Geology, Soils and Seismicity Baseline Technical Study –...

Geology, Soils and Seismicity Baseline Technical Study – Draft

March 9, 2012

Metro Green Line to LAX Phase I – AA/DEIS/DEIR

Metro Green Line to LAX

Phase I

Geology, Soils and SeismicityBaseline Technical Study

Internal Review Draft

Hatch Mott MacDonaldLea+Elliott, Inc.Fehr & Peers Leighton

Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc.Epic Land Solutions

Geology, Soils and Seismicity Baseline Technical Study

Metro Green Line to LAX

Phase I – AA/DEIS/DEIR

Geology, Soils and Seismicity Baseline Technical Study - Draft

March 9, 2012

Document Control Task # Source

5.1.9 Leighton

Version Date Completed

Internal Review Draft February 10, 2012

Draft March 9, 2012

Draft Final

Final

In Association with:

Hatch Mott MacDonald

Lea+Elliott, Inc.

Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc. Epic Land Solutions

Ted TanakaVCA Engineering

D’Leon Consulting EngineersCoast SurveyingCityworks Design

Page i


ed Tanaka VCA Engineering

D’Leon Consulting Engineers Coast Surveying Cityworks Design

Metro Green Line to LAX Phase I –AA/DEIS/DEIR

1. Introduction ................................1.1. Study Background ................................

1.1.1. Alternatives Considered1.2. Report Purpose and Structure

2. Regulatory Framework / Methodology2.1. Federal ................................

2.1.1. Comprehensive Environmental Respon2.1.2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act2.1.3. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act2.1.4. Toxic Substances Control Act2.1.5. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

2.2. State ................................2.2.1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act2.2.2. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act2.2.3. California Public Resources Code2.2.4. California Hazardous Waste Control Law2.2.5. Carpenter-Presley2.2.6. Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program ................................2.2.7. La Follette Bill of 1986 (Risk Management Plan)2.2.8. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403

2.3. Local ................................2.3.1. City of Los Angeles2.3.2. City of Inglewood

2.4. Methodology ................................2.5. Impact Thresholds ................................

2.5.1. National Environmental Policy Act2.5.2. California Environmental Quality Act

3. Affected environment / Existing Conditions3.1. Regional Physiographic Setting

3.1.1. Topography ................................3.1.2. Geology ................................

3.2. Local Physiographic Setting3.2.1. Geologic Structure3.2.2. Groundwater ................................

3.3. Faults and Seismicity ................................3.3.1. General ................................

3.4. Ground Shaking ................................3.5. Liquefaction ................................3.6. Seismically-Induced Settlement3.7. Landslides ................................


TABLE OF CONTENTS

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Alternatives Considered ................................................................Structure ..........................................................................................

Regulatory Framework / Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................................................................Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActResource Conservation and Recovery Act ..........................................................Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ................................Toxic Substances Control Act................................................................

ning and Reclamation Act ................................................................................................................................................................................................

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act ................................Seismic Hazards Mapping Act ................................................................California Public Resources Code ................................................................California Hazardous Waste Control Law ..........................................................

Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account ActUnified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory .............................................................................................................................La Follette Bill of 1986 (Risk Management Plan) ................................South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 ................................

................................................................................................................................City of Los Angeles ..............................................................................................City of Inglewood ................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................

National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................California Environmental Quality Act ................................................................

Affected environment / Existing Conditions ................................................................gional Physiographic Setting ................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Local Physiographic Setting ...........................................................................................Geologic Structure .............................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................Induced Settlement ................................................................................................................................................................

Page ii


...............................1

.............................................1

......................................................1

..........................2

.....................................................4

...............................4

se, Compensation and Liability Act ....4

..........................4

............................................4

..............................................4

.................................5

...................................5

.......................................................5

............................................5

.......................................5

..........................6

dous Substances Account Act ........................6

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory .............................6

...............................................6

.................................6

..................................7

..............................7

.................................8

.....................................................8

............................................9

.....................................9

.................................9

..........................................11

......................................................11

........................................11

..............................................11

...........................12

.............................13

......................................13

......................................14

...............................................14

..............................................18

.....................................................20

.....................................................21

.......................................................22


3.8. Hazardous Materials ................................3.8.1. Urban Contamination3.8.2. Oil and Gas ................................

3.9. Mineral Resources ................................3.10. Existing Structures ................................

3.10.1. Central Terminal Area3.10.2. Off-Airport Are

Figure 1.1. Project Study Area – Figure 1.2. Alignment Location MapFigure 3.1. Regional Geologic MapFigure 3.2. Regional Fault Map ................................Figure 3.3. Historical Seismicity MapFigure 3.4. Seismic Hazard MapFigure 3.5. Environmental Sites of HighFigure 3.6. Methane Hazards and DOGGR Oil WellsFigure 3.7. Existing Structures ................................

