pressure Requirement : Proposed improvements will require plumbing coordination after we receive the fire flow test. The project’s plumbing engineer and/or fire service consultant will need to assess the project water/fire service design requirements based on the Fire Service Pressure Flow Report provided by Golden State Water. The plumbing engineer will also need to assess the need for any booster pump for the project in coordination with Golden State Water and the Culver City Fire Department.

Fire Flow Availability Report was provided by Golden State Water for three locations around the project site as summarized below:
· Fire hydrant #645 at Hannum Avenue - 2,983 GPM at 20 PSI for 2 hours. Static pressure of 63 PSI.
· Fire hydrant #637 at Uplander Way – 5,167 GPM at 20 PSI for 2 hours. Static pressure of 63 PSI.
· Fire hydrant #647 at Hannum Avenue – 6,119 GPM at 20 PSI for 2 hours. Static pressure of 71 PSI.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 4 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040 Proposed Water and Fire Service Connection : The proposed water/fire service connections for the project will be strategically located throughout the project site. It is anticipated that several proposed domestic water and fire water services for the development will be required. The proposed domestic and fire water service sizing and locations will need to be further assessed for the project in coordination with the project plumbing engineer and fire sprinkler consultant. The proposed connections are anticipated to tie into the existing 10” and 12” water mains on Uplander Way, Bristol Parkway and Hannum Avenue. Per the California Fire Code (2019), required fire flow for type IA, IB, and IIIA is 6,000 GPM for the proposed fire-flow calculation area. Due to anticipation of the project requiring fire sprinklers, the project is expected to qualify for a 75% reduction of the required fire flow, totaling in 1,500 GPM required fire flow for the Project Site. The existing fire flow for fire service tested at a range of 2,983 GPM to 6,119 GPM and shall be sufficient to meet the site fire flow requirements. Documentation is supplemented in Appendix 3 of this memorandum.

Table 3: Required Fire Flow
Fire Flow Calculation Area
(sf)
Required Fire Flow
(gpm)
Adjusted Required
Fire Flow (gpm)*
Available Fire Flow
at 20 PSI (gpm)
851,607 sf 6,000 1,500 2,983 & 6,119 at
Hannum Ave.
5,167 at Uplander
Way
*Adjusted is calculated using CFC 75% reduction; adjusted required must be greater than 1,000 gpm Based on findings within Appendix B of the 2022 California Fire Code, our project site shall have a minimum of 6 hydrants on site. Documentation is supplemented in Appendix 3 of this memorandum.

Conclusion
Per the Will Serve Letter received from the Golden State Water dated August 2, 2023, the project property can be supplied with water from the existing municipal water system operated and maintained by Golden State Water.

Kimley>>> Horn

Page 5 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040 Appendix 1 – Golden State Water Will-Serve
Letter
Kimley>>> Horn

Central District
12035 Burke St Ste 1 Santa Fe Springs CA 90670
Tel: (562) 907-9200 Fax: (562) 907-7060 www.aswater.com

August 2, 2023

Jonathan Williamson
660 S Figueroa St Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Re: Will Serve Letter
APN: 4134-005-002
APN: 4134-005-003
APN: 4134-005-004
APN: 4134-005-021
Culver City, California

Dear Mr. Williamson:

This letter is to inform you that water service is available to the above referenced address from Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC) Central D istrict water system located in the city of Culver City .

Service to the address can be provided from our existing water facilities within Uplander Way and Hannum Ave.

Upon completion and execution of a Water Service A greement, that contains satisfactory financial arrangements and other provisions governing the extension of water service, Golden State Water Company (GSWC) will begin providing water service for the referenced address once all owner obligations have been satisfied. Analysis of more detailed development plans may require the owner to participate in the construction of special facilities prior to the Company providing water service.

GSWC is committed to providing water service to all customers within its service area, consistent with the company’s obligations under rules, statutes and regulations of both the California Department of Public Health and the California Public Utilities Commission.

Unless modified or extended by GSWC, this Will Serve Letter shall terminate and be of no further force and effect one year from the date indicated above.

If you have any questions concerning the issues addressed in this letter, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Ray Burk, P.E.

Operations Engineer
Central District

• •• ••• • • • • • • • • •
Golden State
Water Company
A Subsidiary of American States Water Company

Page 6 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040 Appendix 2 – Golden State Water Fire Service
Pressure Flow Report
Kimley>>> Horn

(310) 253-5925

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FAX (310) 253-5901

CHRIS SELLERS 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 MICHAEL BOWDEN Fire Chief Fire Marshal

FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
____________________________

Culver City Employees take pride in effectively providing the highest levels of service to enrich the quality of life for the community by building on our tradition of more than seventy-five years of public service, by our present commitment, and by our dedication to meet the challenges of the future.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

INFORMATION ON FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY FOR BUILDING PERMIT SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS (R-3)
AND BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET

PART I

PROJECT INFORMATION
(To Be Completed by Applicant)

BUILDING ADDRESS

CITY OR AREA

NEAREST CROSS STREET

DISTANCE TO NEAREST CROSS STREET

PROPERTY OWNER

TELEPHONE

ADDRESS

OCCUPANCY (USE OF BLDG)

TYPE of CONSTRUCTION

SQUARE FOOTAGE

NUMBER of STORIES

PRESENT ZONING

APPLICANT (Please Print)

DATE

SIGNATURE of APPLICANT

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING: See Page 2

BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET:

Regardless of Fire Flow-2,Occupancies (Small Businesses) under 2500 square feet require Fire Department approval. Plans to be submitted to the Area Detail for Plan Check approval.

Contact 310-253-5925, Fax 310-253-5824
5757 Uplander Way, Culver City, CA 90230
Culver City
Hannum Ave
0 ft (Corner Lot)
Andrew Coleman
213-476-1734
660 S Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Residential & Commercial

IA, IB, IIIA
363,132
7 Commercial Regional Business Park (CRB)
Andrew Coleman
3/01/2024
Cl y
Andrew Coleman
Digitally signed by Andrew Coleman
Date: 2024.01 .31 10:24:38-08'00'

(310) 253-5925

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FAX (310) 253-5901

CHRIS SELLERS 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 MICHAEL BOWDEN Fire Chief Fire Marshal

FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
____________________________

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Part II

INFORMATION ON FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY
(To be Completed by Water Purveyor)

THE FIRE HYDRANT NEAREST THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IN WITHIN _____ FEET VIA VEHICULAR ACCESS. THE FIRE FLOW SERVICE WILL BE RENDERED FROM A ____ INCH DIAMETER WATER MAIN

MAIN LOCATED ON

CITY OR AREA
Culver City
(# FEET) (DIRECTION) OF (NEAREST CROSS STREET)

UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS THE FIRE FLOW AVAILABLE FROM THIS _____________ HYDRANT IS _______ GPM AT 20 PSI RESIDUAL FOR 2 HOURS AT _______PSI STATIC WATER

PURVEYOR
DATE
SIGNATURE TITLE TELEPHONE #
562-907-9200
Part III

CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL BY BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (To be Completed by Building Department)

THE FIRE FLOW MAY BE APPROVED FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS WHEN THE ABOVE

INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND SHOWS THAT THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE MET AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN FIRE ZONE 4.

THE WATER SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF DELIVERING AT LEAST 750 GPM AT 20 PSI FOR TWO HOURS.

THE DISTANCE FROM THE STRUCTURE TO THE FIRE HYDRANT DOES NOT EXCEED 450 FEET VIA VEHICULAR ACCESS.

APPROVED BY DATE
OFFICE
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID FOR SIX (6) MONTHS
Where the Water Service does not meet the requirements of the Building and Safety Divisio n, Fire Department approval of plot plan will be required before a Building Permi can be issued by the Building Department and all approvals by the Fire Department will be issued by the Fire Prevention Division only.

Test Date and Time:

Hydrant Number:

Project Address:
10 10
Uplander Way
535 feet
South
Hannum Avenue
6-inch
2,983
63 3/01/2024
Operations Engineer
(310) 413-0420
2/28/2024 @ 1:55 PM
645
5757 Uplander Way
Cl y
.,
Golden State ... .. ---
VV a 1: e · ~- C 0 m , p a n y
- - - -- - - - ·-
.-.. 5,gb-s;ld k ••"II' o• An1.r • •c:• ... s .. • •-• ..... ._..., c;.o....-p•ft'r I
I
(310) 253-5925

CHRIS SELLERS
Fire Chief

FIRE DEPARTMENT
CITY
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507

FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
FAX (310) 253-5901

MICHAEL BOWDEN
Fire Marshal

INFORMATION ON FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY FOR BUILDING PERMIT SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS (R-3)
AND BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET

BUILDING ADDRESS
PARTI

PROJECT INFORMATION
(To Be Completed by Applicant)
5835 Uplander Way, Culver City, CA 90230

CITY OR AREA
Culver City

NEAREST CROSS STREET DISTANCE TO NEAREST CROSS STREET
Uplander Way 276.82'

PROPERTY OWNER TELEPHONE
Andrew Coleman 213-4 76-1734

ADDRESS
660 S. Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017

OCCUPANCY (USE OF BLDG)
Residential & Commercial
TYPE of CONSTRUCTION
IA, 18, IIIA
SQUARE FOOT AGE NUMBER of STORIES
851,607 7

PRESENT ZONING
Commercial Regional Business Park (CRB)
APPLICANT (Please Print) DATE
Andrew Coleman 2024.03.06
SIGNATURE of APPLICANT
Andrew Coleman
SINGLE FAMILY DWELtlNG: See Page 2
BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET:

Regardless of Fire Flow-2,Occupancies (Small Businesses) under 2500 square feet require Fire Department approval. Plans to be submitted to the Area Detail for Plan Check approval.

Contact 310-253-5925, Fax 310-253-5824
Culver City Employees take pride in effectively providing the highest levels of service to enrich the quality of life for the community by building on our tradition of more than seventy-five years of public service, by our present commitment, and by our dedication to meet the challenges of the future.

PRJNTl:.D ON RfCYCl.£0 PAPER
(310) 253-5925

CHRIS SELLERS
Fire Chief

FIRE DEPARTMENT
CITY
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507

ARE PREVENTION BUREAU
Part II

INFORMATION ON FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY
(To be Completed by Water Purveyor)
MAIN LOCATED ON u I d w pan er ay

CITY OR AREA
(# FEET)
525 feet
Culver City
(DIRECTION)
East

OF (NEAREST CROSS STREET)
Bristol Parkway
DATE
FAX (310) 253-5901

MICHAEL BOWDEN
Fire Marshal
ATER
------. .. - --
Golden State
\Nater Company
A s ... b-.td ••v •• ..,....,,.,He-•,.. sr. .. t" .-~ ,,,_. , .. , co .... p.-~• 04/05/2024 PURVEYOR

SIGNATURE
III
TITLE
Operations Engineer
TELEPHONE#
562-907-9200 (310) 413-0420

THE FIRE FLOW MAY BE APPROVED FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS WHEN THE ABOVE

INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND SHOWS THAT THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE MET AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN FIRE ZONE 4.

I APPROVED BY
OFFICE
I DATE
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID FOR SIX (6) MONTHS
Where the Water Service does not meet the requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Fire Department approval of plot plan will be required before a Building Permi can be issued by the Building Department and all approvals by the Fire Department will be issued by the Fire Prevention Division onlv.

Test Date and Time: 04/04/2024 ~ 7:00 AM
Hydrant Number: 637
Project Address: 5835 Uplander Way
Culver City Employees take pride in effectively providing the highest levels of service to enrich the quality of life for the community by building on our tradition of more than seventy-five years of public service, by our present commitment, and by our dedication to meet the challenges of the future .

PRJNreD ON RfCYClf D PAl'El\
(310) 253-5925

CHRIS SELLERS
Fire Chief

FIRE DEPARTMENT
CITY
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507

ARE PREVENTION BUREAU
FAX (310) 253-5901

MICHAEL BOWDEN
Fire Marshal

INFORMATION ON FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY FOR BUILDING PERMIT SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS (R-3)
AND BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET

BUILDING ADDRESS
PARTI

PROJECT INFORMATION
(To Be Completed by Applicant)
5828 Hannum Ave, Culver City, CA 90230

CITY OR AREA
Culver City

NEAREST CROSS STREET DISTANCE TO NEAREST CROSS STREET
Bristol Pkwy 86'

PROPERTY OWNER TELEPHONE
Andrew Coleman 213-4 76-1734

ADDRESS
660 S. Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017

OCCUPANCY (USE OF BLDG)
Residential & Commercial
TYPE of CONSTRUCTION
IA, 18, IIIA
SQUARE FOOT AGE NUMBER of STORIES
851,607 7

PRESENT ZONING
Commercial Regional Business Park (CRB)
APPLICANT (Please Print) DATE
Andrew Coleman 2024.03.06
SIGNATURE of APPLICANT
Andrew Coleman
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING: See Page 2
BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET:

Regardless of Fire Flow-2,Occupancies (Small Businesses) under 2500 square feet require Fire Department approval. Plans to be submitted to the Area Detail for Plan Check approval.

Ptmmo ON RfCYQ.ED PAPER
(310) 253-5925

CHRIS SELLERS
Fire Chief

FIRE DEPARTMENT
CITY
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507

FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
Part II

INFORMATION ON FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY
(To be Completed by Water Purveyor)
FAX (310) 253-5901

MICHAEL BOWDEN
Fire Marshal
THE FIRE HYDRANT NEAREST THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IN WITHIN _5 _ FEET VIA VEHICULAR ACCESS. THE FIRE FLOW SERVICE WILL BE RENDERED FROM A JL INCH DIAMETER WATER MAIN

MAIN LOCATED ON H A
annum ve.

CITY OR AREA
Culver City
(# FEET) (DIRECTION) OF (NEAREST CROSS STREET)
85 feet East Bristol Parkway
UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS THE FIRE FLOW AVAILABLE FROM THIS --=-6--"-in~c=h~ - - HYDRANT IS 61 119 GPM AT 20 PSI RESIDUAL FOR 2 HOURS AT 71 PSI STATIC

PURVEYOR

SIGNATURE
I
TITLE
Operations Engineer
TELEPHONE#
562-907-9200 (310)413 -0420

THE FIRE FLOW MAY BE APPROVED FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS WHEN THE ABOVE

INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND SHOWS THAT THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE MET AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN FIRE ZONE 4.

THE WATER SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF DELIVERING AT LEAST 750 GPM AT 20 PSI FOR TWO HOURS.

THE DISTANCE FROM THE STRUCTURE TO THE FIRE HYDRANT DOES NOT EXCEED 450 FEET VIA VEHICULAR ACCESS.

I APPROVED BY I DATE
OFFICE
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID FOR SIX (6) MONTHS
Where the Water Service does not meet the requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Fire Department approval of plot plan will be required before a Building Permi can be issued by the Building Department and all approvals by the Fire Department will be issued by the Fire Prevention Division onlv.

Test Date and Time: 04/04/2024 @, 6:45 AM
Hydrant Number: 64 7
Project Address: 5828 Hannum Ave.

PfUtMD ON RfCYCl.EO PAPER

Page 7 ends

kimley-horn.com 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040 Appendix 3 – Additional Documentation
Kimley>>> Horn
➔ C ~:;; up.codes/viewer/california/ca-fire-code-2022/chapter/C/fire-hydrant- locations-and-distribution#C QUpCodes Search California Fire Code 2022
Section C102 Number of Fire Hydrants
C102.1 Minimum Number of Fire Hydrants for a Building
The number of fire hydrants available to a building shall be not less than the minimum specified in Table C102.1.

TABLE C102.1
REQUIRED NUMBER AND SPACING OF FIRE HYDRANTSh

MAXIMUM DISTANCE

FIRE-FLOW MINIMUM AVERAGE SPACING FROM ANY

BETWEEN POINT ON STREET OR
REQUIREMENT NUMBER HYDRANTsa, b, c, f, g
{gpm) OF HYDRANTS ROAD
(feet) FRONTAGE TO A
HYDRANTd, f, g
1,750o rles s 1 500 250
1,751- 2,250 2 450 225
2,251- 2, 750 3 450 225
2,751- 3,250 3 400 225
3,251- 4,000 4 350 210
4,001- 5,000 5 300 180
5,001-5,500 6 300 180
5,501- 6,000 6 250 150
6,001- 7,000 7 250 150
7,001 or more 8 or moree 200 120
For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm, 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/ m. a. Reduce by 100 feet for dead-end streets or roads.
b. Where streets are provided with median dividers tha t cannot be crossed by fire fighters pulling hose lines, or where arterial streets are provided with four or more traffic lanes and have a traffic count of more than 30,000 vehicles per day, hydrant spacing shall average 500 Libraries v Features v Pricing Login
*
Get a Demo Try for Free
• • •
Codes J California / 2022 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9 v e:5' BA SIC READ ONLY SUBSCRIBE TO PREMIUM (
,..,, Append ix B Fire-F low Requi rements for Buildings ~ ~ FuUscreen (D Legend TABLE 8105.1 (2) REFERENCE TABLE FOR TABLES 8105.1(1 ) AND 8105 .2 FIRE-FLOW CALCULATION AREA (square feet) FIRE FLOW FLOW DURATION (gallons per (hours) Type IA and IB• Type IIA and llfA• Type IV and V-A• Type 11B and 11IB• Type V-B• minute)• 0-22,700 0- 12,700 0-8,200 0-5,900 0- 3,600 1,500
22,701- 30,200 12,701- 17,000 8,201- 10,900 5,901- 7,900 3,601-4,800 1,750 30,201- 38,700 17,001- 21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901- 9,800 4,801-6,200 2,000 2 38,701-48,300 21,801- 24,200 12,901-17,400 9,801- 12,600 6,201- 7,700 2,250 48,301- 59,000 24,201- 33,200 17,401-21,300 12,601- 15,400 7,701- 9,400 2,500 59,001- 70,900 33,201- 39,700 21,301-25,500 15,401- 18,400 9,401- 11 ,300+- 2,750 70,901-83, 700 39,701-47, 100 25,501-30,100 18,401- 21,800 11 ,301- 13,400 3,000 j 83,701- 97, 700 47, 101-54,900 30, 101-35,200 21,801-25,900 13,401- 15,600 3,250 3 97,701- 112,700 54,901-63,400 35,201-40,600 25,901- 29,300 15,601- 18,000 3,500 112, 701- 128,700 63,401- 72,400 40,601-46,400 29,301- 33,500 18,001- 20,600t 3,750 I-
j
128,701- 145,900 72,401-82, 100 46,401-52,500 33,501- 37,900 20,601-23,300 4,000 145,901- 164,200 82, 101- 92,400 52,501-59, 100 37,901-42,700 23,301-26,300 4,250 164,201- 183,400 92,401-103,100 59, 101-66,000 42,701-47,700 26,301- 29,300 4,500 183,401- 203,700 103, 101-114,600 66,001-73,300 47,701- 53,000 29,301- 32,600 4,750 203,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73,301-81,100 53,001- 58,600 32,601- 36,000 5,000 225,201- 247,700 126,701- 139,400 81, 101-89,200 58,601- 65,400 36,001- 39,600 5,250 I-
247,701- 271,200 139,401- 152,600 89,201-97,700 65,401- 70,600 39,601-43,400 5,500 271,201- 295,900 152,601- 166,500 97,701- 106,500 70,601- 77,000 43,401-47,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,501- Greater 106,501- 115,800 77,001-83,700 47,401- 51,500t 6,000 4 I-
115,801- 125,500 83,701- 90,600 51,501- 55,700 6,250
125,501-135,500 90,601- 97,900 55, 701-60,200 6,500
135,501-145,800 97,901- 106,800 60,201-64,800 6,750
145,801-156,700 106,801- 113,200 64,801-69,600+- 7,000
156,701-167,900 113,201- 121,300 69,601- 74,600 7,250
167,901-179,400 121,301- 129,600 74,601- 79,800 7,500
0 179,401-191,400 129,601- 138,300 79,801-85,100 7,750
191,401-Greater 138,301-Greater 85, 101-Greater 8,000
For SI: 1 square foot= 0.0929 m2, 1 gallon per minute = 3. 785 Um, 1 pound per square inch = 6.895 kPa. ? TYPSi pf S90§1WG1i90 :Me based 90 the C@1if9'77i§ Btdldina Corle Appendix K
Transportation Impact Study

5757 Uplander Project
Transportation Impact Study

Prepared for:

B9 Sequoia Culver City Owner LP

June 2025

LA23-3476

FEHR ,1 PEERS

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Scope.................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Organization of Study ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2. Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 8 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Street System ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Existing Transit ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................12

3. CEQA Transportation Analyses .............................................................................................. 15 Senate Bill 743 Background ...................................................................................................................................................15 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ............................................................................................................................................15 VMT Screening Criteria ....................................................................................................................................................16 VMT Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................16 Transportation Demand Management Measures .................................................................................................18 Plans, Programs, Ordinances, and Policies Conflict Review ......................................................................................19 Geometric Design Hazards .....................................................................................................................................................25

4. Non-CEQA Transportation Analyses ..................................................................................... 28 Site Plan Review ..........................................................................................................................................................................28 Intersection Operations Analysis .........................................................................................................................................28 Analysis Scenarios .............................................................................................................................................................28 Study Locations ..................................................................................................................................................................29 Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ........................................................................................................29 Project Traffic.......................................................................................................................................................................35 Existing Year Plus Project Volumes and Level of Service ...................................................................................39 Future Year (2031) Volumes and Level of Service.................................................................................................42 Future Year Plus Project Volumes and Level of Service ......................................................................................46 Horizon Year (2045) Volumes and Level of Service .............................................................................................50 Horizon Year Plus Project Volumes and Level of Service...................................................................................50 Corrective Actions .............................................................................................................................................................54 Driveway Level of Service and Queuing Analysis ..................................................................................................54 Neighborhood Street Segment Analysis ..................................................................................................................57

Signal Warrant Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................59 Off-Street Parking Supply ..............................................................................................................................................60 Bicycle Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................60 On-Street Parking ..............................................................................................................................................................60 Curb Space Allocation ..............................................................................................................................................................60 Passenger and Commercial Loading ..........................................................................................................................60 Transit Stop Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................62 Bicycle Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................62 Transit Operations Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................62 Transit Demand and Capacity .......................................................................................................................................62 Transit Delay ........................................................................................................................................................................65 Hazardous Conditions Assessment ............................................................................................................................66 Project Construction Analysis ................................................................................................................................................66 Anticipated Construction Activity................................................................................................................................66 Construction Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................68

5. Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 70

Appendices

Appendix A: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Appendix B: VMT Tool Reports
Appendix C: Traffic Counts
Appendix D: LOS Worksheets
Appendix E: Signal Warrant Analysis
Appendix F: Parking Demand Study

List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Location & Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3: Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Existing & Planned Bike Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 5: Safer Fox Hills Proposed Improvements ............................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Study Intersections and Street Segments ............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 7: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 9: Project Only Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................... 38 Figure 10: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 11: Related Projects ............................................................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 12: Related Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 45 Figure 13: Future Year (2031) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 47 Figure 14: Future Year Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 48 Figure 15: Horizon Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 51 Figure 16: Horizon Year Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 52 Figure 17: On-Site Loading… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .64

List of Tables

Table 1: Project Land Uses ........................................................................................................................................................... 177

Table 2: Project Household VMT Per Capita ......................................................................................................................... 177 Table 3: Level of Service Definitions for Intersections ........................................................................................................ 33 Table 4: Existing Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................................................................... 34 Table 5: Project Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................................................................................. 36 Table 6: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................................. 41 Table 7: Related Projects ................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Table 8: Future Year Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................................... 49 Table 9: Horizon Year Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................................. 53 Table 10: Driveway Levels of Service and Queues ................................................................................................................ 56 Table 11: Neighborhood Street Segment Analysis .............................................................................................................. 58 Table 12: Transit Demand and Capacity ................................................................................................................................... 64

5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
1 1. Introduction
This report summarizes the results of the transportation study conducted by Fehr & Peers to evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the 5757 Uplander Project (“Project”) in the City of Culver City (“City”), California.

Project Description
The proposed Project will develop four adjacent parcels with the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN):
4134-005-021 (5800 Hannum Avenue), 4134-005-004 (6031 Uplander Way), 4134-005-003 (5821 Uplander Way) and 4134- 005-002 (5835 Uplander Way) (“Project Site”). Figure 1 illustrates the location of the proposed Project in relation to the surrounding streets.

The Project will construct three seven-story buildings that would provide a total of 1,0 77 multi-family dwelling units, including 78 affordable units, as well as 5,772 square feet (sf) of retail space. For the purposes of this study, the north building will be described as Building 1; the middle building will be described as Building 2; and the south building will be described as Building 3. The Project will remove the four existing office buildings on the Project Site totaling approximately 146,414 sf, plu s approximately 552 surface parking spaces and vehicular access that supports the existing uses on the Project Site.

The Project will provide a total of 1, 304 vehicular parking s paces (1,283 residential and 2 1 commercial) within three separate subterranean and podium garages; one at each proposed building. Additionally, t he Project will provide 274 long-term and 31 short-term bicycle parking spaces, including spaces for employees and visitors, short-term spaces, and long-term spaces in compliance with respective City codes. The Project will also include a pedestrian-facing plaza design and landscaping at the ground floor along Hannum Avenue at the middle of the Project’s northern frontage and a second plaza on Uplander Way at the southeastern corner, with an internal paseo connecting the plazas.

The Project proposes four driveways:
• Access A: A right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway on the western frontage along Bristol Parkway, which provides access to the east-west alley and garages for Buildings 1 and 2 • Access B: A full-access driveway on the eastern frontage along Uplander Way , which provides access to the east-west alley and garages for Buildings 1 and 2 • Access C: A full-access driveway on the southern frontage along Uplander Way, which provides access to the garage for Building 3
• Emergency Access: A driveway for emergency vehicle access only along the eastern Project frontage on Uplander Way between Buildings 2 and 3.

The site plan, including the four driveways, is illustrated in Figure 2.

5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
2 Study Scope
Culver City is the lead agency for this study. The scope of work for this study was developed in conjunction with the Mobility & Traffic Engineering Division of the City ’s Department of Public Works and is in accordance with the City’s transportation thresholds of significance under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and its and Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines (“TSCG”) adopted in July 2020.1 The base assumptions and technical methodologies for the study are included in the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the City, signed in July 2024 and included in Appendix A.

The TSCG establishes guidelines, methods, and impact criteria for CEQA considerations with a focus on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), geometric hazards, and policy conflicts. The TSCG also establishes a framework for various non-CEQA analyses including intersection analysis, transit operations analysis, driveway analysis, parking assessment, multimodal safety analysis, site plan review, residential street segment analysis, and construction period analysis. Each area of analysis is described in the TSCG with a discussion of methodology and evaluation criteria.

Organization of Study
This study is divided into five chapters, including this introduction, Chapter 1. Chapter 2 describes the existing transportation conditions including an inventory of the streets, transit service , and bicycle facilities in the study area. The required CEQA transportation analyses are presented in Chapter 3, including a review of consistency with the City’s plans, programs, ordinances, and policies ; a VMT analysis ; and a geometric hazards evaluation. Chapter 4 includes the required non -CEQA transportation an alyses, and contains a traffic operations analysis, driveway analysis, residential street segment analysis, parking analysis, curb space allocation analysis , transit operations analys is, and construction period analysis . Ch apter 5 contains the study summary and conclusions. Appendices to this study include details of the technical analysis, as follows:
• Appendix A includes a copy of the MOU approved by Culver City and by the County of Los Angeles that describes study parameters and assumptions. • Appendix B contains the reports from the City’s VMT Tool. • Appendix C contains vehicle intersection turning movement and street segment counts for analysis locations.
• Appendix D includes the level of service (LOS), delay, and queuing results for the intersection and driveway operations analyses.
• Appendix E contains the signal warrant analysis sheets for the intersection of Bristol Parkway and Uplander Way.
• Appendix F presents the parking demand study conducted to assist in determining the appropriate quantity of parking to supply for the Project, in the absence of a City-mandated minimum parking requirement.

1 On July 13, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution formally implementing the City’s updated transportation thresholds of significance for CEQA analyses and overall transportation study guidelines. The TSCG is the document providing the guidance for conducting both CEQA and non-CEQA transportation analyses.

W
Centinela Ave
Sepulveda Blvd
Sepulv
eda
Blvd
W Slauson Ave
Playa St
O
verland
Ave
W Slauson Ave
405
405
Project Location & Study Area
Project Site
1/2-mile radius from Project Site
Culver City Boundary
Culver CityCounty of Los Angeles
Culver City
County of Los Angeles
Figure 1
'\
'\
D
.. -1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
\
\
\
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
\
\
'\
/
/
/
/
,, ,,
..
,,. ,,
'
I
I
I
I
I
(.
, --
' '
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
' - - -
' ' .... I
I
-- 7
'
,- ..J
' '- I
'- I ...... ......_ I
......_ I
'
>
/
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
.... ..... .....
,,,
r
.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ,,.
' ,,, ,,. ,,. ,,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,, ,, ,,
;;,
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
I
I
I
/
/
,,,,. ,,,,. ,,,,.
~ --
.,
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
\
\
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
... -,,,,.
(
\
\
\
'\
UP

STEPS AND RAMPS PER LANDSCAPE
POOL
ABOVE
EAST

COURTYARD
PARCEL 1

CENTRAL

COURTYARD
PARCEL 1
EAST

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOW
42' - 0"
43' - 0"
46' - 11"
LEGEND

AMENITY
BOH

COMMERCIAL

PARKING
RETAIL
UNIT
42' - 5"
118' - 0"
128' - 0"
126' - 0"
+102 +106
PARCEL 2
EAST

COURTYARD
PASEO
PASEO
PASEO
PARCEL 2
EAST

COURTYARD
PARCEL 3

COURTYARD
HANNUM
PLAZA

HANNUM AVENUE

UPLANDER WAY

BRISTOL PARKWAY

UPLANDER WAY
+115'
+115'
+112'+108'
+100
+117'

FIRE LANE

FIRE LANE
SHEET NUMBER:

SHEET TITLE:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

SUBMITTAL:

JOB NUMBER:

THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE THE

COPYRIGHTED WORK OF KFA, LLP AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT

WRITTEN PERMISSION
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
7/22/2024 10:22:19 PM
5757 UPLANDER
5757 UPLANDER WAY
CULVER CITY, CA 90230
A002

COMPOSITE SITE
PLAN
07/22/24
2023-052.00
PPR2 DRAFT

CLIENT NAME

CLIENT STREET ADDRESS

CLIENT CITY, STATE, ZIP
1/32" = 1'-0" 1COMPOSITE SITE PLAN
N
I
I / \/
-
' (
i
l
-
Lil ID l
I
,_I
"" I
I
g_
'
~"2
' \
' ' ' \
' ' ' ,,
' '
' ',
I
I
\
\
-----
~
\ A
I
' ' '
' ' ' ' ' i
~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I
-
' '
(
' ' ' ' ' ' '
\ ;::.J
' ,,
-
-
I
~ -
I -
Cc
.....
7 \ \_ ' t------L.-'-I_Jr-.----.----.---..til
-
-
I
Fl'"""' _ _r-= r,=-.J.._ -_ -7 .J.r -_ -_ L_ -_ --r .1_ -_ -_ L .... -_ -_-Lr1.,L_7 r:=~ ~ C
I
J
- f .. .. - lr
,_ ~
I ---...;.t,
'
-
L II " I J
' -
r
•
r
i
7 ,__ ,- __ /
,-- '
- I --
- l
::, - r
C
' - I
) ..
- '
7 -
- '
7 _J
~ r -L--f----1
[
- 11
1---.....IUJ~ I I
! L~
r7 1
~~n,~-~ I I
-
' )
- •
- .::ttllll
-T 1
V - Q;
- ,;;., •
I I~"
□ D
• 71 /
'
-
Ii 71
I
-
l
•
I
) ;:

A~ I
I
t-
I
DN
C C
SC
S SC

S S S SC
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

S S S S
DAS
SC S S
T
S
S
T T
C
T T
S
S S
DAS

S S SS S S S S SS SS SS SS S

S S S S S SS S

S SS SS S
S SS S
S S
S S
S S

S SS SS S
S S

S S S S

T T T T T T T T T T T

T T T T T T T T T

DAS DAS
T T T

S S S SS SS S

S S S S S S S S S S

S S SSSSS
S S SS
SSS
SS
S
S
S
S SS
S
S S
S SSS

S S S S S
S S S

S S S S S S
S SS S
S SS
A210
3 A210
1 A210
13 A210
2 103' - 0"
105' - 0"
105' - 0"
107' - 0"
LOBBY
FITNESS CENTER 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR
BIKE

PARKING
TRASH

MAIL/ PARCEL

RETAILLOBBY
MAIL
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR

RETAIL TRASH

ELEC RM
TRASH

ELEC RM
103' - 0"

PARKING ENTRY
RETAIL

PARKING ENTRY

RESIDENTIAL

FIRE LANE

HANNUM AVENUE

STORAGE

HANNUM PLAZA

BRISTOL PARKWAY

UPLANDER WAY
103' - 6"

EASEMENT
4' - 11"
5' - 0"

LEASING

LOADING
FUTURE
TENANT

PARKING
MAIL

PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKINGCOMMERCIAL

PARKING
1 BR
2 BR

DEDICATION
5' - 0"

ELEV LOBBY
5%
5%
27' - 0"
103' - 0"

RESTROOM
8%
18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"
18' - 0" 28' - 0"
TRASH
15' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0"

ELEC RM
20x2=40
COMM
BIKE

PARKING
12' - 0"
30' - 0"
14FT OVERHEAD CLR
6' - 0" 8' - 4" 6' - 2"

COMM BIKE PARKING
3 SPACES

RES BIKE PARKING
4 SPACES

RES BIKE PARKING
6 SPACES
RAMP DOWN TO P1 (MAX 5% SLOPE)8' - 6"
TYP
9' - 0"
18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0"
PARCEL 1

KEY PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:

SHEET TITLE:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

SUBMITTAL:

JOB NUMBER:

THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE THE

COPYRIGHTED WORK OF KFA, LLP AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT

WRITTEN PERMISSION
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
7/22/2024 10:22:23 PM
5757 UPLANDER
5757 UPLANDER WAY
CULVER CITY, CA 90230
A111

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
- PARCEL 1
07/22/24
2023-052.00
PPR2 DRAFT

CLIENT NAME

CLIENT STREET ADDRESS

CLIENT CITY, STATE, ZIP
1" = 20'-0" 1LEVEL 01-P1
N
NOTES
fl)
I --< . 9 - ------ -- ---
I -i '
I --I
§1112-!tcl I 1~11 l=-111=-I I lnl I l=I 11=1 I Ir, 111=1 I I~ I l=-111=-I I lnTI 11=111=1 I l~-111=-I I l~ll=-I I l=-I I lr,-,-m=I ---------\ \ I d\JJIDI 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 \\ \\ i e ,... _111-_III _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill _Ill \ \ ~ t t l=I 11=111=1 I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I l=I I I \ \ x I L __ _J t"=l 11=1=111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-... 111-111-111-111-I I I-I I I-I , II~ ■ ■ , ,-, , ,-, , ,-, , ,-, , ,-1 I 1--, __..-~ 1---1---1 I I II I/ // /
I
~
~I I {ll_l I i' I I_I I i' I I_I I I II I I I i' II 11111111111 i' I I i' II 1.111111.111.11 i' I l.11 i' I l.111.I I 1111.I I l.11 i' I l.11 i' I l.11 ;.1 I 11 11.111.11 i' 11.11 i' 11.111.111111.i i i.f \ ----• -• , , , , -~ / ,' = JI II I 11i' I I I I i' I I I I i' I I I I i' II I I I x x -x x x x -x x x x , x x , x x x x x x , X X:, X X , X X ~ / □t~ ,=_I I 1;=1=;_111 _111 _111 _111 -/ /// / / / / / / / 1// __j ~ ' l=I 11 l=I - - -■ 0 I I I I I I I I I :: / / / / / / • _J I ~11 1!.JL.1-1 I I u --------.... _ ---r1lt, 1
11 m I x --v : _//
~11 IEI I l--1H---------" : ,-
, 11 lff II I I I I I X -----, t : I I
-I I lill-111-1 x
1 --□ .... ~ ----I LJ I ~~ 1------,r---r--==n=" 1 1 1 - -I / I I I I I I I t ■ '--- 'I ITT -II II / I '------1 / / •
11 11rn11 11 1 H / X = X : X X _ X X X _ -X X X _ X , X X _ , X X X X X X _ I X _ X = I_ X X _ I X X _ -, _ 1 n
_, , , ' ----- -. --. ---.. II
i I I / 11 V ,1 1=1f=I ' . --• • -·---• -
I \, • .1 . . . / i I .. ~ .. ~~ . . . • --• • • • • • -• • • • • • '-I -, /I -= I ,.... --, •=
~II 1ml I ITI ::: !
4 -----1 w ____ _
11 11ml II~ ::x ; r -
rm111~111~: ___ -----;------• • • • 1//////,//////,-V/////.,,.// • ~ 1 1 I 11
_111 _111 _111 _ L __ ~ ~n LAJ / ~ 111 • II\ 11 -= x x x x x x x x x x x x x x( I x x // L / ~ I x I x I -' Ill -®® ,...J I / r----I ILJH
t==l 11 I I I-;~ -...:S
O
I -\ > _____ ,/ I I I ■ •
1 / I /1
11_111-111filn lijlw . . ,. _ 1 . . • IB; ,, . , "" =--..-----1 11111111111 • • • • r1lt, 1 _ .1 1 I ii 11, 11=111= _,/ L.AJ ~ ·-_.·,.. ~-"' 'G V ~ I II
1 il\
1 1 111=
1 =1 4 / -----= L':c:c / '/~ / /1
II II 1=1 y c--. I --' I I
\1 J I P:'. 7 \_;;: ,, == =-·u ■ I I LJ1
L V ■ \\ ll. ~----L/\J I
x ■ ■ ■ o■ 1 \:i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ;
" \,J \,J \,J \,J \,J J ...z" . /
• --,,/ ~----" 1----7 J -7:7 FJ ---L/'--. -l)'\J F= ~ . ~ ---E~ // ', ------•-~-~ ~-~-----~-~---~-~-----~-~-----~-----~-~-----~----- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - '--------------- --I ---------• ~-
1 ' \
1, I I I I l , L 1 I -"' J I 1 § =-:J •
\ \\ I
I
I
I I■
~ -
I
■i
____ J.,,...=:::-,L::::x
, 'r---- :x<I l~xj:_I_..=....._ .,...x.....__
~--l----,-----1----
I~ I
-' ,
~
-I I
I I 11 I I■
.ci I :K I X I X
d 'I-'
-
•
L __
u
I
[A]
- --
I [
u
1_1
1=1:1 1:
r---.----
~1_1:

I I
-
-/71 j
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I -

I I - 'I I I

I / / I
I/ / J
~/ ti
: /
tb
■
■
e
~>I
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S
S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S
S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S
S S

S S S S S S S S

T T T T T T
S S S
T T T
S S
S S S

S S S S S S S S S

T T T T T T
S S S

S S S S S S
T T T
0 T T TT T T T T

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 0 00
T

TTTTTT SS
SS
SSSSS
A220
3 A220
1 A220
13 A220
2 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR JR 1 BR 1 BRSTUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 2 BR 1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
LOBBY/

LEASING

STORAGE
TR

PARKING ENTRY

RESIDENTIAL

UPLANDER WAY
116' - 0"
116' - 0"
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
118' - 0"
116' - 0"
38x2 = 76
TR

ELEC RM
UT

ELEC RM
2 BR
1 BR
JR 1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
JR 1 BR
1 BR
STUDIO
1 BR 1 BRSTUDIO 1 BR
1 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR

FIRE LANE

FIRE LANE
6x2=12
5%

PARCEL/MAIL
8%

RES BIKE PARKING
9 SPACES
8%
28' - 0" 18' - 0" 18' - 0"
14' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 18' - 0" 26' - 0" TYP
8'-6".
18' - 0" 25' - 0" 18' - 0"
TYP
9' - 0"
15' - 0"
OPEN
TO
BELOW

ELEV LOBBY

LEASING
WORK AREA 100 SF
10' - 0"
PARCEL 2

KEY PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:

SHEET TITLE:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

SUBMITTAL:

JOB NUMBER:

THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE THE

COPYRIGHTED WORK OF KFA, LLP AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT

WRITTEN PERMISSION
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
7/22/2024 10:22:41 PM
5757 UPLANDER
5757 UPLANDER WAY
CULVER CITY, CA 90230
A121

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
- PARCEL 2
07/22/24
2023-052.00
PPR2 DRAFT

CLIENT NAME

CLIENT STREET ADDRESS

CLIENT CITY, STATE, ZIP
N
NOTES
1" = 20'-0" 1LEVEL 01-P2
' ' ' ' I /
' ' I ' '
-- I ' ' I
I
\ \1-\---------------~ I - - - - I \ I I /1/-~-----------~-----~----+-- \ \ I // /
'
I
'
\ I
\ I
~.---....,..--....,..-- ........ --......,.---r.b4---rn-----.------i-;-il ;-4,-...1....-----,------, \ \~/ / -----------------,---~~lFT--~---,r-----r--""ll"I\ ____ ;-,,,-.--_.,....--- ' \ _A I \, ,--i \ I
\I
1 I
L
-~~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ f, l ____ ....__ ■ .- - T l :- I-- .....,. 0 r ■
I I
IH~I
I ~~I
I
I
I
I
I
=
I
I
I
~
■
I
■
■
■
::.--1------1~
0 ■
w
\,
I
\,
I
I,
I
■
I
I'
I
I'
\
I
■
I
/'
\
I
■
■
■
I \
■
■
■
■
■
■ ■
■ L_ _____ .I ___ --
' ' _.■..__ ____ _..._■\
\
\
---f----- I
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
I
I
~, lv1 ~
I ~---:";"';-;";"';-;";"';-;";"'';";";"';";";"';";";"';";";'';";";'";":":-;-:"';-;-:"';-;-:"';"':T" __ ..L__L _ _l_ _ _l__L~d...l ~~~111111111111111111111111111111111111111
v~ M (
■ ■
I I
J l I ---+----
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
I
I
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
I
I
■
I
■
.(l
' '
,,.__
.... ,
I
I
I
■
}Gt B B L l_l__l-:::::::::::::::::-l'i ~-~- F_....., F--1-, _ _..i ,,i... F-~~-4,. F __ ......__,....__..., F---&., ~--~-- II I --------------~:~~-adH II ii ii ILJ ii V •
j 1/
I I
----------

1...t::= ,__.::::::::::::::::.....:=::::i.. ------------------------------------.....: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;t;;;. , ;;;;;::f-,~, 0 LJLJ,_
= =
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b
I
I
I
S
S
S S
S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

DASDAS VANS SS S SS S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S S S
S S S
S
S S S

T T T T TT T TT T T
S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S

DAS DAS DAS DASDAS

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

TTTTTTTTTTTT

T T T T T
T T T

S S S S S SS S SS S S

S S SS S SS S SS S S
S S
S S S
S S S
A230
3 A230
13 A230
2 A230
1 ELEC 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO 2 BR

FITNESS
1 BR
2 BR
1 BR
STUDIO
2 BR 1 BR 1 BR
LOBBY

PARCEL/MAIL

LEASING
BIKE

PARKING

STORAGE

UPLANDER WAY

UPLANDER WAY
TRASH

PARKING
ENTRY
TRASH
115' - 0"
115' - 0"115' - 0"
111' - 0"
111' - 0"
111' - 0"1 BR - TH1 BR - TH 1 BR - TH 1 BR - TH 1 BR - TH STUDIO
RAMP DOWN TO P1 (MAX 5% SLOPE)

FIRE LANE

FIRE LANE
15' - 0" 18' - 0"
8'-6"
TYP
18' - 0"24' - 0" 18' - 0" 25' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 1"18' - 0" 8%
8%
UT

WORK AREA
100 SF
44 x 2 = 886' - 0" 6' - 1"TYP
2' - 0"
28' - 0"
30' - 0"
12' - 0"
14FT

OVERHEAD
CLR
22' - 7"
113' - 0"
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
1 BR - TH
PARCEL 3

KEY PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:

SHEET TITLE:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

SUBMITTAL:

JOB NUMBER:

THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE THE

COPYRIGHTED WORK OF KFA, LLP AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT

WRITTEN PERMISSION
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
7/22/2024 10:23:04 PM
5757 UPLANDER
5757 UPLANDER WAY
CULVER CITY, CA 90230
A131

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
- PARCEL 3
07/22/24
2023-052.00
PPR2 DRAFT

CLIENT NAME

CLIENT STREET ADDRESS

CLIENT CITY, STATE, ZIP
N
NOTES
1" = 20'-0" 1LEVEL 01-P3
I
I
I
' I
I
I
11 IL
,--,b
1:::Jl □T T I I IOI I
__ _J : I □ I I I I
L_ I I I ___ _]_ I _j_ J
--r====i=- --
1 I
I I \
I I [_
I I
I I
I I
n
I I
I I
L __ _J_
L_
l l -r ,
l ,
lr'L-,,-,---_J□
□
\I
/\
\I
I\
\I
I\
C
l/
I\
I
I
I
I
I
□1
I
I
I
r----':,1.----'n __ O...../;
' ,.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
t:
/0 □
□
l ,
'
□
\ □
" ' '
L L 1 -; ----- ---.- 1 - - - . -I.----
□ □ □
l~
, K
~
El □ l'I □
" " " " " " •
□
' .. I.
§ □ □
P, P1
0 □
-
§,
I.
□
I.
□
? 1 n
r 1 I r l
e
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
I
" I.
□
n
" I I
Q
□ □
□
□ □
'/ '/ '/
/' /' /'
□ l'l
□ r1 "9 El
II
I
~
V,
0 17C
□
17 '
□
□
I
□
'/ '/
/' /'
f] r;:
~ ~
'/
/'
"9
□
lil
□
□
1'
i
' I
D
-
'/ '/
/' /'
"9 v
~
v;
'
'
'/
/'
"9
□
□
□
□
□
'/
/'
t- V
i
I
11 }7
--~~!l,..lJOI
~l,,i jjjj D
□
□
I ,-
1 -1.----
L- □
L_ {-::

C-- I j ~--.

L- 11 -----11
:= =t {2:- ,----
'= f::
!:= t:::
~
' I
□
~
I ,
LI
'--
_J
"9 r1 "9
r;;;
□
t:,;
l ,__J
~
= - \ff
-
====------_ -=--------------- ---=======-,., l[:'======= -•1 1 --- □ 1r
l
~ __J -
{_
□
□
•
'------
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
8 2. Environmental Setting
This study collected data and information across multiple sources to develop its description of existing transportation conditions in the study area within 1/2 mile radius of the Project Site (see Figure 1). The assessment of conditions relevant to this study includes a description of the study area, an inventory of the local street system in the vicinity of the Project Site , current transit service in the study area, and existing bicycle & pedestrian facilities. A detailed description of these elements is presented in this chapter.

Study Area
The Project Site is bound by Hannum Avenue to the north, Bristol Parkway and adjacent parcels to the west, and Uplander Way to the south and east. The study area includes the Project S ite, its associated street frontages, and the surrounding vicinity. The study area is an urban setting with a variety of land uses and densities. The Project is considered infill development, as it proposes to build on previously developed parcels. The streets in the study area fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Culver City and the County of Los Angeles.

Existing Street System
Hannum Avenue, Bristol Parkway, and Uplander Way provide access to the Project site. Primary regional freeway access to the Project Site is provided by State Route 90 (“SR-90”) and Interstate 405 (“I-405”). The following is a brief description of the freeways and streets that serve the site. Street classifications are drawn from the Culver City General Plan 2045.
• SR-90 – SR-90 runs generally east/west connecting the site with Venice and terminates approximately 0.2 miles north west of the Project Site at Slauson Avenue. Additional access to SR- 90 is available via an interchange with I-405 (see below). • I-405 – I-405 runs generally north/south approximately 0.6 miles west of the Project Site and is the main freeway connection to the region. Access to Interstate 10 (“I-10”) is available via interchanges at SR-90 and Howard Hughes Parkway.
• Hannum Avenue – Hannum Avenue is a largely east/west primary arterial that provides access to the site from the north via I-405, and the east via Slauson Avenue. It includes two lanes of travel in each direction and left turn pockets at signalized intersections. A Class II bicycle lane is present between Bristol Parkway and Buckingham Parkway and on-street parking is present on the south side of Hannum Avenue along the same extent. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the study area.

Between Playa Street and Slauson Avenue, Hannum Avenue is a secondary arterial. • Uplander Way – Uplander Way local street surrounding the western and southern portion of the Project Site connecting Hannum Avenue to Bristol Parkway . It provides one lane of travel in each direction. On-street parking is present on both sides of the street. • Bristol Parkway – Bristol Parkway is a north/south major collector that provides access to the Project Site from the south via I-405 and Green Valley Circle, with two lanes of travel in each direction and 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
9 a two-way left turn lane. On-street parking is prohibited north of Green Valley Circle and permitted on the east side south of Green Valley Circle. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the study area. • Slauson Avenue – Slauson Avenue is an east/west primary arterial that provides three travel lanes in each direction and left turn pockets at intersections. On-street parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is 40 mph in the study area. Between Jefferson Boulevard and Port Road, Slauson Avenue is a major collector. Slauson Avenue connects to points east and northeast via La Cienega Boulevard.
• Buckingham Parkway – Buckingham Parkway is a north/south street. Between Slauson Avenue and Hannum Avenue, it is a primary arterial providing two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets.

This segment has a Class II bicycle lane between Hannum Avenue and Canterbury Drive and on- street parking is prohibited throughout. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Between Hannum Avenue and Green Valley Circle, Buckingham Parkway is a major collector with one lane in each direction and a two -way left turn lane. On- street parking is permitted on both sides of the street.

The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
• Green Valley Circle – Green Valley Circle is a n east/west secondary arterial looping between Sepulveda Boulevard and Centinela Avenue that provides two lanes in each direction with a two - way center turn lane, which narrows to one lane in each direction east of Buckingham Parkway. On- street parking is permitted on the south side of the street east of Bristol Parkway and both sides of the street east of Buckingham Parkway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. • Fox Hills Drive – Fox Hills Drive is a northeast/southwest local street that provides one travel lane in each direction with left turn pockets. On-street parking is prohibited.

Existing Transit
Several bus routes that Culver CityBus and LA Metro operate currently serve the Project Site and study area.

Transit lines within one mile of the Project Site are detailed below and illustrated in Figure 3. • Culver CityBus Line 3 – Line 3 is a local line connecting Fox Hills to Century City , with daily service (though Sunday service is limited). Line 3 runs along Slauson Avenue, Hannum Avenue, and Bristol Parkway in the study area. Weekday peak hour headways are approximately 20 minutes. The closest stop to the Project site is located along the northern Project frontage at Hannum Avenue and Bristol Parkway.
• Culver CityBus Line 4 – Line 4 is a weekday and Saturday community circulator connecting the Culver City Transit Center with West Los Angeles College and the West Los Angeles Transit Center.

Line 4 runs along Slauson Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. Weekday peak hour headways are approximately 40-60 minutes. The closest stop to the Project Site is located at the Culver City Transit Center.
• Culver CityBus Line 5 C2 – Line 5 C2 is a weekday community circulator that connects Overland Avenue and Fox Hills to Washington Boulevard via Braddock Drive. Destinations include Culver City Middle and High Schools, Downtown Culver City, the Hayden Industrial Tract and La Cienega Boulevard. Line 5C2 only operates on weekdays and when school is in session. Line 5C2 operates 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
10 five northbound runs on weekday mornings and five southbound runs on weekday afternoons. The closest stop to the Project site is located at Buckingham Parkway and Hannum Avenue. • Culver CityBus Line 6/6R – Line 6 is a local line from Westwood/UCLA to the Metro C Line Aviation Station, with daily service. Line 6 runs along Sepulveda Boulevard in the study area. Weekday peak hour headways are approximately 9 -16 minutes. The closest stop to the Project S ite is located at the Culver City Transit Center. Line 6R is a rapid version of Line 6 that operates only during weekday morning and evening peak hours. Weekday peak hour headways are approximately 12-17 minutes.

The 6R does not directly serve the Culver City Transit Center like the local 6, and the closest stop to the Project site is located at Sepulveda Boulevard and Slauson Avenue. • Metro Bus Line 102 – Line 102 is a local line from the LAX City Bus Center to South Gate via La Tijera and Exposition Boulevard, with daily service. Line 102 runs north/south along La Cienega Boulevard in the study area. Weekday peak hour headways are approximately 50-60 minutes. The closest stop to the Project Site is located at La Cienega Boulevard and Slauson Avenue. • Metro Bus Line 108 – Line 108 is a local line from Marina Del Rey to Pico Riveria via Slauson Avenue, with daily service. Line 108 runs east/west along Slauson Avenue in the study area. Weekday peak hour headways are approximately 7 -10 minutes. The closest stop to the Project S ite is located at Buckingham Parkway and Hannum Avenue.
• Metro Bus Line 110 – Line 110 is a local line from Playa Vista to Bell Gardens via Jefferson Boulevard and Gage Avenue, with daily service. Line 110 runs east/west along Washington Boulevard in the study area. Weekday peak hour headways are approximately 14-17 minutes. The closest stop to the Project Site is located at the intersection of Bristol Parkway and Hannum Avenue.

Overland AveSepulveda Blvd
Jefferson Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
S Centinela Ave
Playa St
Overland Ave
S Sep
ulveda Blvd
W Slauson Ave
S La Cienega Blvd
W Centinela Ave
405
405
405
405
405
405
3 4
2 6
4 4
6R
63 3
5C2
102
102
102
108
108
108
108
108
110 110
110
110
Existing Transit Service
Project Site
Culver City Boundary
1-mile radius from Project Site
Culver CityBus Routes
LA Metro Routes
Transit Stops
Figure 3
I
••
I
I
~
/
I
I
,,
'
I
D
D
I
I
' ' 'I
r -
I
•• I
I /
/
/
/
I
I
\
'
\
\
\
'/
f/
--.J
, __
- -t· ---·-• --
1 .,,, -- -- • .,,,
• .,
r
I
I
I
C.
'
/
/
/
/
-.
.... -••
I
•
- '1
I
I
I
I
I ,... -.I
' ' >
/ .,,,
--/ .,,,
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
.... .... ....
.,,, .,
I
-....
('
--\
' ' ' '"
\
\
\
I"'
I -"'I
I
I"'
I
~
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1- -
N
A
12 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project Site is served by dedicated bicycle infrastructure through Class II bicycle lanes on Hannum Avenue between Slauson Avenue and Bristol Parkway.

A map of existing bike facilities, in addition to the proposed bike facilities per the Culver City Bicycle & Pedestrian Action Plan (“Action Plan ”), adopted by City Council in June 2020, is illustrated in Figure 4 .

According to the Action Plan, a Class IV separated bikeway is planned along Buckingham Parkway between Hannum Avenue and Green Valley Circle. Class II bicycle lanes are recommended on Bristol Parkway between Slauson Avenue and Centinela Avenue; Hannum Avenue between Bristol Parkway and Playa Street; and Green Valley Circle between Sepulveda Boulevard and Centinela Avenue.

Both sides of the streets immediately bordering the Project Site and all other public streets in the vicinity a
ll include sidewalks, facilitating pedestrian movement. Marked crosswalks are present at all signalized intersections in the study area. Pedestrian walk phases are either automatically provided at the intersections or are actuated by pedestrian push-buttons.

The proposed Safer Fox Hills project (“Safer Fox Hills”) recommends additional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the Project area. The Safer Fox Hills plans are conceptual and have not been incorporated into the Action Plan , nor are they currently funded. Safer Fox Hills proposes the following bicycle infrastructure treatments for streets in the Project area:
• Han
num Avenue: a mix of Class II bicycle lanes and Class IV protected bicycle lanes • Bristol Parkway: Class IV protected bicycle lanes
• Buckingham Parkway: Class IV protected two-way cycletrack • Green Valley Circle: a mix of Class II bicycle lanes and Class IV protected bicycle lanes Safer Fox Hills also proposes a new traffic signal at the intersection of Green Valley Circle and Fox Hills Drive and bus stop improvements, protected intersections, curb extensions, and new or upgraded crosswalks throughout Fox Hills. For full details of the proposed improvements, see Figure 5.

Existing & Planned Bicycle Facilities
Figure 4
Project Site
1/2-mile radius from Project Site Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bike Lane
Existing / Planned Bike Facilities
/
/
/
Existing / Planned Bike Facilities
Hannum Ave
Green Valley Cir
Bristol Pkwy
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Centinela Ave
Sepulveda Blvd
90 ....... ======::::-• - - - - - ,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: □
... ...

I
I
I
'
.... ....
' '
l J ----
.-4'!~~~~~~----- ~,---
I
I
-,,.- ---
I ;

I , , , , ,
, I
,,,. ,,,. , I
,-•-._ ,,--- I
' '.., I I -.. I
I '.., ;
I ------ , ... ,
I ' ,'
I ' ; I '.._ ;
I ~ ...
~
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' \
\
\
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
----
N
A

SLAUSON AVE

CULVER CITY

WESTFIELD

FOUR POINTS

BY SHERATON

SPROUTS

CULVER CITY

TRANSIT
CENTER
TRADER
JOE’S TIKTOK
HQ

FOX HILLS
PARK

KENSINGTON

UPLANDER WAY

CANTERBURY DRIVESUMNER

WINDSOR

CAMBRIDGE

HEATHER

VILLAGE
THE

MEADOWS

HILLSIDE MEMORIAL PARK

HOL Y CROSS

DOVERWOOD DRIVE

SEPULVEDA BOULEVARDJEFFERSON BOULEVARD

HANNUM AVE

B R I S T O L PARKWAY

F O X H I L L S D R I V E
405
90 GREEN VALLEY
CIRCLE

BUCKINGHAM PARKWAY

S CENTINELA AVE
10D
10A10E
10F
10C
10B

SAFERFOX HILLS

DISCLAIMER
These conceptual plans are
preliminary and subject to
change based on stakeholder
& community feedback and
City Council direction.
500 ft
rev. 04.30.24
1 6
6 10
10 New traffic signal
Bus stop improvement
Protected intersection
New or upgraded crosswalk
Curb extensions
Roadway configurations
Directional concrete-
protected bike lane
Two-way concrete-
protected bike lane
Conventional bike lane
LEGEND
1 6
10 BETTEROVERLAND
Connection Point
6 6
10A
Figure 5
c/tCITY

DEPARTMENT WORKS
• • •
~I - I
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
15 3. CEQA Transportation Analyses
Senate Bill 743 Background
Proposed land use projects require an analysis to determine whether they cause a significant impact on VMT. The following section is a background on VMT and an assessment of VMT generated by the Project.

On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 743 (“SB 743”), which required t he Governor’s Office of Planning and Research ( “OPR”)2 to develop guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA using methods that do not focus on measuring automobile delay and level of service (“LOS”).3
OPR issued proposed updates to the CEQA guidelines in support of these goals in November 2017 4 and a supporting technical advisory in December 2018. 5 The updates established VMT as the primary metric for evaluating a project’s environmental impacts on the transportation system. The changes to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 to implement SB 743 were certified by the California Natural Resources Agency in December of 2018 6. Local jurisdictions were required to revise their procedures accordingly by July 2020.

The City, as the lead agency, adopted new significance thresholds for transportation impacts based on VMT, a VMT Calculator tool to measure VMT for development projects, and new transportation study guidelines.

These thresholds and guidelines were developed in 2019 and 2020 and were adopted at a City Council Meeting on July 13, 2020.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The City’s VMT Tool also assesses the VMT impacts of proposed development projects, along with the effectiveness of selected Transportation Demand Management ( “TDM”) measures proposed for a project based on available research. With the City as the lead agency, the VMT analysis follows the City’s procedures identified in the TSCG and VMT Tool.

2 Effective July 1, 2024, OPR was renamed the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. For simplicity, this memorandum continues to refer to that office as OPR. State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, https://lci.ca.gov/.
3 Government Code § 21099(c).
4 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines, Final, November 2017.
5 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018.
6 State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Final Adopted Text, December 2018. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
16 VMT Screening Criteria
The TSCG specifies the City’s VMT screening criteria for development projects. Per the criteria, if a development project meets any of the below VMT screening thresholds, it would be exempted from having to conduct VMT impact analysis to comply with CEQA, and a less than significant impact is presumed.

1. Small projects that result in less than 250 daily or 25 peak hour trips.

2. Projects within a ½ mile from these key TPAs: Metro E Line Culver City Station, Metro E Line La Cienega Station, Culver City Transit Center, or Sepulveda/Venice Boulevard intersection.

3. Projects located within any TPA where at least 15% of the on-site residential units are affordable.

4. Affordable housing projects where 100% of the dwelling units are affordable.

5. Local serving retail projects having less than 50,000 sf in size at a single store.

While a portion of the Project Site falls within ½ mile of the Culver City Transit Center, a VMT analysis was conducted for the whole Project Site as a conservative approach.

Thresholds 4 and 5 apply to specific land uses, meaning that these land uses can be screened from a mixed- use project.

The commercial portion of the Project is approximately 5,772 sf of retail space. Per the TSCG, t his portion screens out of VMT analysis based on the locally-serving retail screening criteria. The residential portion of the Project does not meet any of the VMT screening thresholds. Therefore, a VMT impact analysis is required for the Project, but no separate analysis is required for the retail portion.

VMT Impact Analysis
The Project’s impact on VMT was assessed utilizing the City’s VMT Tool. The VMT Tool considers a project’s land uses, proposed transportation demand management strategies, and location within the City to estimate the project’s impact on VMT , assessed against the City’s established impact criteria. The TSCG threshold of significance is 15% below the City VMT per capita. The City VMT per capita is 8.3, so the threshold of significance is 7.1. See Appendix B for details.

The Project’s land uses are outlined in Table 1. Following the TSCG guidance for mixed-use projects, both the commercial/retail and residential land uses are subject to this threshold. The Project’s commercial component is below the 50,000 sf threshold and is presumed to be local -serving and to have a less -than- significant impact on VMT. The Project’s estimated total daily VMT would be 3 2,887 and is shown in Appendix B.

The estimated daily household VMT per capita for the Project would be 6.2 and is presented in Table 2.

The Project’s estimated daily household VMT per capita is below the TSCG threshold of significance; therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant VMT impact and no mitigation measures would be required. Appendix B contains additional information about the inputs and supporting documentation for the VMT analysis.

Table 1: Project Land Uses
Proposed Land Use Proposed Land Use Size
Market Rate Multi-Family
Housing 999 DU
Income-Restricted
Housing 78 DU
Retail 5,772 sf
Threshold of Significance1 Significant VMT
Impact?

7.1 No
Notes

1. Threshold of significance for residential land use projects is 15% below the City metric of 8.3.

Table 2: Project Household VMT per Capita
Proposed Project Daily Household VMT per
Capita

6.2 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
18 Transportation Demand Management Measures
A TDM program consists of strategies that are aimed at reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation, such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking .

While the Project has a less than significant impact on VMT as discussed above, a TDM program is proposed as part of the Project to comply with Culver City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) Section 7.05.015. The applicant has also proposed additional voluntary TDM measures as part of the Project.

Project Site Design Elements
The Project includes site design elements that enhance the usage of walking, biking, and transit modes as alternatives to automobile s. The Project’s site design includes pedestrian network improvements throughout and around the Project Site, including sidewalk improvements on all Project frontages that internally link all uses within the Project Site and connect the Project Site to the surrounding public pedestrian network. Along the Hannum Avenue frontage, the existing sidewalk and parkway width will be expanded from 8 feet to 13 feet (including an easement); on the Bristol Parkway frontage, from 10 feet to 15 feet; and on the Uplander Way frontage, from 8 feet to 10 feet. S treet lighting and street trees will also be provided.

CCMC Section 7.05.015 TDM Measures
The following TDM measures are required per CCMC Section 70.05.015 based on the scale of the development A summary of the measures is provided below. Per CCMC, all facilities and improvements listed must be maintained in a state of good repair and are subject to monitoring by the City. • Transportation Information Board including information on public transit, carpooling, ridesharing, and bicycling facilities and service available in the vicinity. • Carpool/Vanpool Preferential Parking designated for at least 10% of employee parking spaces . • Secure Bicycle Parking at a minimum ratio of four spaces for the first 50,000 gross sf of new development, and one space for each additional 50,000 gross sf of new development. • Sidewalks/Pedestrian Pathways with direct and safe routes from the external pedestrian circulation system, vehicle and bicycle parking areas and transit facilities to each building in the development.
• Bus Stop Improvements, if determined necessary by the City to mitigate the impacts of the new development.
• Carpool/Vanpool Loading Zone
Voluntary TDM Measures
Beyond the required measures detailed above, t he Project will implement the following voluntary TDM measures to reduce vehicle trips generated by the Projec t and support residents, guests, employees, and customers choose to use a commute alternative to reach their destination. • Project Transportation Coordinator – A Transportation Coordinator will be designated for the Project Site who will be responsible for implementing, coordinating, and maintaining the TDM Plan. 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
19 The Transportation Coordinator’s identity and contact information will be provided to the City and kept current.
• Transportation Information Packet for New Residents and Employees – Each new resident and employee will receive an information packet summarizing the transit and transportation alternatives available to Project tenants. The packet will emphasize the location of the promotions and marketing kiosk and include the Transportation Coordinator’s contact information. • Bike Repair Station – The Project will provide an on -site bike parking station for use by Project residents and employees that has a space and a basic tool set for bike repairs. • Subsidized Ride Hail Service – Employees who arrive to work via a means other than a single - passenger vehicle will automatically be registered in a s ubsidized ride hail service by which, upon request to the Transportation Coordinator, the employee will be given a voucher to travel home on Uber/Lyft (or similar shared ride service) in case of illness or emergency. The Project will provide up to $750 in total for this program every year. The subsidy would be for two years after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
• Subsidized Transit Passes – The Project will provide up to $500 per pass per year of subsidies for up to five LA Metro TAP cards for a period of three years for employees who opt to take Metro instead of personal vehicles.

Plans, Programs, Ordinances, and Policies Conflict Review Under CEQA, a project is considered consistent with an applicable plan if it is consistent with the overall intent of the plan and would not preclude the attainment of its primary goals. Any inconsistency with an applicable policy, plan, or regulation is only a significant impact under CEQA if the policy, plan, or regulation was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and if the inconsistency itself would result in a direct physical impact on the environment. 7 The City’s TSCG requires a review for conflicts with transportation -related plans, programs, ordinances, or policies. Based on applying the screening criteria, the threshold test is to assess whether a project would conflict with an adopted program, policy, plan, or ordinance that is adopted to protect the environment. A project would not be shown to result in an impact merely based on whether a project would not implement a particular program, policy, plan , or ordinance. Rather, it is the intention of this threshold test to ensure that proposed development does not conflict with nor preclude the City from implementing adopted programs, plans, and policies. This evaluation was conducted by reviewing the following City documents :

Traffic Code, General Plan Circulation Element, Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, Short Range Mobility Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan, Complete Streets Policy , and Local Road Safety Plan .

Additionally, this evaluation determined that the following City documents do not apply to the Project Site and are thus not analyzed further: General Plan Land Use Element, Gateway Neighborhood Design

7 2025 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute & Guidelines (2025). Association of Environmental Planners.
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
20 Guidelines, Gateway Adjacent Neighborhood Design Guidelines Residential Parkway Guidelines, and Upper Culver Crest Hillside Design Standards.

Traffic Code, Chapter 7.05: Motor Vehicle Air Quality Management This Chapter of the CCMC establishes TDM and trip reduction measures for developments of 25,000 sf or more. The Project is greater than 25,000 square feet and would comply with CCMC requirements, as detailed above.

City General Plan (2024) Mobility Element (“ME”)
This document guide the physical development of neighborhoods, providing neighborhood level detail for land uses, the transportation network, policies, and implementation strategies. The following is a review of the Project’s consistency with transportation related measures, objectives, and policies in this plan:

ME Policy M-2.5
Multimodal connectivity: Transform traditional bus stops into mobility centric locations that provide easy access and hassle-free connectivity between modes of transportation.

The proposed Project would comply with any bus stop improvements as required by the City under CCMC Section 7.05.015.

ME Policy M-3.4
High-quality transit service: Prioritize capital investments and improvements that align with Culver City’s SRMP, regional studies, and LA Metro’s LRTP to enhance transit reliability and rider experience to make transit competitive with driving.

The proposed Project Site is located in an area served by public transportation, including the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Culver City Department of Transportation, which provide an extensive system of bus lines in Culver City and the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The proposed Project would support this policy by providing new residential development adjacent to existing transit lines which would encourage ridership. The proposed TDM plan would also encourag e transit use.

ME Policy M-4.2
First/last mile barriers: Prioritize investments that reduce first/last-mile barriers to transit stops and encourage alternative transportation options for daily activities and/or improve access to high quality jobs.

The proposed Project would support this policy by enhancing pedestrian circulation and promot ing an active streetscape with pedestrian paseos on Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way , enhanced sidewalks, landscape, and street trees along Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way . These facilities would facilitate connections to Fox Hill Park and the Westfield Culver City Mall, through enhanced sidewalks, landscape, and street trees along Hannum Avenue, Uplander Way, and Bristol Parkway. 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
21 ME Policy M-4.4
Bicycle parking: Provide secure and covered bicycle parking at key destinations, including all public parking garages.

The proposed Project would support this policy by providing 305 secure bicycle parking spaces (31 short - term and 274 long-term) in compliance with respective City codes.

ME Policy M-4.6
Accessible pedestrian facilities: Construct pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and controlled crossings, that are ADA-compliant and connect with key land uses and regional and local transit services.

ME Policy M-5.3
Transportation demand management implementation: Deploy TDM measures citywide to shift the mobility paradigm by promoting and incentivizing the use of non-drive alone and sustainable mobility options.

The proposed Project’s proximity to several public transportation options would support this policy by allowing residents to commute via alternative modes to reduce vehicle volumes. The proposed TDM program (as described above) would also help to promote non-driving transportation modes.

ME Policy M-5.4
Transportation demand management requirements. Require employers and new developments to effectively reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips they generate and ensure safe and comfortable access for the local multimodal network, including promoting and incentivizing the use of transit, walking, and cycling over driving.

ME Policy M-5.8
Funding sources for multimodal investment projects: Leverage appropriate and eligible alternative funding sources including the Mobility Improvement Fee and assessment districts to support multimodal projects and mobility services in transit priority areas and transit priority corridors.

The proposed Project would contribute its required Mobility Improvement Fee in support of funding multimodal projects and mobility services as selected by the City. 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
22 ME Policy M-8.2
Active modes of travel to parks, recreation facilities, open spaces, and trails: Improve access of active modes of travel to parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails.

The proposed Project would support this policy by providing new residential development near to Fox Hills Park.

ME Policy M-8.4
Streetscaping: Provide and maintain shade trees, street furniture, bike racks, and other streetscaping features to enhance the street environment and encourage active modes of travel.

ME Policy M-5.5
Traffic congestion and parking management: Proactive manage traffic congestion and parking at major destinations and job centers.

The proposed Project would support this policy by providing new residential development near to existing office uses and destinations such as Fox Hill Park and the Westfield Culver City Mall that could be accessed via non-vehicular modes. The proposed TDM program (as described above) would also help to promote non-driving transportation modes . The proposed Project would also provide an adequate amount of parking based on a parking demand stud y of comparable properties located near the Project. The Culver City Municipal Code no longer requires a minimum number of parking spaces as of October 2022. The Project would provide 1,304 off-street parking spaces within three parking garages, one for each proposed building.

Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
The City established a process for Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs (NTMPs) in a Procedures Manual dated November 22, 2004 to identify and implement areas impacted by cut-through traffic and implement traffic control, speed control, and safety infrastructure in the public right-of-way. The Fox Hills NTMP includes proposed traffic circles, speed humps, radar feedback signs, centerline striping, curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, and bike lanes in the study area.

As noted above, Uplander Way does not provide any neighborhood access. Due to the Project location and driveways providing more direct access to major arterials, Project trips are not anticipated to lead to diversion or cut-through traffic on residential local streets. The Project would also voluntarily provide 1,304 off-street parking spaces, minimizing the possibility that residents, guests, and employees would navigate onto neighborhood streets in search of on-street parking.

The Project would not conflict with the goals of the Fox Hills NTMP nor inhibit implementation of measures identified within.
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
23 Short Range Mobility Plan (2022-2026)
The City’s Transportation Department Short Range Mobility Plan provides a service analysis of the current fixed route bus service, the impact of local and regional transit projects, and an evaluation of main corridors and the o n-demand services offered, such as Dial -A-Ride and microtransit. It focuses on public transportation services, enhancing fixed route and paratransit services, expanding micro -mobility with scooters and bikes, and offering microtransit services. The implementation of the Short Range Mobility Plan is largely within the purview of the City rather than private developers or property owners. The Project would support this plan because of the Project’s proximity and accessibility to several public transportation options. The proposed Project Site is in an area well served by public transportation, as described above.

The Project would comply with any bus stop improvements as required by the City under CCMC Section

7.05.015. Therefore, the Project would not preclude the implementation of the Short Range Mobility Plan.

Short Range Transit Plan (FY 2019-2021)
The City’s Transportation Department Short Range Transit Plan has been superseded by the Short Range Mobility Plan. The prior Short Range Transit Plan, similarly to the current Short Range Mobility Plan, provides a service analysis of fixed route bus service, the impact of local and regional transit projects, and an evaluation of main corridors and the o n-demand services offered, such as Dial -A-Ride and microtransit. It focuses on public transportation services, enhancing fixed route and paratransit services, expanding micro- mobility with scooters and bikes, and offering microtransit services. The implementation of the Short Range Transit Plan is largely within the purview of the City rather than private developers or property owners. The Project would support this plan because of the Project’s proximity and accessibility to several public transportation options. The proposed Project Site is in an area well served by public transportation, as described above. The Project would comply with any bus stop improvements as required by the City under CCMC Section 7.05.015. Therefore, the Project would not preclude the implementation of the Short Range Transit Plan.

Vision Zero
The City Council passed a resolution in 2016 (Resolution No. 2016-R082) in support of the Vision Zero initiative to improve transportation safety and aim to eliminate fatal and severe collisions on City roadways. While the City does not have one specific plan, program, ordinance, or policy implementing Vision Zero, its goals are implemented via the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan, Complete Streets Policy, and Local Road Safety Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan
The City’s Action Plan establishes the vision and values that focus on establishing walking and cycling as viable modes of travel for all trip types. The Action Plan aims to provide a safe, convenient , and accessible active transportation network, accessible by users of all ages and abilities. The following is a review of the transportation related measures, objectives, and policies in the Action Plan:
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
24 Action HS-3.2
Use current design guidelines to encourage development patterns that promote active transportation and allow for short trips between destinations.

The Project supports this action by proposing residential uses near existing office uses, in an area with several transit options . Bicycle parking would also be provided. These design features would encourage pedestrian trips and shorter trips between destinations. The Project also supports this action by enhancing pedestrian circulation and promoting an active streetscape with pedestrian paseos on Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way, enhanced sidewalks, landscape, and street trees along Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way.

Action HS-4.1
Build an active transportation network that encourages Culver City residents to use means of transportation other than driving by providing safer, more comfortable biking and walking facilities.

The Project supports this action by implementing 305 bicycle parking spaces (31 short-term and 274 long- term). A Class II Bicycle Lane is located along Hannum Ave fronting the Project Site. The Project Site frontage designs and access points will not preclude the implementation of this facility and other future high-quality bicycle facilities. The Project also supports this action by enhancing pedestrian circulation and promoting an active streetscape with pedestrian paseos on Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way , enhanced sidewalks, landscape, and street trees along Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way.

Complete Streets Policy
The Complete Streets Policy lays out a plan for designing safer, more vibrant streets, that are accessible to people, no matter how they travel. The supplementary Complete Streets Design Guidelines have not yet been adopted at the time of this study. The following policies in the Complete Streets Policy are relevant to the Project:

Policy 5a.i
The City will plan, design, operate, and maintain a transportation system that provides a connected network of streets and facilities that accommodate all modes of travel. The City will actively seek opportunities to repurpose or enhance rights-of-way to improve connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.

The Project supports this policy by introducing development that is conducive to walking, biking, and taking transit. The Project would introduce new bicycle parking and enhance pedestrian rights-of-way by providing enhanced sidewalks, landscape, and street trees along Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way. Existing transit options near the Project Site would allow for pedestrian and bicycle access to public transit.

Policy 5a.ii
The City will pursue enhancements to the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to public transit services, as well as to schools, parks, service retail, public facilities, regional connections, and business districts.

The proposed Project would support this policy by enhancing pedestrian circulation and promot ing an active streetscape with connections to Fox Hill Park and the Westfield Culver City Mall, through enhanced 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
25 sidewalks, landscape, and street trees along Hannum Avenue, Uplander Way, and Bristol Parkway . Existing transit options near the Project Site would allow for pedestrian and bicycle access to public transit. The Project would comply with any bus stop improvements as required by the City under CCMC Section

7.05.015.

Policy 5b.ii
The City will emphasize pedestrian access along and across City streets by, for example, providing convenient and protected crossing locations, shortening crossing distances through the use of curb extensions and tight curb radii, and enhancing signage and pavement markings.

The Project would provide enhanced sidewalks, landscape, and street trees along Hannum Avenue, Uplander Way, and Bristol Parkway. It would not conflict with or inhibit future City improvements to pedestrian access in the public right-of-way.

Policy 5d.ii
The City will coordinate street improvements with business owners along retail and commercial corridors to develop or enhance vibrant business districts.

The Project supports this policy by providing new neighborhood -serving retail uses, and by introducing development that is conducive to walking, biking, and taking transit.

Local Road Safety Plan
The City’s Local Road Safety Plan (“LRSP”) is a living document that identifies conditions that contribute to collisions within the City and recommends potential traffic safety improvements to the city’s unique traffic needs and issues. No streets along the Project frontage are identified in the LRSP’s High-Risk Roadway Segments or Intersections.

Conclusion
The Project features and design support multimodal transportation options and would be consistent with policies, plans, ordinances, and programs that support alternative modes of transportation. The Project design includes features to minimize impacts to the public right -of-way and enhance the user experience by integrating multimodal transportation options.

The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, ordinances, and programs, or preclude City action to fulfill or implement projects associated with these networks and will contribute to overall walkability through enhancements to the Project Site . Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the City’s transportation-related plans, programs, ordinances, and policies.

Geometric Design Hazards
This section discusses impacts regarding the potential increase of hazards due to geometric design features, which generally considers the design of access points to and from the Project Site and may include safety, operational, or capacity impacts.
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
26 Pedestrian access to the Project Site would be provided via sidewalks located along Project Site frontages on Hannum Avenue, Uplander Way, and Bristol Parkway . Residents and visitors arriving at the Project Site by bicycle would have the same access opportunities as pedestrians and would be able to utilize on -site bicycle parking facilities. The Project’s access locations are designed to the City’s adopted standards and CCMC Section 17.320.040, and will provide adequate sight distance, sidewalks, crosswalks , and pedestrian movement controls that meet the City’s requirements to protect pedestrian safety. All Project driveways will intersect streets (Bristol Parkway or Uplander Way ) at right angles. Street tree placement and the location of other potential impediments to driver and pedestrian visibility will be considered to maintain safe conditions near the Project driveways. Pedestrian entrances separated from vehicular driveways with curb and sidewalk would provide access from the adjacent streets and transit stops.

The Project shall convert two unrestricted on -street parking spaces on Hannum Avenue in front of the Building 1 entrance to passenger loading only. Re -striping of the existing Class II bicycle lane shall include green conflict markers (“elephant tracks” similar to the existing condition on the opposite side of the street) to alert drivers and bicyclists of potential cross-over traffic. The Project shall also convert approximately one metered parking space each at the entrances to Buildings 2 & 3 to passenger loading only. Thes passenger loading zones would provide a designated space for vehicles to wait in a curbside space without obstructing travel lanes or the existing bicycle lane on Hannum Avenue . Although this would still require vehicles to cross the bicycle lane, providing a dedicated and demarcated space congregates these curb demands into one area rather than occurring haphazardly at any location around the site . Such curbside loading zone s should have no effect on the pedestrian safety as they would not be located at or near designated pedestrian crossings. The streets immediately bordering the Project Site and nearly all the other streets in the vicinity include sidewalks, facilitating pedestrian movement. Marked crosswalks are present at permitted pedestrian crossings for all study intersections in the study area.

The Project was analyzed with the following access assumptions:
• Vehicle access to the Project Site would be provided as follows:
◦ Access A: One right-in/right-out only driveway on the western frontage with Bristol Parkway providing access to the east-west alley and garages for Buildings 1 and 2 ◦ Access B: One full-access driveway on the eastern frontage with Uplander Way providing access to the east-west alley and garages for Buildings 1 and 2 ◦ Access C: One full-access driveway on the southern frontage with Uplander Way, providing access to the garage for Building 3
◦ Emergency Access: A proposed curb cut along the eastern Project frontage on Uplander Way between Buildings 2 and 3 provides vehicle access only for emergency vehicles. • Pedestrian access via three entrances, described below:
◦ Northern Building: Pedestrian entrances on Hannum Avenue for residential and commercial uses
◦ Middle Building: Pedestrian entrance on Uplander Way (eastern frontage) ◦ Southern Building: Pedestrian entrance on Uplander Way (southeastern frontage) 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
27 The Project driveways will comply with City standards as outlined in CCMC Section 17.320.040. The driveways would be configured to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with transit services and pedestrian traffic by providing curbs and sidewalks to separate pedestrian movements from vehicular movements. The pedestrian access points are located to minimize pedestrian -vehicle conflicts . The Project would not substantially increase hazards or conflicts and would contribute to overall walkability through enhancements to the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would cause a less than significant impact regarding geometric design hazards.

5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
28 4. Non-CEQA Transportation Analyses
The purposes of the non-CEQA transportation analyses required in the City’s TSCG are to promote orderly development, evaluate and address transportation -system issues, and promote public safety and the general welfare by ensuring that development projects are properly related to their sites, surrounding properties, and traffic circulation. This section includes a site plan review, intersection operations analysis, driveway operations analysis, residential street segment analysis, parking assessment, multimodal safety analysis, and transit operations analysis.

Site Plan Review
As mentioned in the CEQA geometric hazards analysis, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to geometric design hazards. As shown in Figure 2 , the Project would propose four driveways, a reduction from the eight that currently serve the existing uses on the Project Site . Vehicular access to the parking garages, as well as loading docks and trash areas, would be provided via three main driveways: one on Bristol Parkway serving Buildings 1 and 2, one on Uplander Way (N/S) serving Buildings 1 and 2, and one on Uplander Way (E/W) serving Building 3. The Bristol Parkway driveway is proposed to be right turn in/right turn out only. A fourth driveway on Uplander Way between Buildings 2 and 3 is for emergency vehicle access only . Further driveway LOS and queuing analysis is provided in the operations analysis.

Commercial use deliveries would utilize loading docks located in the alley between Buildings 1 and 2.

Intersection Operations Analysis
The purpose of the intersection operations analysis is to assess the ability of the circulation system to accommodate the vehicular traffic generated by the Project and other related projects. This analysis includes intersection LOS, delay, and queuing analysis.

Analysis Scenarios
The Project is expected to be completed by the ye ar 2031. According to TSCG requirements, the following traffic scenarios have been developed and analyzed as part of this study:
• Existing (20 24) Conditions – The analysis of existing traffic conditions sets a baseline for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes a description of the street system serving the site, current traffic volumes, and an assessment of the operating conditions at these locations. Traffic counts were collected in May 2024.
• Existing (2024) Plus Project Conditions – This traffic scenario provides projected traffic volumes and an assessment of operating conditions under existing conditions with the addition of P roject- generated traffic.
• Future Year (2031) Conditions – Future year traffic conditions without the proposed P roject were developed for the year 2031. The objective of this analysis is to project future traffic and operating 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
29 conditions that could be expected to result from regional changes and related projects in the vicinity of the Project Site by 2031.
• Future Year (2031) Plus Project Conditions – This traffic scenario provides projected traffic volumes and an assessment of operating conditions under Future Year conditions with the addition of project-generated traffic.
• Horizon Year (2045) Conditions – According to the Culver City Travel Demand Forecasting Model (TDFM), the future horizon year is 2045. Horizon year traffic conditions without the proposed Project would be developed for the year 2045. The objective of this analysis is to predict future traffic and operating conditions that might be expected to result from regional changes and related projects in the vicinity of the Project Site by 2045.
• Horizon Year (2045) Plus Project Conditions – This traffic scenario provides projected traffic volumes and an assessment of operating conditions under Future Buildout conditions with the addition of project-generated traffic.

Study Locations
The scope and selection of study intersections and residential street segments was developed in conjunction with City staff. This study analyzed 12 intersections based on guidance from the TSCG and staff.

This study analyzes the following Culver City and Los Angeles County intersections:

1. Hannum Avenue & Slauson Avenue

2. Fox Hills Drive & Hannum Avenue

3. Bristol Parkway & Slauson Avenue

4. Bristol Parkway & Hannum Avenue

5. Bristol Parkway & Uplander Way

6. Bristol Parkway & Green Valley Circle

7. Uplander Way & Hannum Avenue

8. Buckingham Parkway & Hannum Avenue

9. Buckingham Parkway & Slauson Avenue

10. Shenandoah Avenue & Slauson Avenue (Los Angeles County)

11. Corning Avenue & Slauson Avenue (Los Angeles County)

12. La Cienega Boulevard & Slauson Avenue (Los Angeles County) All intersections except Bristol Parkway & Uplander Way are signalized. Additionally, the segment of Green Valley Circle be tween Bristol Parkway and Centinela Avenue was studied for potential neighborhood intrusion. The study intersections and street segment are illustrated in Figure 6.

Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
This section presents the existing peak hour turning movement traffic volumes for each of the intersections analyzed in the study, describes the methodology used to assess the traffic conditions at each intersection, and analyzes the resulting levels of service at each. Traffic counts are provided in Appendix C. 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
30 Existing Traffic Volumes
Weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were collected at the 12 study intersections in May 2024. The 24-hour counts at the analyzed street segment were taken in May and June 2024. These counts occurred while all local schools and districts were in session . The existing weekday traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 7.

Level of Service Methodology
LOS is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow on the street system, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 3. All intersections except Bristol Parkway & Uplander Way are signalized.

The Highway Capacity Manual, 7 th Edition (HCM) methodology was used to determine the average intersection delay (seconds) and corresponding LOS for the study intersections. This analysis was performed using the Synchro software program. Synchro calculates vehicle delay and LOS based on p rocedures outlined in the HCM. The most current signal timing information from each jurisdiction was used in the analysis of signalized study intersections.

Existing Levels of Service
The traffic volumes presented in Figure 7 were analyzed using the methodologies described above to determine the current operating conditions at the 12 analyzed intersections. Table 4 summarizes the Existing (202 4) LOS analysis results. As shown in the table, the following two intersections are currently operating at LOS E or F:

3. Bristol Parkway & Slauson (AM Peak Hour)

12. La Cienega Boulevard & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Detailed LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix D.

Overland Ave
Sepulveda Blvd
Jefferson Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
S Centinela Ave
Playa St
O
verland Ave
S Sepulveda Blvd
W Slauson Ave
S La Cienega Blvd
W Centinela Ave
405
405
405
405
405
405
4 7
5 3
2 9
8 11 12
1 10
6 A B
C
Study Intersections/Streets
Project Site
Culver City Boundary
1-mile radius from Project Site
Study Intersections
Study Neighborhood/Residential Streets
Project Driveways
Figure 6
'
I
I
' I 'I
r - '-
I
l, ..... -----.....
'1
..... I .... .... .,,, .... .,,,
I
/ I
/
I
/ I
/ I
I /
I
/ I
/
,...
-.I
~
/ /
/
I
I
/
I \
I C. \
I ' '
\
I ' > .,,, ., \
I
I
/ .,,,
/
.,,, \ .,,,
/ ( \
I / I \
I /
/ \
I
•
... _ ..I
• ,, "' • /
'
\
'
/
I
'
/
' • •
I
• •
\
....
'
I
I
' '
I
'
I
'
I
~
\
'('
•
I
\ ' X
I
\
I
...
..... .... ... - -
\ ..... I
('
-
1- -
.....
-~
\ .....

I
\ -
\ ..... I ' I ...
..... '
\ .... I I
..... ' ..... I '" ~
I /
\ '
I
,,
.....

I
..... r J
' 1
...... I
I I
...... I
I / I
.......
'< ...... --- - - - -..... /
- - - - - - - /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ .,,, .... .,,, .... ..... .... .....
- - - - - - ---
N
A
D
• .. -
- ..I X
...
i
Figure 7
5757 Uplander Way
Existing (2024) Volumes AM(PM)
64(34)
27(11)
154(682)
63(15)
861(1,498)
35(33)
13(51)
4(30)
17(57)
36(18)
3,130(1,366)
213(162)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
324(43)
14(10)
3(4)
44(123)
947(1,785)
40(272)
174(52)
4(7)
16(17)
15(17)
2,855(1,431)
10(13)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
71(14)
26(12)
96(299)
12(2)
935(1,766)
11(6)
21(16)
13(22)
91(133)
74(93)
2,799(1,456)
34(111)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
1,077(2,154)
78(56)
933(731)
1(34)
45(238)
1,972(929)
74(115)
12A. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
426(95)
2(5)
128(179)
204(474)
913(1,921)
44(60)
1,630(949)
12B. La Ci enega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
82(68)
547(282)
221(273)
41(72)
210(509)
54(174)
25(49)
184(488)
137(210)
837(431)
490(446)
35(178)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
334(176)
6(0)
37(126)
3(0)
221(621)
24(161)
0(10)
0(2)
0(1)
10(1)
533(454)
47(138)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
297(166)
7(0)
53(49)
7(7)
955(1,482)
303(398)
2(25)
0(14)
4(12)
19(2)
3,110(1,354)
43(109)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
213(127)
310(127)
92(128)
4(14)
168(506)
113(265)
48(76)
166(241)
107(244)
32(89)
270(292)
42(87)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
619(288)
44(16)
251(592)
37(6)
8(38)
15(58)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
178(75)
439(127)
37(37)
61(60)
79(267)
23(128)
36(67)
57(407)
73(236)
258(74)
379(183)
15(34)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
8(34)
0(0)
8(47)
22(13)
152(839)
23(27)
2(60)
0(0)
6(24)
22(6)
394(213)
49(11)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
230(74)
3(0)
90(88)
3(0)
79(681)
77(229)
0(3)
0(2)
0(3)
7(0)
252(111)
45(95)

An occasional approach phase is fully
utilized; many drivers begin to feel
somewhat restricted within groups
of vehicles
Occasionally drivers may have to wait
through more than one red light; backups
develop behind turning vehicles.

Delays may be substantial during portions
of the rush hours, but enough lower
volume periods occur to permit clearing
of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.

Represents the most vehicles intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be
long lines of waiting vehicles through
several signal cycles.

Backups from nearby locations or on cross
streets may restrict or prevent movement
of vehicles out of the intersection
approaches. Tremendous delays with
increasing queue lengths.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022. >80
<10
>10 and <20
>20 and <35
>35 and <55
>55 and <80
F
<10
>10 and <15
> 15.0 and < 25.0
> 25.0 and < 35.0
> 35.0 and < 50.0
>50
A
B
C
D
E
Table 3: Level of Service Defintions for Intersections (HCM 7 Methodology) Level of
Service
Average Stopped Delay
per Vehicle (seconds)
[Signalized]
Definition
Average Stopped Delay
per Vehicle (seconds)
[Unsignalized]
Average
Vehicular Delay
(sec/veh) [b]
LOS
AM 39.8 D
PM 40.7 D
AM 23.0 C
PM 13.8 B
AM 78.5 E
PM 23.8 C
AM 32.8 C
PM 28.5 C
AM 18.8 C
PM 16.8 C
AM 13.4 B
PM 11.6 B
AM 3.3 A
PM 8.6 A
AM 19.8 B
PM 4.4 A
AM 15.2 B
PM 19.3 B
AM 44.4 D
PM 21.4 C
AM 8.4 A
PM 15.8 B
AM 80.6 F
PM 25.9 C
[b] LOS and delay for the clustered intersection is reported as a weighted average.

Table 4: Existing (2024) Intersections Level of Service Signalized
Signalized
8 Buckingham Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
7 Uplander Way & Hannum Ave Signalized
6 Bristol Pkwy & Green Valley Cir Signalized
NO. Intersection Peak Hour
Existing (2024)
1 Hannum Ave & Slauson Ave
Control Type
Signalized
2 Fox Hills Dr & Hannum Ave Signalized
5 Bristol Pkwy & Uplander Way SSSC [a]
4 Bristol Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
[a] SSSC = Side Street Stop-Controlled
12 La Cienega Blvd & Slauson Aveb Signalized
3 Bristol Pkwy & Slauson Ave Signalized
Note:
9 Buckingham Pkwy & Slauson Ave
10 Shenandoah Ave & Slauson Ave
11 Corning Ave & Slauson Ave
Signalized
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
35 Project Traffic
The development of trip generation estimates for the Project was a three-step process: trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment.

Project Traffic Generation
The Project would provide a total of 1,077 dwelling units and 5.772 ksf of retail space across three buildings on the Project Site. The parcel is currently developed with four office buildings totaling approximately 146,000 sf which would be demolished , as well as s urface parking and vehicular access that supports the existing uses on the Project Site. The office uses are currently occupied , so an existing use credit was calculated when developing the trip generation for the Project.

Table 5 presents the trip rates used to estimate trip generation for the Project . Trip generation data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual (11 th Edition, 2021) was used to estimate vehicle trip generation. The ITE Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) rate (Land Use #221) was used for the proposed residential use. The ITE Restaurant (High Turnover Sit -Down) rate (Land Use #932) was used for the proposed retail use. As the future retail use is not yet determined, a relatively high trip generating use was selected to provide a conservative estimate. An internal capture credit was taken for both the residential and retail uses to account for the percentage of trips that take place within the site, using the MXD 2.0 Mixed Use Trip Generation Methodology. Additionally, as pass -by credit was taken for the retail use, based on guidance from the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG). The basis for these credit decisions is outlined in the TSCG.

After including the credits for existing uses, internal capture, and pass -by trips, the Project is estimated to generate 186 trips (-87 inbound/273 outbound) in the AM peak hour and 215 trips (223 inbound/-8 trips outbound) in the PM peak hour. Inbound trip generation in the AM peak hour and outbound trip generation in the PM peak hour are negative due to the existing use credit and difference in time -of-day trip patterns between the existing office use and the proposed residential use.

Project Traffic Distribution
The geographic distribution of the traffic generated by the proposed Project depends on several factors.

These factors include the type and density of the proposed land uses, the geographic distribution of population from which the employees and potential patrons of the proposed development are drawn, and the location of the Project in relation to the surrounding street system. A select zone analysis was conducted for the proposed uses using the City of Culver City TDFM to inform the general distribution pattern for this study. The distribution is illustrated in Figure 8.

Project Traffic Assignment
The traffic to be generated by the proposed Project was assigned to the street network using the distribution patterns described in Figure 8. The assignment of traffic volumes took into consideration the locations of the proposed driveways on Bristol Parkway and Uplander Way, as well as each building’s access to the driveways . Figure 9 provides the assignment of the proposed project -generated peak hour traffic volumes at the analyzed intersections during the AM and PM peak hours.

Rate In% Out% Rate In% Out% In Out Total In Out Total

PROPOSED PROJECT
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 1077 DU 4.54 0.37 23% 77% 0.39 61% 39% 4,890 92 306 398 256 164 420 Less: Internal Capture [b] 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% (147) (3) (9) (12) (8) (5) (13) Less: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Adjustment [c] 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% (269) (5) (17) (22) (14) (9) (23) Net External Vehicle Trips 4,743 84 280 364 234 150 384 Restaurant (High Turnover Sit-Down) 932 5.77 KSF 107.2 9.57 55% 45% 9.05 61% 39% 619 30 25 55 32 20 52 Less: Internal Capture [b] 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% (19) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) Total Driveway Trips 600 29 24 53 31 19 50
Less: Pass-by [d] 20% 20% 20% (120) (5) (4) (9) (6) (3) (9) Net External Vehicle Trips 480 24 20 44 25 16 41
TOTAL DRIVEWAY TRIPS 5,343 113 304 417 265 169 434
TOTAL PROJECT EXTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS 5,223 108 300 408 259 166 425

EXISTING USE CREDIT
General Office Building 710 146 KSF 10.84 1.52 88% 12% 1.44 17% 83% 1,583 195 27 222 36 174 210 Net External Vehicle Trips 1,583 195 27 222 36 174 210
TOTAL EXISTING USE CREDIT 1,583 195 27 222 36 174 210
NET INCREMENTAL EXTERNAL TRIPS 3,640 -87 273 186 223 -8 215 Notes:
[d] Pass-by trip adjustment applied to account for the percentage of trips that would already be on the adjacent roadway but make a stop by the Project Site. ITE pass-by rates for this land use are extremely high and are derived from primarily rural and suburban sites. The pass-by rate for high turnover restaurants (20%) from the LADOT Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG) is used as a better representation of travel conditions in the project area.

AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
[a] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 11th Edition , 2021. [b] Internal capture represents the percentage of trips between land uses that occur within the site. It is informed by MXD 2.0 Mixed Use Trip Generation Methodology, which incorporated the findings of NCHRP Project 8-51 as described in "Improved Estimation for Internal Trip Capture for Mixed-use Developments," ITE Journal, August 2010. [c] Project design features - off-street parking pricing and pedestrian-oriented design - are applicable to residential uses to reduce the number of vehicle trips to/from the Project Site. Values are derived from the Culver City VMT Tool.

Table 5: Project Vehicle Trip Generation Estimate
Land Use ITE Land
Use Code Size
Trip Generation Rates [a] Estimated Trip Generation
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Overland AveSepulveda Blvd
Jefferson Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
S Centinela Ave
Playa St
Overland Ave
S Sep
ulveda Blvd
W Slauson Ave
S LaCienega Blvd
W Centinela Ave
405
405
405
405
405
405
33%
4 7
5 3
2 9
8 11 12
1 6
Project Trip Distribution
Project Site
Culver City Boundary
Study Intersections
Study Neighborhood/Residential Streets
Figure 8
42%
17%
8%
10 I
D
CJ
• X
I
I
I
I
I
(
r -
'('
' \ ...
•
I
I
I.. - - - -
-----.,
C.
/
/
I
I
'
/
,... -.I
' '
/
/
I
I
>
I
I
I
(
I
, _____ - ..I
.,,,
• .YJ •
• X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,,, ., .,,, I .,,,
I
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
-...
\
\
\
•
I"'
.................... I
1 I
-~
I
I
.J
•
I"'
N
A
Figure 9
5757 Uplander Way
Project Only Volumes AM(PM)
0(0)
0(0)
107(-4)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-33(87)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
107(-4)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-33(87)
0(0)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
107(-4)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-33(87)
0(0)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
71(-3)
36(-1) -9(24)
0(0)
0(0)
-12(35)
0(0)

12. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
-11(28)
0(0)
0(0)
27(-1)
44(-2)
0(0)
-13(35)
12B. La Ci enega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
38(21)
9(17)
31(44) 98(59)
A. Bristol Pkwy/Dwy A
67(13)
10(19)
95(51)
0(0)
16(8)
6(153)
37(31)
B. Uplander Way/Dwy B
16(46)
6(14)
54(29)
0(0)
37(19)
10(30)
16(8)
C. Dwy C/Uplander Way
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
Dwy A
Bristol Pkwy
Dwy B
Uplander Way
Uplander Way
Dwy C
26(-1)
66(-1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-7(21)
0(0)
-21(55)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
0(0)
0(0)
-2(4)
0(0)
-28(76)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
92(-2)
6(0)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
23(-1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-7(18)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
69(2)
16(0)
44(3)
0(0)
-17(57)
-13(23)
0(0)
-3(5)
-4(13)
7(-1)
29(-4)
18(1)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
-2(16)
-14(20)
18(1)
-16(28) 36(-5)
32(-2)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
0(0)
-12(28)
0(0)
-2(4)
0(0)
0(0) 6(0)
38(-1)
6(0)
-2(4)
0(0)
0(0)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
54(-4)
0(0)
66(-7)
0(0)
44(3)
-21(70)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-33(90)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
0(3)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
107(-4)
3(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-33(87)
0(0)

8. Buckingham Pkwy/Hannum Ave
Slauson Ave
Hannum Ave
Hannum Ave
Fox Hills Dr
Slauson Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Uplander Way
Bristol Pkwy
Green Valley Cir
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Uplander Way
Hannum Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
aef
aacccf
aef
aacce
acf
acce
ae
acce
acf
acce
acf
acce
cccce
aef
accc
abf
aaccc
ccccf
ce
cc
f
b
d
e
b
d
e
aaccf
acce
aaccf
aacccf
bf
ace
d
ace
aaef
acccf
be
aacce
ace
accf
aace
accf
ce
acc
af
ae
ace
ace
ace
bf
accf
bf
accf
acf
accf
ae
ace
- l l l ....
•
l l l
l l l l
l
•
•
•
&-----
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
39 Existing Year Plus Project Volumes and Level of Service The estimated Project traffic was added to the Existing Year (2024) traffic volumes to estimate Existing Year Plus Project traffic volumes. Figure 10 shows the Existing Year Plus Project turning movement traffic volumes. These volumes were analyzed to determine the intersection LOS and delay for each intersection.

Table 6 summarizes the Existing Year plus Project LOS. LOS E or F are projected at two of the 12 study intersections during at least one of the analyzed peak hours:

3. Bristol Parkway & Slauson (AM Peak Hour)

12. La Cienega Boulevard & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Detailed LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix D.

Figure 10
5757 Uplander Way
Existing Plus Project Volumes AM(PM)
64(34)
27(11)
261(678)
63(15)
861(1,498)
35(33)
13(51)
4(30)
17(57)
36(18)
3,130(1,366)
180(249)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
324(43)
14(10)
3(4)
44(123)
1,054(1,781)
40(272)
174(52)
4(7)
16(17)
15(17)
2,822(1,518)
10(13)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
71(14)
26(12)
96(299)
12(2)
1,042(1,762)
11(6)
21(16)
13(22)
91(133)
74(93)
2,766(1,543)
34(111)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
1,148(2,151)
114(55)
924(755)
0(34)
45(238)
1,960(964)
74(115)
12A. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
415(123)
2(5)
128(179)
231(473)
957(1,919)
44(60)
1,617(984)
12B. La Cienega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
646(328)
9(17)
323(622) 98(59)
A. Bristol Pkwy/Dwy A
67(13)
41(19)
95(51)
0(0)
16(8)
6(153)
12(45)
B. Uplander Way/Dwy B
16(46)
35(24)
54(29)
0(0)
37(19)
10(30)
37(60)
C. Dwy C/Uplander Way
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
Dwy A
Bristol Pkwy
Dwy B
Uplander Way
Uplander Way
Dwy C
108(67)
613(281)
221(273)
41(72)
210(509)
47(195)
25(49)
163(543)
137(210)
837(431)
490(446)
35(178)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
334(176)
6(0)
35(130)
3(0)
193(697)
24(161)
0(10)
0(2)
0(1)
10(1)
625(452)
53(138)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
320(165)
7(0)
53(49)
7(7)
955(1,482)
296(416)
2(25)
0(14)
4(12)
19(2)
3,110(1,354)
43(109)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
282(129)
326(127)
136(131)
4(14)
151(563)
100(288)
48(76)
163(246)
103(257)
39(88)
299(288)
60(88)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
617(304)
30(36)
269(593)
21(34)
44(33)
47(56)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
178(75)
427(155)
37(37)
59(64)
79(267)
23(128)
42(67)
95(406)
79(236)
256(78)
379(183)
15(34)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
62(30)
0(0)
74(40)
22(13)
196(842)
2(97)
2(60)
0(0)
6(24)
22(6)
394(213)
16(101)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
230(77)
3(0)
90(88)
3(0)
186(677)
80(229)
0(3)
0(2)
0(3)
7(0)
219(198)
45(95)

8. Buckingham Pkwy/Hannum Ave
Slauson Ave
Hannum Ave
Hannum Ave
Fox Hills Dr
Slauson Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Uplander Way
Bristol Pkwy
Green Valley Cir
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Uplander Way
Hannum Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
aef
aacccf
aef
aacce
acf
acce
ae
acce
acf
acce
acf
acce
cccce
aef
accc
abf
aaccc
ccccf
ce
cc
f
b
d
e
b
d
e
aaccf
acce
aaccf
aacccf
bf
ace
d
ace
aaef
acccf
be
aacce
ace
accf
aace
accf
ce
acc
af
ae
ace
ace
ace
bf
accf
bf
accf
acf
accf
ae
ace
- l l l ....
•
l l l
l l l l
l
•
•
•
&-----
Average
Vehicular Delay
(sec/veh) [b]
LOS
Average
Vehicular Delay
(sec/veh) [b]
LOS
AM 39.8 D 41.0 D
PM 40.7 D 41.2 D
AM 23.0 C 21.6 C
PM 13.8 B 14.1 B
AM 78.5 E 81.5 F
PM 23.8 C 24.4 C
AM 32.8 C 34.8 C
PM 28.5 C 21.5 C
AM 18.8 C 19.5 C
PM 16.8 C 17.1 C
AM 13.4 B 13.2 B
PM 11.6 B 11.6 B
AM 3.3 A 7.2 A
PM 8.6 A 9.1 A
AM 19.8 B 16.6 B
PM 4.4 A 4.2 A
AM 15.2 B 15.9 B
PM 19.3 B 8.3 A
AM 44.4 D 40.7 D
PM 21.4 C 18.1 B
AM 8.4 A 8.3 A
PM 15.8 B 14.8 B
AM 80.6 F 78.6 E
PM 25.9 C 31.0 C
[b] LOS and delay for the clustered intersection is reported as a weighted average.

Note:
[a] SSSC = Side Street Stop-Controlled
11 Corning Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
12 La Cienega Blvd & Slauson Aveb Signalized
9 Buckingham Pkwy & Slauson Ave Signalized
10 Shenandoah Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
7 Uplander Way & Hannum Ave Signalized
8 Buckingham Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
5 Bristol Pkwy & Uplander Way SSSC [a]
6 Bristol Pkwy & Green Valley Cir Signalized
3 Bristol Pkwy & Slauson Ave Signalized
4 Bristol Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
1 Hannum Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
2 Fox Hills Dr & Hannum Ave Signalized
Table 6: Existing (2024) Intersections Level of Service NO. Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
Existing Existing Plus Project
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
42 Future Year (2031) Volumes and Level of Service
Estimates of Future Year traffic conditions both with and without the Project were developed to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed Project on the local street system. Future Year traffic volumes without the Project are first estimated, representing the Future Year conditions. The traffic generated by the proposed Project is then estimated and separately assigned to the surrounding street system. The sum of the Future Year and Project-generated traffic represents Future Year plus Project traffic conditions.

The Future Year traffic projections reflect changes in traffic from two primary sources: background or ambient growth in the existing traffic volumes to reflect the effects of overall regional growth both in and outside of the study area, and traffic generated by specific projects in, or in the vicinity of , the study area.

These factors are described below.

Areawide Traffic Growth
To provide a conservative short-term analysis, traffic volumes in the vicinity of the study area were projected to increase at a rate of 0. 6% per year in the AM peak period and 0.1% in the PM peak period , which was calculated using the Culver City TDFM. With the assumed completion date of 2031, the existing baseline 2024 traffic volumes were adjusted upward by a factor of 0.6% (AM) and 0.1% (PM) for seven years to reflect areawide regional growth up to Year 2031.

Related Projects Traffic Generation
The second major source of traffic growth in the study area is from specific planned development projects, also called related projects, expected to be built in the vicinity of the proposed Project Site prior to Project opening. Data describing related projects in the area was developed based on information obtained from Culver City and the City of Los Angeles. A total of seven related projects were identified in the study area as summarized in Table 7. It was conservatively assumed that all four related projects would be completed and occupied by the Future year of this Project. Trip generation estimates for each of the related projects were developed according to ITE (11th Edition) rates. Figure 11 displays the locations of the related projects.

Figure 12 illustrates the assignment of this traffic at each of the study intersections. Related project traffic was distributed across study intersections using assumptions found in their respective transportation studies or the travel demand model.

In Out Total In Out Total
1 Boutique Hotel 11469 Jefferson Blvd Hotel 147 rooms 469 20 17 37 1 1 2 2 Westside Acura 6250 Slauson Ave Automotive Dealership 5.627 ksf 1 -3 -2 -5 -3 -4 -7 3 Minerva School 5840 Uplander Way Preschool/Kindergarten 16.128 ksf 736 72 80 152 80 76 156 Apartments 309 du
Retail 5.6 ksf
Apartments 351 du
Retail 5.62 ksf
Apartments 846 du
Retail 11.41 ksf
7 5730 Uplander Way 5730 Uplander Way Apartments 329 du 1174 -12 89 77 71 14 85 Notes:
du = dwelling units
ksf = one thousand square feet
[a] Based on information provided by Culver City Current Planning Division on January 24, 2025 and ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th ed , 2021 Trip generation estimates include credits for existing uses. 26 431 58 245 303 90 -13 77
110 91 26 117
979 -90 103 13 88 -62
6 6201-6299 Bristol Pkwy 6201-6299 Bristol Pkwy
1270 9 1014 Mixed-Use Development 5700 Hannum Ave
5 100 Corporate Pointe 100 Corporate Pointe
Table 7: Related Projects
ID Project Title Project Address Land Use Size
Trip Generation Estimates [a]
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Overland Ave
Sepulveda Blvd
Jefferson Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
S Centinela Ave
Playa St
O
verland Ave
S Sepulveda Blvd
W Slauson Ave
S
La Cienega Blvd
W Centinela Ave
405
405
405
405
405
405
2 3
1 4
5 6
7 Related Projects
Project Site
Culver City Boundary
1-mile radius from Project Site
Related Projects
Figure 11
' I
I
l,
I
I
I
I
~
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ,,
I
I
\
CJ
,. -
- ..I
•
\
' ....
\
\
\
\
i
' 'I
r -
/
/
I
I
/
/
/
\
I
I
'- -
..... ..... ..... ;
;
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
• •
"'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~
'('
• ' ' ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ....
' .....
.... ........ -
-----
- '1
I ........ ....

I
I
I
I ,...
-.I
I
I
\
C. \
' '
\
\ ., ' ; >
\
\
;
I / ;
;
I
/
( /
/ I \
\
/
/
\
\
..I ... -
•
I
I
I •
I
I
V·
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-I"' .........
--- I
('
1 I
\
I"'
I
' I I
I
' I I
' ~ ,,
I
'" I ,,
I
I I
I
I
I
1 1
r J .....

I ......
'-, I
/ .....
/
..... ..... '< ...... - - - - - - -
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ I ;
I ;
..... .....
--
N
A
Figure 12
5757 Uplander Way
Related Projects Volumes AM(PM)
0(0)
0(0)
144(21)
0(0)
10(-3)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
12(0)
-9(128)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
154(18)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3(128)
0(0)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
154(18)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3(128)
0(0)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
103(12)
51(6)
2(33)
0(0)
0(0)
1(95)
0(0)
12A. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
0(42)
0(0)
0(0)
40(5)
63(7)
0(0)
1(53)
12B. La Cienega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
33(4)
90(12)
0(0)
6(-1)
10(-3)
-2(29)
6(-1)
-6(79)
0(0)
0(0)
11(-1)
0(0)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
0(0)
0(0)
-1(7)
0(0)
-8(108)
0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
123(16)
8(2)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
29(3)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
10(-3)
4(33)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
12(0)
0(0)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
28(25)
6(5)
-14(32)
0(0)
-33(87)
24(28)
0(0)
10(19)
-6(14)
23(-2)
103(-7)
35(-4)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
-15(30)
9(25)
39(2)
30(41)
35(32)
30(16)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
0(0)
-4(42)
0(0)
-1(7)
0(0)
0(0) 11(6)
51(11)
8(2)
-1(7)
0(0)
0(0)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
37(7)
0(0)
67(35)
0(0)
-49(109)
-4(24)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
124(-20)
23(59)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
1(2)
-1(1)
20(5)
-55(53)
86(40)
2(1) 63(-37)
1(-1)
39(-24) -35(34)
25(76)
2(18)

8. Buckingham Pkwy/Hannum Ave
Slauson Ave
Hannum Ave
Hannum Ave
Fox Hills Dr
Slauson Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Uplander Way
Bristol Pkwy
Green Valley Cir
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Uplander Way
Hannum Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
STOP
aef
aacccf
aef
aacce
acf
acce
ae
acce
acf
acce
acf
acce
cccce
aef
accc
abf
aaccc
ccccf
aaccf
acce
aaccf
aacccf
bf
ace
d
ace
aaef
acccf
be
aacce
ace
accf
aace
accf
ce
acc
af
ae
ace
ace
ace
bf
accf
bf
accf
acf
accf
ae
ace
- l l l ....
•
l l l
l l l l
l
&-----
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
46 Future Year (2031) Volumes and Level of Service
Figure 13 shows the Future Year (2031) turning movement traffic volumes that include the estimated the ambient growth and related projects volumes. These volumes were analyzed to determine the intersection LOS and delay at each intersection . Table 8 summarizes the Future Year LOS and delay. LOS E or F are projected at two of the 12 study intersections during at least one of the analyzed peak hours:

3. Bristol Parkway & Slauson (AM Peak Hour)

12. La Cienega Boulevard & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Future Year Plus Project Volumes and Level of Service
The estimated Project traffic was added to the Future Year (2031) traffic volumes to estimate Future Year Plus Project traffic volumes. Figure 13 shows the Future Year Plus Project turning movement traffic volumes.

These volumes were analyzed to determine the intersection LOS and delay for each intersection. Table 8 summarizes the Future Year plus Project LOS. LOS E or F are projected at two of the 12 study intersections during at least one of the analyzed peak hours:

3. Bristol Parkway & Slauson (AM Peak Hour)

12. La Cienega Boulevard & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Detailed LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix D.

Figure 13
5757 Uplander Way
Future No Project Volumes AM(PM)
67(34)
28(11)
305(708)
66(15)
908(1,506)
36(33)
14(51)
4(30)
18(57)
38(18)
3,276(1,376)
213(291)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
338(43)
15(10)
3(4)
46(124)
1,141(1,816)
42(274)
181(52)
4(7)
17(17)
16(17)
2,980(1,569)
10(13)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
74(14)
27(12)
100(301)
13(2)
1,129(1,796)
11(6)
22(16)
14(22)
95(134)
77(94)
2,922(1,594)
35(112)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
1,226(2,181)
132(62)
975(769)
1(34)
47(240)
2,057(1,031)
77(116)
12A. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
444(138)
2(5)
133(180)
253(482)
1,015(1,941)
46(60)
1,701(1,009)
12B. La Cienega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
119(72)
660(296)
230(275)
49(72)
229(510)
54(204)
32(48)
186(570)
143(211)
873(434)
522(448)
36(179)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
348(177)
6(0)
38(134)
3(0)
222(733)
25(162)
0(10)
0(2)
0(1)
10(1)
679(473)
57(141)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
339(170)
7(0)
55(49)
7(7)
1,006(1,489)
320(434)
2(25)
0(14)
4(12)
20(2)
3,255(1,364)
45(110)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
250(153)
329(133)
82(161)
4(14)
142(597)
142(295)
50(77)
183(262)
106(260)
56(88)
385(287)
79(84)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
630(320)
55(41)
301(598)
69(47)
43(70)
46(74)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
186(76)
454(170)
39(37)
63(67)
82(269)
24(129)
49(73)
110(421)
84(240)
268(82)
395(184)
16(34)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
45(41)
0(0)
75(82)
23(13)
110(954)
20(51)
2(60)
0(0)
6(24)
23(6)
535(194)
74(70)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
241(77)
2(1)
114(94)
-52(53)
168(726)
82(232)
63(-34)
1(1)
39(-21) -28(34)
288(188)
49(114)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
338(43)
15(10)
3(4)
46(124)
1,248(1,812)
42(274)
181(52)
4(7)
17(17)
16(17)
2,947(1,656)
10(13)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
74(14)
27(12)
100(301)
13(2)
1,236(1,792)
11(6)
22(16)
14(22)
95(134)
77(94)
2,889(1,681)
35(112)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
1,297(2,178)
168(61)
966(793)
1(34)
47(240)
2,045(1,066)
77(116)
12A. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
433(166)
2(5)
133(180)
280(481)
1,059(1,939)
46(60)
1,688(1,044)
12B. La Cienega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
692(393)
9(17)
406(664) 98(59)
A. Bristol Pkwy/Dwy A
67(13)
145(61)
95(51)
0(0)
16(8)
6(153)
35(128)
B. Uplander Way/Dwy B
16(46)
78(90)
54(29)
0(0)
37(19)
10(30)
103(108)
C. Dwy C/Uplander Way
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
Dwy A
Bristol Pkwy
Dwy B
Uplander Way
Uplander Way
Dwy C
145(71)
726(295)
230(275)
49(72)
229(510)
47(225)
32(48)
165(625)
143(211)
873(434)
522(448)
36(179)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
348(177)
6(0)
36(138)
3(0)
194(809)
25(162)
0(10)
0(2)
0(1)
10(1)
771(471)
63(141)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
362(169)
7(0)
55(49)
7(7)
1,006(1,489)
313(452)
2(25)
0(14)
4(12)
20(2)
3,255(1,364)
45(110)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
319(155)
345(133)
126(164)
4(14)
125(654)
129(318)
50(77)
180(267)
102(273)
63(87)
414(283)
97(85)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
628(336)
41(61)
319(599)
53(75)
79(65)
78(72)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
186(76)
442(198)
39(37)
61(71)
82(269)
24(129)
55(73)
148(420)
90(240)
266(86)
395(184)
16(34)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
99(37)
0(0)
141(75)
23(13)
154(957)
-1(121)
2(60)
0(0)
6(24)
23(6)
535(194)
41(160)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
241(80)
2(1)
114(94)
-52(53)
275(722)
85(232)
63(-34)
1(1)
39(-21) -28(34)
255(275)
49(114)

8. Buckingham Pkwy/Hannum Ave
Slauson Ave
Hannum Ave
Hannum Ave
Fox Hills Dr
Slauson Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Uplander Way
Bristol Pkwy
Green Valley Cir
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Uplander Way
Hannum Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
aef
aacccf
aef
aacce
acf
acce
ae
acce
acf
acce
acf
acce
cccce
aef
accc
abf
aaccc
ccccf
ce
cc
f
b
d
e
b
d
e
aaccf
acce
aaccf
aacccf
bf
ace
d
ace
aaef
acccf
be
aacce
ace
accf
aace
accf
ce
acc
af
ae
ace
ace
ace
bf
accf
bf
accf
acf
accf
ae
ace
- l l l ....
•
l l l
l l l l
l
•
•
•
&-----
Average
Vehicular Delay
(sec/veh) [b]
LOS
Average
Vehicular Delay
(sec/veh) [b]
LOS
AM 42.8 D 44.4 D
PM 41.7 D 42.4 D
AM 21.7 C 20.6 C
PM 14.2 B 14.5 B
AM 98.5 F 100.6 F
PM 23.8 C 23.7 C
AM 31.3 C 38.7 D
PM 28.8 C 28.4 C
AM 25.2 D 27.1 D
PM 23.0 C 28.0 D
AM 14.0 B 13.8 B
PM 12.0 B 12.2 B
AM 5.2 A 8.5 A
PM 10.5 B 10.1 B
AM 18.2 B 16.8 B
PM 5.9 A 5.7 A
AM 18.4 B 20.6 C
PM 19.3 B 18.9 B
AM 53.2 D 49.6 D
PM 22.0 C 22.4 C
AM 8.7 A 9.8 A
PM 15.6 B 15.4 B
AM 100.0 F 85.4 F
PM 31.9 C 31.0 C
[b] LOS and delay for the clustered intersection is reported as a weighted average. [a] SSSC = Side Street Stop-Controlled
Note:

Future No Project Future Plus Project
11 Corning Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
12 La Cienega Blvd & Slauson Aveb Signalized
9 Buckingham Pkwy & Slauson Ave Signalized
10 Shenandoah Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
7 Uplander Way & Hannum Ave Signalized
8 Buckingham Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
5 Bristol Pkwy & Uplander Way SSSC [a]
6 Bristol Pkwy & Green Valley Cir Signalized
3 Bristol Pkwy & Slauson Ave Signalized
4 Bristol Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
1 Hannum Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
2 Fox Hills Dr & Hannum Ave Signalized
Table 8: Future (2031) Intersections Level of Service
NO. Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
50 Horizon Year (2045) Volumes and Level of Service
Areawide Traffic Growth
Using the same methodology described in the Future Year section above, the existing baseline 20 24 traffic volumes were adjusted upward by a factor of 0.6% (AM) and 0.1% (PM) for 21 years to reflect areawide regional growth up to Year 2045.

Horizon Year (2045) Volumes and Level of Service
Figure 15 shows the Horizon Year (2045) turning movement traffic volumes that include the estimated the ambient growth and related projects volumes. These volumes were analyzed to determine the intersection LOS and delay at each intersection. Table 9 summarizes the Horizon Year LOS and delay. LOS E or F are projected at three of the 12 study intersections during at least one of the analyzed peak hours:

3. Bristol Parkway & Slauson (AM Peak Hour)

10. Shenandoah Avenue & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour)

12. La Cienega Boulevard & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Horizon Year Plus Project Volumes and Level of Service
The estimated Project traffic was added to the Horizon Year (2045) traffic volumes to estimate Horizon Year Plus Project traffic volumes. shows the Future Year Plus Project turning movement traffic volumes.

Horizon Year Plus Project traffic volumes, presented in Figure 16, were analyzed to determine the intersection LOS and delay for each intersection. Table 9 summarizes the Horizon Year plus Project LOS.

LOS E or F are projected at four of the 12 study intersections during at least one of the analyzed peak hours:

1. Hannum Avenue & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour)

3. Bristol Parkway & Slauson (AM Peak Hour)

10. Shenandoah Avenue & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour)

12. La Cienega Boulevard & Slauson Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Detailed LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix D.

Figure 15
5757 Uplander Way
Horizon No Project Volumes AM(PM)
73(35)
31(11)
319(717)
71(15)
986(1,527)
40(34)
15(52)
5(31)
19(58)
41(18)
3,561(1,395)
233(293)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
367(44)
16(10)
3(4)
50(126)
1,228(1,841)
45(278)
197(53)
5(7)
18(17)
17(17)
3,240(1,589)
11(13)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
81(14)
29(12)
109(305)
14(2)
1,214(1,821)
12(6)
24(16)
15(22)
103(136)
84(95)
3,177(1,615)
39(113)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
1,324(2,212)
139(63)
1,060(780)
0(35)
51(243)
2,237(1,044)
84(117)
12A. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
483(139)
2(5)
145(183)
271(489)
1,098(1,969)
50(61)
1,849(1,022)
12B. La Cienega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
126(73)
710(300)
251(279)
52(73)
248(517)
59(207)
34(49)
203(577)
155(214)
949(440)
567(454)
40(182)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
379(180)
7(0)
41(136)
3(0)
243(742)
27(164)
0(10)
0(2)
0(1)
11(1)
727(480)
61(143)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
366(173)
8(0)
60(50)
8(7)
1,093(1,510)
348(439)
2(26)
0(14)
5(12)
22(2)
3,538(1,383)
49(111)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
270(155)
357(135)
90(163)
5(14)
157(604)
152(299)
54(78)
198(265)
115(263)
59(89)
409(291)
83(85)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
687(324)
59(41)
324(607)
72(47)
44(71)
47(75)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
202(77)
494(172)
42(38)
68(68)
90(273)
26(131)
52(74)
116(427)
91(243)
292(83)
430(187)
17(35)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
46(42)
0(0)
76(83)
25(13)
123(966)
22(52)
2(61)
0(0)
7(25)
25(6)
571(198)
79(70)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
262(78)
2(1)
122(95)
-52(53)
176(735)
89(235)
63(-34)
1(1)
39(-21) -27(34)
311(189)
53(115)

9. Buckingham Pkwy/Slauson Ave
367(44)
16(10)
3(4)
50(126)
1,335(1,837)
45(278)
197(53)
5(7)
18(17)
17(17)
3,207(1,676)
11(13)

10. Shenandoah Ave/Slauson Ave
81(14)
29(12)
109(305)
14(2)
1,321(1,817)
12(6)
24(16)
15(22)
103(136)
84(95)
3,144(1,702)
39(113)

11. Corning Ave/Slauson Ave
1,395(2,209)
175(62)
1,051(804)
0(35)
51(243)
2,225(1,079)
84(117)
12A. La Cienega Blvd (SB)/Slauson Ave
472(167)
2(5)
145(183)
298(488)
1,142(1,967)
50(61)
1,836(1,057)
12B. La Ci enega Blvd (NB)/Slauson Ave
748(393)
9(17)
435(664) 98(59)
A. Bristol Pkwy/Dwy A
67(13)
147(61)
95(51)
0(0)
16(8)
6(153)
41(128)
B. Uplander Way/Dwy B
16(46)
85(90)
54(29)
0(0)
37(19)
10(30)
105(108)
C. Dwy C/Uplander Way
Slauson Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
Slauson Ave
Shenandoah Ave
Slauson Ave
Corning Ave
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (SB)
Slauson Ave
La Cienega Blvd (NB)
Dwy A
Bristol Pkwy
Dwy B
Uplander Way
Uplander Way
Dwy C
152(72)
776(299)
251(279)
52(73)
248(517)
52(228)
34(49)
182(632)
155(214)
949(440)
567(454)
40(182)

1. Hannum Ave/Slauson Ave
379(180)
7(0)
39(140)
3(0)
215(818)
27(164)
0(10)
0(2)
0(1)
11(1)
819(478)
67(143)

2. Fox Hills Dr/Hannum Ave
389(172)
8(0)
60(50)
8(7)
1,093(1,510)
341(457)
2(26)
0(14)
5(12)
22(2)
3,538(1,383)
49(111)

3. Bristol Pkwy/Slauson Ave
339(157)
373(135)
134(166)
5(14)
140(661)
139(322)
54(78)
195(270)
111(276)
66(88)
438(287)
101(86)

4. Bristol Pkwy/Hannum Ave
685(340)
45(61)
342(608)
56(75)
80(66)
79(73)

5. Bristol Pkwy/Uplander Way
202(77)
482(200)
42(38)
66(72)
90(273)
26(131)
58(74)
154(426)
97(243)
290(87)
430(187)
17(35)

6. Bristol Pkwy/Green Valley Cir
100(38)
0(0)
142(76)
25(13)
167(969)
1(122)
2(61)
0(0)
7(25)
25(6)
571(198)
46(160)

7. Uplander Way/Hannum Ave
262(81)
2(1)
122(95)
-52(53)
283(731)
92(235)
63(-34)
1(1)
39(-21) -27(34)
278(276)
53(115)

8. Buckingham Pkwy/Hannum Ave
Slauson Ave
Hannum Ave
Hannum Ave
Fox Hills Dr
Slauson Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Bristol Pkwy
Uplander Way
Bristol Pkwy
Green Valley Cir
Bristol Pkwy
Hannum Ave
Uplander Way
Hannum Ave
Buckingham Pkwy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
aef
aacccf
aef
aacce
acf
acce
ae
acce
acf
acce
acf
acce
cccce
aef
accc
abf
aaccc
ccccf
ce
cc
f
b
d
e
b
d
e
aaccf
acce
aaccf
aacccf
bf
ace
d
ace
aaef
acccf
be
aacce
ace
accf
aace
accf
ce
acc
af
ae
ace
ace
ace
bf
accf
bf
accf
acf
accf
ae
ace
- l l l ....
•
l l l
l l l l
l
•
•
•
&-----
Average
Vehicular Delay
(sec/veh) [b]
LOS
Average
Vehicular Delay
(sec/veh) [b]
LOS
AM 52.1 D 56.2 E
PM 41.9 D 42.6 D
AM 25.2 C 24.0 C
PM 14.3 B 14.6 B
AM 132.4 F 134.8 F
PM 24.1 C 23.9 C
AM 31.7 C 45.0 D
PM 28.9 C 28.5 C
AM 29.0 D 32.0 D
PM 23.4 C 28.7 D
AM 15.6 B 15.4 B
PM 12.1 B 12.3 B
AM 5.2 A 8.2 A
PM 10.6 B 10.2 B
AM 19.4 B 18.0 B
PM 5.9 A 5.7 A
AM 39.5 D 46.7 D
PM 19.5 B 19.1 B
AM 82.7 F 77.9 E
PM 22.3 C 22.6 C
AM 20.1 C 20.3 C
PM 15.9 B 15.8 B
AM 120.8 F 102.6 F
PM 32.7 C 32.8 C
[b] LOS and delay for the clustered intersection is reported as a weighted average.

Note:
[a] SSSC = Side Street Stop-Controlled
11 Corning Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
12/13 La Cienega Blvd & Slauson Aveb Signalized
9 Buckingham Pkwy & Slauson Ave Signalized
10 Shenandoah Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
7 Uplander Way & Hannum Ave Signalized
8 Buckingham Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
5 Bristol Pkwy & Uplander Way SSSC [a]
6 Bristol Pkwy & Green Valley Cir Signalized
3 Bristol Pkwy & Slauson Ave Signalized
4 Bristol Pkwy & Hannum Ave Signalized
1 Hannum Ave & Slauson Ave Signalized
2 Fox Hills Dr & Hannum Ave Signalized
Table 9: Horizon (2045) Intersections Level of Service
NO. Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
Horizon No Project Horizon Plus Project
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
54 Corrective Actions
This operations analysis was conducted assuming no signal optimization at study intersections. It can be assumed that signal timings will be updated in response to changing traffic conditions by the Horizon year.

Additionally, due to the number of related projects (identified in Table 7) in the area that propose replacing office and commercial land uses with residential uses, peak hour directional demand will likely change due to these uses’ differing patterns of inbound and outbound traffic in the AM and PM peak hours. For example, this analysis estimates an improvement in LOS and delay at the intersection of La Cienega Boulevard and Slauson Avenue (#12) in the AM peak hour in all Plus Project scenarios due to this shift in travel patterns.

Due to LOS E and F conditions under the Horizon Plus Project scenario at study intersections 1, 3, 10, and 12, corrective actions were explored in order to reduce intersection and vehicular delay. Under the Horizon Plus Project scenario, the addition of Project traffic is projected to very slightly increase overall intersection delay at one intersection ( #3: Bristol Parkway and Slauson Avenue) already operating at LOS E or F and increase delay at one intersection ( #1: Hannum Avenue and Slauson Avenue) from LOS D to LOS E . The addition of Project traffic is projected to reduce overall intersection delay at the other intersections already operating at LOS E or F (# 10: Shenandoah Avenue & Slauson Avenue, and # 12: La Cienega Boulevard and Slauson Avenue). In general, intersection delay is high throughout the area due to high traffic demand during peak hours and concentration of vehicular traffic from the single-family neighborhoods surrounding La Cienega Boulevard and Slauson Avenue at few entry/exit points. Changes in intersection delay are not considered significant impacts under CEQA.

The Project would provide a variety of voluntary TDM measures which would aim to reduce Project traffic and trip-making. Measures including a transportation coordinator, bike repair station , and subsidized ride hail services and transit passes for employees would offer alternatives to making trips in private vehicles.

The full extent of the Project TDM program would reduce the trip generation and therefore reduce the additional delay caused by Project trips beyond what is assumed in this study , although not necessarily eliminating the estimated increase in delay related to the Project.

The feasibility of adding additional roadway capacity at the intersections on Slauson Avenue operating at LOS E and F was investigated. Adding east -west travel lane capacity would require substantial reconfiguration of the segment between La Cienega Boulevard and Hannum Avenue, which already features a 7 to 9 -lane cross section plus a segment with residential frontage roads between Shenandoah Avenue and La Cienega Boulevard . This would likely result in impacts to dozens of adjacent properties along the corridor (including potential demolition of existing structures) and further reduce opportunities for safe walking, bicycling, and transit use. Therefore, this corrective action was not deemed feasible.

Driveway Level of Service and Queuing Analysis
Four Project driveways are proposed to serve the Project Site:
• Access A: One right -in/right-out only driveway on the western frontage with Bristol Parkway providing access to the east-west alley and garages for Buildings 1 and 2 • Access B: One full-access driveway on the eastern frontage with Uplander Way providing access to the east-west alley and garages for Buildings 1 and 2 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
55 • Access C: One full-access driveway on the southern frontage with Uplander Way, providing access to the garage for Building 3
• Emergency Access: A proposed curb cut along the eastern Project frontage on Uplander Way between Buildings 2 and 3 provides vehicle access only for emergency vehicles.

Because the fourth driveway is for emergency vehicle use only and does not connect to any of the Project’s parking garages, it was not included in this analysis.

Table 10 shows estimated LOS and queue lengths for the three driveways – Access A, Access B, and Access C. Approach LOS for all driveways does not exceed LOS B in the Future Plus Project and Horizon Plus Project scenarios, and queues do not exceed one vehicle length (25 feet) in both scenarios.

Appendix D contains the complete LOS sheets for the Project driveways.

Driveway LOS 95th Percentile
Queue Length (ft) Driveway LOS 95th Percentile
Queue Length (ft)
AM B <25 B 25
PM B <25 B <25

AM A - A -

PM A - A -
AM B <25 B 25
PM B <25 B <25
AM A <25 A <25
PM A <25 A <25

AM A - A -

PM A - A -
AM A <25 A <25
PM A <25 A <25
AM A <25 A <25
PM A <25 A <25

AM A - A -

PM A - A -
Table 10: Driveway Queueing
NO. Driveway Movement Peak Hour
Future Year (2031) With Project Horizon Year (2045) With Project A Bristol Pkwy & Access A
(Right-In/Right-Out Only)
WBR (Outbound)
NBR (Inbound)
C Access C & Uplander Way
SBL/R (Outbound)
WBR (Inbound)
B Uplander Way & Access B
EBL/R (Outbound)
NBL (Inbound)
SBR (Inbound)
EBL (Inbound)
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
57 Neighborhood Street Segment Analysis
Twenty-four-hour street segment counts were conducted in May and June 2024 at Green Valley Circle between Centinela Avenue and Bristol Parkway. Table 11 presents the results of the segment analysis.

The analysis used the TSCG’s significant project conditions thresholds for residential streets, which would not be considered significant impacts under CEQA:

Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) with Project Project-Related Increase in ADT 999 or Less 120 trips or more
1,000 – 1,999 12% or more of final ADT
2,000 – 2,999 10% or more of final ADT
3,000 or more 8% or more of final ADT
Based on Table 11, this analysis demonstrates that the Project would not create significant project conditions on the studied neighborhood street in any Project scenario. After the buildout of the Project Site, the City of Culver City would reserve the right to monitor traffic volumes on the studied neighborhood street and require traffic calming measures to be built to minimize Project cut-through traffic.

Existing
(2024)
Future
(2031)
Base
Horizon
(2045)
Base
Project
Only
Future
(2031)
Plus
Project
Horizon
(2045)
Plus
Project
% of Final
ADT -
Future Plus
Project
% of Final
ADT -
Horizon
Plus Project
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Project
Condition?
Green Valley Cir
between Bristol Pkwy &
Centinela Ave
8,675 9,464 10,254 73 9537 10,327 0.8% 0.7% +8.0% No
Plus Project Volume Segment Analysis
Table 11: Neighborhood Street Segment Analysis
Street Segment
Weekday Two-Way Daily Volume
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
59 Signal Warrant Analysis
As directed by the City in the MOU process (Appendix A), a signal warrant analysis was conducted for the Bristol Parkway & Uplander Way intersection (#5) for determination on the need for a traffic signal at this location. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant does not itself require the installation of a signal, and other factors relative to safety, traffic flow, signal spacing, coordination, etc. should be considered. This section summarizes the results of the signal warrant.

Using the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the intersection was tested to see if its volumes meet signal warrants. The peak hour signal warrant was used for this analysis, and it is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing a major street. The traffic counts used for this signal warrant analysis were collected in May 2024.

The Bristol Parkway & Uplander Way intersection does not trigger the signal warrant under the Future (2031) Plus Project or Horizon (2045) Plus Project scenarios in either the AM or PM peak hours. Analysis sheets for signal warrants can be found in Appendix E.
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
60 Parking
Off-Street Parking Supply
The CCMC no longer requires a minimum number of parking spaces as of October 2022. The Project would voluntarily provide 1,304 off-street parking spaces within three parking garages, one for each proposed building. A parking demand study was conducted at several nearby multifamily housing developments to assist in right-sizing Project parking supply with observed demand. A memorandum summarizing this study is included as Appendix F.

Bicycle Parking
The CCMC provides required bicycle parking rations in accordance with residential and commercial land uses. As noted above, the Project would provide a total of 305 bicycle parking spaces (31 short-term and 274 long-term) bicycle parking spaces to fulfill the CCMC requirements.

On-Street Parking
Along the Project frontage, there is currently unmetered on-street parking on Hannum Avenue; no permitted on-street parking on Bristol Parkway; and metered on-street parking on Uplander Way. Existing on-street spaces would largely be maintained. Some spaces may be removed to accommodate Project driveways and necessary red curbs to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles utilizing the driveways , as well as on-street passenger loading zones as described below.

Curb Space Allocation
Passenger and Commercial Loading
The Project shall convert two unrestricted on-street parking spaces on Hannum Avenue in front of the Building 1 entrance to passenger loading only. Re-striping of the existing Class II bicycle lane shall include green conflict markers (“elephant tracks” similar to the existing condition on the opposite side of the street) to alert drivers and bicyclists of potential cross-over traffic. The Project shall also convert approximately one metered parking space each at the entrances to Buildings 2 & 3 to passenge r loading only.

Additionally, three on-site loading zones (Loading A-C) for the Project would be provided, with one providing loading space for each building.
• Loading A: One commercial loading zone and one residential loading zone for Building 1, accessed via the alley between Buildings 1 and 2 using Access A or Access B. • Loading B: One residential loading zone for Building 2, accessed via the alley between Buildings 1 and 2 using Access A or Access B.
• Loading C: One residential loading zone for Building 3, accessed via the Access C driveway on Uplander Way.

Figure 17 details the location of the on-site loading zones at the Project Site.

Playa Ct
Senford Ave
On-Site Loading Zones
Figure 17
dliillg A
.LIW)Foa: I
TR>'f,$HRICIW P
',-r,,r-~~~=~~~=.:::□aNB!ilE$
REIM..

RB$1DSNiril'IL .

I
·-
.. _ .
~ --"-"-
. ~ --"--
I Loadling C
. U$;~ -
~RICIW P
'--
r
_j
N
A
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
62 Transit Stop Facilities
There is one existing transit stop along the Project frontage at the northwestern corner of the Project Site, at eastbound Hannum Avenue at the far side of Bristol Parkway. The stop is served by Culver CityBus Line

3. During construction, access would be maintained to the transit stop. Any temporary stop closure or relocation would be coordinated with the City and Culver CityBus. There are no proposed Project driveways on Hannum Avenue and therefore no potential for conflicts between transit vehicles and Project vehicles at driveways.

Bicycle Parking
There are no existing bicycle parking facilities along the Project frontage. Short-term bicycle parking would be provided at the exterior of Project frontage along Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way and would not be located directly adjacent to Project driveways. Long-term bicycle parking would be located in enclosed rooms internal to the Project Site.

Transit Operations Analysis
Per the TSCG , the purpose of the transit operations analysis is to determine what effects the proposed Project may have on public transit demand, capacity, delay, and conditions. The Project is expected to generate more than 300 new vehicle trips in the PM peak hour . Therefore, per the TSCG , a transit delay analysis is required.

Transit Demand and Capacity
Vehicle trip generation rates used in this study conservatively do not assume any Project trips would utilize public transit. This transit demand and capacity analysis assumes that at least 5 percent of Project trips would utilize public transit, and based on research cited by Caltrans assumes that average vehicle occupancy may be as low as 1.5 persons per vehicle . Using these factors, the Project is estimated to attract approximately 30 new transit trips in the AM peak hour and 32 new transit trips in the PM peak hour. Figure 3, introduced in Chapter 2, shows data for transit services near the Project Site . This transit demand and capacity analysis considers only those services that have bus stops or rail stations within a quarter mile (a reasonable walk for most people to access transit service) of the Project Site. These include Culver CityBus Lines 3 and 5C2 and Metro Bus Lines 108 and 110. Based on existing transit headways, up to 16 buses per hour would service bus stops in a given direction within a quarter mile of the Project Site during both the AM and PM peak periods. However, just beyond the quarter mile radius is the Culver City Transit Center, where connections to multiple additional routes are possible, substantially increasing the range someone can access by transit.

Assuming a capacity of 83 total (seated and standing ) passengers per 40 foot long bus, the bus transit capacity that would serve the Project Site would be 2,656 passengers per hour during peak periods (capacity of 1,328 for all buses heading north- or eastbound, and the same for buses heading south- or westbound).

Using the trip direction proportions from the trip distribution discussed earlier in Figure 8 estimated Project transit trips can be allocated to those transit services with stops or stations within a quarter mile of the 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
63 Project. Table 12 displays headways, capacity, ridership data, and estimated Project transit trips that would utilize each of the services . The Project transit trips are a conservative estimate that assumes all riders traveling on a particular transit line direction would board the same vehicle at the same time. Even with those assumptions, no single transit line is likely to receive greater than 15 additional riders in each peak hour and no transit line would see boardings representing more than 6 % of peak hour transit vehicle capacity. Current line-level total ridership is also shown.

Peak Mid-Day Evening
3 20 20-30 30 3 83 249 689 North/South 7 8 3% 3%
5C2 17 - - 3 83 249 521 East/West 5 6 2% 2%
108 8 10 20-60 5 83 415 13,665 East/West 5 6 1% 1%
110 10 15 45-60 5 83 415 7,042 East/West 5 6 1% 1%
Notes:

Culver CityBus Line 5C2 only operates when school is in session. It provides northbound only service in the morning and southbound only service in the afternoon.

Table 12: Transit Demand and Capacity
Direction AM Project
Trips
PM Project
Trips
AM % of
Capacity
PM % of
CapacityLine
Weekday Average Frequency
(min.)
Peak Hour
Transit Vehicles
per Hour
Seated Vehicle
Capacity
Peak Hour
Seated Capacity
Weekday Line
Ridership
Culver CityBus
Metro Bus
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
65 Transit Delay
As required by the TSCG, an analysis to estimate the transit delay caused by the Project was conducted. This evaluation was based on three components: traffic congestion delay, transit reentry delay, and passenger boarding delay. Existing transit routes, stops, frequency, and pre-pandemic ridership can be found in Figure

3. Traffic Congestion Delay
Traffic congestion delay is the additional time experienced by a transit vehicle as it travels between stops across one or more intersections in the corridor due to congestion caused by other vehicular traffic traveling parallel or perpendicular to the transit flow. LOS can be used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of study intersections near the Project and approximate any Project -related changes in traffic congestion delay.

As shown in Table 8 and Table 9, minimal changes in delay are anticipated due to Project trips, and in some cases, delay is expected to decrease at study intersections in the Future Plus Project and Horizon Plus Project scenarios (this is primarily due to change in directional traffic volumes between the Project’s land use trip generation and that of the existing uses on site) . Because changes in delay in the Future Plus Project and Horizon Plus Project scenarios are minimal, changes to delay for transit vehicles would also be minimal.

Transit Reentry Delay
Transit reentry delay is the wait time for a sufficient gap in traffic flow to allow a bus to pull back into the travel lane. Transit reentry delay can be approximated using the approach delay for the direction that a transit vehicle would be traveling near study intersections. It is expected that transit reentry delay could marginally increase as a result of increasing traffic congestion, both without and with the Project. However, bus stops near the Project S ite are all located near to signalized interse ctions where re -entry gaps are available between signal phases (as opposed to stops located on a long unsignalized corridor where the flow of traffic might be uninterrupted for long periods).

Passenger Boarding Delay
Passenger boarding delay is the sum at each transit stop of passenger boarding delay (calculated by using a second per passenger boarding/alighting and based on projected transit boarding). It is estimated that the Project would result in approximately 22 new transit trips in the AM peak hour and 26 new transit trips in the PM peak hour. Using the same methodology outlined in the transit demand and capacity analysis, it is estimated that the maximum boardings per peak hour for any given transit vehicle would not exceed 7 trips in the AM or PM peak hour. Assuming one second per passenger boarding, the project would therefore be anticipated to increase passenger boarding delay by up to 7 seconds per bus trip in the AM and PM peak hours. These are relatively marginal effects, especially as it is unlikely that the maximum number of passengers on a given route would be boarding the same bus within that peak hour, the effect is likely to be at most a few seconds of additional passenger delay for any given trip on any given line. 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
66 Hazardous Conditions Assessment
The intent of this assessment is to determine the potential for hazardous conditions for transit operations, vehicles, and users due to the Project’s vehicular trip generation and Project design elements. As discussed in Chapter 2, the Project Site is bordered by Hannum Avenue, Bristol Parkway, and Uplander Way. Culver CityBus Lines 3, 4, 5C2, and 6/6R , and Metro Lines 102, 108, and 110 operate in the vicinity of the Project.

Only Culver CityBus Line 3 has a stop immediately along the Project’s frontage, at the southeast corner of Hannum Avenue and Bristol Parkway . There are no Project driveways on Hannum Avenue where t he sole bus stop along the Project frontage (Culver CityBus Line 3 on Hannum Avenue at Bristol Parkway) is located.

Because Project driveways would be designed according to applicable City standards and th ere would be no new driveways on streets with existing bus service , there would no new potential points of conflict between buses and vehicles. The Project would also be designed to minimize obstructions to sightlines.

Project trips would ingress/egress on Bristol Parkway and Uplander Way. There is no transit service on Uplander Way. The driveway on Bristol Parkway would be right -in/right-out only, minimizing hazardous conditions for transit. An estimated 9 vehicles and 17 vehicles would take a right-turn into the Project Site from Bristol Parkway during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. It is expected that the driveway would be able to accommodate the additional right-turn ingress movements created by the Project. Therefore, no queues are expected to form in the right -most travel lane where a bus would be traveling. Consequently, the Bristol Parkway and Uplander Way driveways are not expected to create potentially hazardous conditions for transit.

Project Construction Analysis
The Project is expected to be constructed over an approximately 45- month period with forecasted completion in 2031. It is estimated that approximately 7,650 truckloads of export would be hauled from the Project Site for excavation. It is estimated that approximately 2,310 truckloads of concrete will be brought into the Project Site.

Anticipated Construction Activity
Project construction is expected to occur in stages starting in January 2027 and finishing in late 2031. Below are the following phases of construction and their estimated durations:
• Phase 1 (Building 1)
o Phase 1.1: Demolition – 3 months
o Phase 1.2: Grading/Excavation – 3 months
o Phase 1.3: Concrete Structure – 6 months
o Phase 1.4: Framing – 6 months
o Phase 1.5: Finishes – 9 months
o Phase 1.6: Paving/Site Work – 4 months
5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
67 • Phase 2 (Building 2)
o Phase 2.1: Demolition – 3 months
o Phase 2.2: Grading/Excavation – 3 months
o Phase 2.3: Concrete Structure – 6 months
o Phase 2.4: Framing – 6 months
o Phase 2.5: Finishes – 9 months
o Phase 2.6: Paving/Site Work – 4 months
• Phase 3 (Building 3)
o Phase 3.1: Demolition – 3 months
o Phase 3.2: Grading/Excavation – 3 months
o Phase 3.3: Concrete Structure – 6 months
o Phase 3.4: Framing – 6 months
o Phase 3.5: Finishes – 9 months
o Phase 3.6: Paving/Site Work – 4 months
Construction Trucks
Haul Trucks
During construction, up to 184 one-way haul truck trips per day are anticipated on peak haul days.

Hauling hours are anticipated to begin at 7:00 AM and continue to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday . The inbound haul route would likely utilize I-405 to Sepulveda Boulevard, Slauson Avenue, Bristol Parkway, Hannum Avenue, and Uplander Way to access the Project Site. The outbound haul route would likely utilize Uplander Way, Hannum Avenue/Buckingham Parkway, and Slauson Avenue to access landfill sites . These proposed haul routes would avoid routing trucks past the Culver City Fire Department station on Bristo l Parkway south of Hannum Avenue.

Equipment and Delivery Trucks
In addition to haul trucks, the Project is expected to generate equipment and delivery truck trips during construction. One example would be for concrete delivery, which would be required for the subterranean parking and the buildings on-site. Other deliveries could include plumbing supplies, electrical fixtures, and items used in furnishing the buildings. These materials would be delivered to the Project Site and stored on-site. These deliveries are expected to occur in variously sized vehicles includi ng small delivery trucks , cement mixer trucks, and 18-wheel trucks. Additionally, construction equipment would have to be delivered to the Project Site. This equipment could include cranes, bulldozers, excavators, and other large items of 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
68 machinery. Most of the heavy equipment is expected to be transported to the Project Site on large trucks such as 18-wheelers or other similar vehicles.

Up to 100 one-way delivery/concrete truck trips are expected per day during the peak construction phase of pouring the foundation.

Construction Employees
The number of construction workers would vary throughout the construction period. Up to 439 one-way worker trips are expected per day during the peak construction phase.

Construction Worker Parking
The applicant will direct construction workers to park at an off -site location to be determined at a future date. Staging and parking areas during construction would initially be located at an off -site location to be determined at a future date. Workers would park in the Project’s subterranean parking garage after it is constructed and safe to occupy.

Construction Analysis
A detailed Construction Management Plan, including lane closure scenarios, a detour plan, haul routes, a staging plan, and construction worker parking, would be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction. The Construction Management Plan would formalize how construction would be carried out and identify specific actions that would be required to reduce effects on the surrounding community.

Temporary Traffic Constraints
Long-term closures to primary travel lanes are not anticipated to occur during construction of the Project along Hannum Avenue or Uplander Way . If necessary to maintain access to the sidewalk and crosswalks along Hannum Avenue or Uplander Way during construction of the Project, a pedestrian canopy would be constructed. Inbound and outbound vehicle trips associated with construction (construction workers, deliveries, haul trucks, and heavy equipment) would be routed to the Project Site via Hannum Avenue to Uplander Way or Bristol Parkway to Uplander Way (for inbound vehicles traveling north of Bristol Parkway) in order to avoid congestion or driveway blockages due to queueing on Bristol Parkway at the Culver City Fire Department station access driveway.

Temporary Loss of Access
The existing land uses near the vicinity of the Project Site will remain open throughout construction.

Pedestrian and vehicular access to properties located adjacent and near to the Project Site would remain open and unobstructed for the duration of construction. No loss of ADA pedestrian access to transit stops, stations, or facilities is anticipated . On-street parking is currently permitted on the Project frontage along Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way. During construction, use of on -street parking space s may be temporarily restricted to accommodate construction activity . After construction is completed, on -street parking on both Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way would be restored, except for the proposed on-street 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
69 passenger loading zones noted in the Curb Space Allocation section. Project construction will otherwise not affect on-street parking availability.

Temporary Loss of Bus Stops or Rerouting of Bus Lines
Project construction would not require temporary loss or relocation of bus stops or rerouting of bus lines.

Access to the existing bus stop at the southeast corner of Hannum Avenue and Bristol Parkway would be maintained throughout construction. If temporary closure of the stop were needed to accommodate construction, transit riders could utilize the existing Culver CityBus Line 3 existing stop at the southeast corner of Hannum Avenue and Uplander Way (approximately 675 feet west). 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
70 5. Summary and Conclusions
This study was undertaken to analyze the potential transportation impacts of the proposed 5757 Uplander Project. The following summarizes the results of this analysis:
• The Project will involve the demolition of approximately 146,000 sf of office space and involves the development of four adjacent parcels in the City of Culver City. The Project will construct three seven-story buildings that would provide a total of 1,077 new multifamily residential units (inclusive of 78 affordable units) and 5,772 square feet (sf) of new retail floor area. The four Project driveways will be located on Bristol Parkway and Uplander Way , one of which will be for emergency vehicle access only.
• Based on the TSCG, the commercial portion of the Project is screened from having to conduct a VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT as it is a locally-serving retail project smaller than 50,000 square feet. The residential portion of the Project is required to complete a VMT analysis. The Project’s daily household VMT per capita is 6.2, lower than the City threshold of significance of 7.1.
• The Project features, location, and design would be consistent with both City’s plans, programs, ordinances, and policies that support alternative transportation and have been adopted to protect the environment. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on both City’s transportation-related plans, programs, ordinances, and policies. • The Project is not projected to substantially increase hazards, conflicts, or preclude City action to fulfill or implement projects associated with surrounding transportation networks and will contribute to overall walkability through enhancements to the P roject Site and streetscape.

Therefore, the Project is expected to have a less than significant impact. • The LOS analysis for the Existing scenario determined that two study intersections currently operate at LOS E/F. In the Future (2031) scenario, two study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E/F. In the Horizon (2045) scenario, three study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E/F. • The Project would generate an estimated 186 trips (-87 inbound/273 outbound) in the AM peak hour and 215 trips (223 inbound/-8 trips outbound) in the PM peak hour . Due to the proposed change in land use from office to residential, peak period traffic distribution patterns will shift, leading to negative inbound AM and outbound PM trip generation. • The LOS analysis for the Existing P lus Project scenario determined that two intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E/F . In the Future Plus Project scenario, two intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E/F . In the Horizon Plus Project scenario, four intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E/F . In all three Plus Project scenarios, most intersections would experience minor increases in delay while others would experience slight decreases in delay. • The street segment analysis for the Existing plus Project , Future Plus Project, and Horizon Plus Project scenarios determined that the proposed Project would not result in TSCG significant project conditions along the street segment selected for analysis. 5757 Uplander Project
June 2025
71 • The signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Bristol Parkway and Uplander Way determined that the intersections does not meet peak hour warrants in the Existing plus Project, Future Plus Project, or Horizon Plus Project scenarios.
• The Project could generate up to 22 new transit trips in the AM peak hour and 26 new transit trips in the PM peak hour. The Project is estimated to add no more than 15 seconds of delay per bus trip.
• No transit routes are anticipated to incur substantial additional delay related to Project trips. • The Project would not worsen any hazardous conditions for transit operations.

Appendix A: Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)

F EHR ,1 PEERS
27/22/24
5757 Uplander Way
5757 Uplander Project
Multi-Family Housing (Affordable)
2027
n/a

0.6% AM, 0.1% PM
17% 42%
85 1,021
Restaurant (High Turnover Sit-Down)
Multi-Family Housing
5,258 sf
n/a
n/a
Three seven-story buildings with 1,106 dwelling units and 5,258 sf of retail space, replacing four buildings with 146,000 sf of office space 11th Edition
33% 8%
1 Green Valley Circle Culver CityBristol Parkway / Buckingham Parkway See Table 1
See Figure 3
also see Figure 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 1984CB67-E4BD-4457-84B9-ADAF95FA2B1 B Memorandum of Understanding for Transportation Study
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) acknowledges and agrees to all the City of Culver City requirements and fees for the review of a transportation study for the following project .

Date Submitted:

Project Name:

Project Address:

Project Description :

Land Use
Project Horizon Year:

Directional Distribution (%): N : ------
MOU Version #
Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.)
Defined per latest /TE publication
Ambient Growth Rate
(% per year):

S: E:

Residential Units (#)
W:

Trip Generation Rates: Show AM, PM and daily trip generation rates for each land use and attach total daily trips generation calculations . Indicate ITE Latest Edition/Other _______ _ ITE AM Trips PM Trips Daily Totals
Land Use Code# In Out In Out In Out
Study Intersections: Show all study intersections, intersections subject to capacity analysis credit for advanced traffic signal control synchronization, whether intersections are signalized or non-signalized, and use the same numbering system for all lists of intersections and figures in the study.

No. Intersection Siqnalized/Non-Siqnalized Jurisdiction Residential Streets: Show all residential streets to be studied.

Street Name Limits Jurisdiction
City of Culver City Page I l of 3
See Table 1
See Table 1
See Table 1
n/a
See Table 1
Table 2 & Figure
Figure 3
Figure 2
Figure 1
Docusign Envelope ID: 1984CB67-E4BD-4457-84B9-ADAF95FA2B1 B Trip Credits : Indicate trip credits to be requested (subject to City approval) Trip Credits Yes/No
Existinq Uses
Pass-By Trips
Internal Trip Capture
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Transportation Demand Manaqement (TOM)
Related Projects: Before the start of any proposed project analysis, consultants shall : 5 l . Obtain a list of related projects from the Culver City Current Planning Division and other affected jurisdictions .

2. Prepare a draft list of "related projects specific to the proposed project ." 3 . Obtain written approval from the City of the "related projects specific to the proposed project ."
Maps : The following maps shall be attached to the MOU :
l . A map showing the study intersections and street segments to be analyzed, including City limit lines where applicable .

2. A map showing the project's trip distribution percentages for each land use (inbound and outbound) on the area's road network . & Figure 4
3 . A map showing the project's trip assignments at the study intersections and project driveways, as well as road segments when applicable .
4 . A site plan of the project showing property lines, alleys, project's driveways and nearby driveways and intersections on both sides of the street including dimensions .

Proposed Mitigation and Transportation Improvements : Any proposed transportation improvement(s) or mitigation measure(s) shall be listed and accompanied by plans of the existing and proposed improvements, including city limit lines and existing and proposed property lines. The City may initially accept conceptual plans to be included in the Transportation Study. Detailed design of such improvements will be part of the project's plans submittals .

Post-Occupancy Traffic Counts : By signing below, the Property Owner/ Developer/Applicant hereby agrees to pay for and submit to the City a post-occupancy traffic count analysis of the development to the satisfaction of the City. The analysis shall determine the amount of actual traffic (motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian) generated by the development compared to the ITE trip generation rates. The analysis shall include a traffic count of all onsite driveways taken upon reaching eighty-five percent (85%) occupancy of the total building gross floor area or within one (1) year of the issuance of the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), as determined by the City. The data shall be used to confirm the findings in the approved study and not result in any additional traffic mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval on the subject project .

Fees: Payment of a fee to the City's PWD for the City's processing of the MOU shall be required before the City approves the MOU . Payment for review of the Transportation Study shall be paid before the City's PWD completes its review of the Transportation Study. Said fees shall be per the most recent Fee Schedule as approved by the City Council.

Page I 2 of 3 City of Culver City
Jeremiah LaRose
600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Fehr & Peers
Associate
213-261-3079
310-394-7663
[email protected]
B9 Sequoia Culver City Owner LP
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310-788-2417
310-788-2410
[email protected]
c/o Spencer B. Kallick, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1800 Associate Civil Engineer
LACDPW
900 S Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
[email protected]
Mingliang Shi
626-300-4840
7/29/2024
8/9/2024
See Attachment A 4/21/2025
Docusign Envelope ID: 1984CB67-E4BD-4457-84B9 -ADAF95FA2B1 B Applicant Information :

Property Owner/ Applicant Developer/ Applicant Traffic Consultant Name
Title
Company
Street Address
City, State, Zip
Office
Cell
Fax
Email
Public Agency Information : If any of the intersection(s) to be studied as part of this study are located within the City of Los Angeles, the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and/or impact any other public agency (i .e., Caltrans), then this MOU shall also be approved by the reviewing staff representative from each agency :

City of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Other Public Agency Name
Title
Company
Street Address
City, State, Zip
Office
Cell
Fax
Email
Signatures/Expiration : This MOU shall become valid as of the date of the City's signature and expire one year thereafter . If the administrative draft of the study has not been filed with the City by the expiration date, the MOU shall expire and a new MOU filing, fee, review, and approval process shall be required .

Approved By:
u;JJ;} ~lek
Pro.e.~.1Y Owner/ Applicant
ol:~'>ri~P,~
Tra ic Consultant 11, ,
(~ ~
City of Culver City
County of Los Angeles
Page I 3 of 3
Date:

July 31 , 2024
July 31 , 2024
City of Culver City
600 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 261-3050 | Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: May 2024
To: City of Culver City
From: Jeremiah LaRose, Tom Gaul, and Andrew Jarnagin, Fehr & Peers Subject: Methodologies and Assumptions for 5757 Uplander Transportation Impact Analysis
LA23-3476
This memorandum documents the methodologies and assumptions which will be used in the Transportation Study to be prepared as part of the environmental impact report (EIR) for 5757 Uplander, located at 5800 Hannum Avenue, 6031 Uplander Way, 5821 Uplander Way, and 5835 Uplander Way. This memorandum serves as a supplement to the City of Culver City Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Transportation Study form to approve the approach for the transportation impact analysis. The approach detailed here addresses analyses laid out in the City of Culver City Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines.

Because three proposed study intersections are in the unincorporated Los Angeles County, the MOU will also require approval from LACDPW.

Project Description
The Project involves the development of four adjacent parcels in the City of Culver City (APNs 431- 400-5021, 431-400-5004, 431-400-5003, and 431-400-5002). The Project proposes to construct three seven-story buildings that would provide a total of 1,106 dwelling units (inclusive of 85 affordable units), 5,259 sf of retail, and 1,564 vehicular parking spaces within three separate three- level semi-subterranean garages for each proposed building. The Project would provide 278 long- term bicycle parking spaces and 28 short-term bicycle parking spaces, in compliance with City codes. The Project would also include pedestrian design features, including plazas located along both Hannum Avenue and the southeast frontage along Uplander Way, as well as an internal north- south pedestrian paseo connecting private courtyards at each building.

Docusign Envelope ID: 1984CB67-E4BD-4457-84B9-ADAF95FA2B1 B FEHR ,f PEERS
Culver City
May 2024

Page 2 of 17 ends

City Council Meeting AgendaFebruary 9, 2026

City Council Meeting Agenda
February 9, 2026