Table 3.1. Active Faults ................................Table 3.2. Ground Motion Study ResultsTable 3.3. High Priority Environmental Concern SitesTable 3.4. Off-Airport Area Structures

• Barrows, A.G., 1974, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the NewportInglewood Structural Zone, Southern CaliforniaSpecial Report 114, 115 p.

• Blake, T.F., 2000, EQSEARCH, Computer Program for Windows Version 4.0.• Bryant, W.A., 1988, Recently Active Traces of the NewportAngeles and Orange Counties, CaliforniaFile Report 88-14, 15 p.

• Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., 2001, EIS/EIR, January.

• CGS, 2002, Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones GIS server.• CGS, 2003, Seismic Hazard Mapping Program. • CGS, 2010a, Quaternary and Younger Faults GIS server.


................................................................................................Urban Contamination ........................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Central Terminal Area ........................................................................................Airport Area ................................................................................................

FIGURES

Overview ................................................................Figure 1.2. Alignment Location Map .............................................................................................Figure 3.1. Regional Geologic Map .............................................................................................

................................................................................................Figure 3.3. Historical Seismicity Map .........................................................................................Figure 3.4. Seismic Hazard Map ................................................................................................Figure 3.5. Environmental Sites of High-Priority/Concern .........................................................Figure 3.6. Methane Hazards and DOGGR Oil Wells ................................................................

................................................................................................

TABLES

................................................................................................3.2. Ground Motion Study Results ................................................................

Table 3.3. High Priority Environmental Concern Sites ...............................................................Airport Area Structures .........................................................................................

REFERENCES

A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the NewportInglewood Structural Zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology

.F., 2000, EQSEARCH, Computer Program for Windows Version 4.0.

Recently Active Traces of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open

Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., 2001, Earth/Geology Technical Report, LAX Master Plan

Priolo Fault Zones GIS server.

CGS, 2003, Seismic Hazard Mapping Program.

, Quaternary and Younger Faults GIS server. Page iii


......................................22

........................22

........................................24

..........................................26

..........................................26

........................27

.................................28

.................................................... 2

............................. 3

............................. 12

.................................... 15

......................... 20

................................. 21

......................... 24

................................ 25

..................................... 27

................................................ 16

.................................................... 18

............................... 23

......................... 29

A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-: California Division of Mines and Geology

.F., 2000, EQSEARCH, Computer Program for Windows Version 4.0.

Inglewood Fault Zone, Los : California Division of Mines and Geology Open-

Earth/Geology Technical Report, LAX Master Plan


• CGS, 2010b, Southern California USGS Geology GIS server.• CDMG, 1962, Geologic Map of California Long Beach Sheet• CDMG, 1986a, Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Considerations in Environmental Impact Reports.

• CDMG, 1986b, State of California SpeQuadrangle, Revised Official Map

• CDMG, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Inglewood 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 027.

• CDMG, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Venice 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Open File Report 98

• CDMG, 1999, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Inglewood 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, Califo

• CDMG, 1999, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Venice 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California

• City of Los Angeles, 1996, Safety Element of th• City of Los Angeles, 2004, Methane and Methane Buffer Zones Map• ConnectLAX, 2011a, Preliminary Definition of Alternatives Utilities Technical MemoNovember 30.

• ConnectLAX, 2011b, Draft Preliminary Definition of Alte16.

• ConnectLAX, 2012, Draft Hazardous Materials Site Assessment Report (Phase 1), dated January 19, 2012.

• County of Los Angeles, 1990• Dibblee, Jr., 2007, Geologic Map of the Venice and Inglewood QuadCounty, California; Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF

• DOGGR , 2010, District 1 Oil Wells.• Esri Basemaps Resource Center, 2012• Esri Basemaps Resource Center, 2012• FEMA, 2010, Flood Hazard Zones in GIS server.• Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2007, Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 1

• Hauksson, E., 1987, Seismotectonics of the NewportAngeles Basin, Southern CaliforniaNo. 2, pp. 539-561.

• Hill, M.L., 1954, Tectonics of Faulting in Southern CalifoGeology of Southern California2, pp. 539-561.


, Southern California USGS Geology GIS server.

Geologic Map of California Long Beach Sheet, scale 1:250,000.

Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Considerations in Environmental Impact

State of California Special Studies Zones Map for the Inglewood Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, Scale 1:24,000, dated July 1, 1986.

Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Inglewood 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los , Seismic Hazard Zone Report 027.

Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Venice 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los , Open File Report 98-27.

State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Inglewood 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, scale 1:24,000, dated March 25, 1999.

State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Venice 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, scale 1:24,000, dated March 25, 1999.

Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan

Methane and Methane Buffer Zones Map.

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives Utilities Technical Memo

Draft Preliminary Definition of Alternatives Report, dated December

ConnectLAX, 2012, Draft Hazardous Materials Site Assessment Report (Phase 1), dated

1990, Seismic Safety Element.

Geologic Map of the Venice and Inglewood Quadrangles, Los Angeles ; Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-322.

DOGGR , 2010, District 1 Oil Wells.

Esri Basemaps Resource Center, 2012a, Bing Street Map.

Esri Basemaps Resource Center, 2012b, USGS Topographic Maps.

ard Zones in GIS server.

Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 1-42 p.

Seismotectonics of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone in the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California: Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Volume 77,

Tectonics of Faulting in Southern California in Jahns, R. H., Editor, Geology of Southern California: Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Volume 77, No.

Page iv


, scale 1:250,000.

Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Considerations in Environmental Impact

cial Studies Zones Map for the Inglewood

Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Inglewood 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los

Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Venice 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los

State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Inglewood 7.5 Minute , scale 1:24,000, dated March 25, 1999.

State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Venice 7.5 Minute , scale 1:24,000, dated March 25, 1999.

e Los Angeles City General Plan.

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives Utilities Technical Memo, dated

, dated December

ConnectLAX, 2012, Draft Hazardous Materials Site Assessment Report (Phase 1), dated

rangles, Los Angeles

Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California

Inglewood Fault Zone in the Los : Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Volume 77,

rnia in Jahns, R. H., Editor, : Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Volume 77, No.


• Jennings, C.W., 1977, Geological Map of CaliforniaGeology Map No. 2, scale 1:750,000.

• Moody, J. D., and Hill, M.J., 1956, Bulletin, v. 67, pp. 1207-1246.

• Risk Engineering, Inc., 2011,Ground Motion Estimation.

• Poland, J.F., Piper, A.M., and Others, 1956, Long Beach-Santa Ana Area, California162 p. Plate 1.

• USGS, 1964, Inglewood Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California 7.5 Minute Seriesscale 1:24,000, Contour Interval 5 Feet.

• USGS, 2011, National Earthquake Information Center.• Woodford, A.O., Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G., and Yerkes, R.F., 1954, Los Angeles Basin, in Jahns, R.H. (editor), Geology of Southern CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology Bulletin 170, pp. 65

• Wright, T.L., 1991, Structural Geology and Tectonic Evolution if the Los Angeles Basin, California, in Biddle, K.T. (editor), Active Margin Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, pp. 35

• Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E. and Vedder, J.G., 1965, Angeles Basin, California -- An Introduction: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A, 57 p.

• Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985,Ziony, J.I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 43


Geological Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 2, scale 1:750,000.

Moody, J. D., and Hill, M.J., 1956, Wrench Fault Tectonics: Geological Society of America1246.

, EZ-Frisk 7.60 Build 001, Computer Program for Earthquake

A.M., and Others, 1956, Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone, Santa Ana Area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1109,

Inglewood Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California 7.5 Minute Seriesale 1:24,000, Contour Interval 5 Feet.

USGS, 2011, National Earthquake Information Center.

Woodford, A.O., Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G., and Yerkes, R.F., 1954, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, in Jahns, R.H. (editor), Geology of Southern California: Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 170, pp. 65-81.

Structural Geology and Tectonic Evolution if the Los Angeles Basin, , in Biddle, K.T. (editor), Active Margin Basins: American Association of

ts Memoir 52, pp. 35-134.

Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E. and Vedder, J.G., 1965, Geology of the Los An Introduction: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential in Ziony, J.I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region

: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 43

Page v


: California Division of Mines and

Wrench Fault Tectonics: Geological Society of America

Computer Program for Earthquake

Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone, : U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1109,

Inglewood Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California 7.5 Minute Series,

Geology of the : California

Structural Geology and Tectonic Evolution if the Los Angeles Basin, , in Biddle, K.T. (editor), Active Margin Basins: American Association of

Geology of the Los An Introduction: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

Faulting Potential in Ziony, J.I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth-

: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, pp. 43-91.


ABBREVIATIONS / ACRO AA ...................Alternatives AnalysisASTM .............American Standard Test Methodbgs ..................below ground surfaceCBC ................California Building CodeCEQA..............California Environmental Quality ActCDMG ............California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and GeologyCGS…………….California GeologicaCIDH…………..Cast-In-Drilled HoleCTA .................Central Terminal AreaDBE ................Design Basis EarthquakeDEIR…………...Draft Environmental Impact ReportDEIS……………Draft Environmental Impact StatementDOGGR……….Department of Oil, Gas, and GeothermaEIR ..................Environmental Impact ReportEIS ..................Environmental Impact StatementEFZ……………..Earthquake Fault ZoneEPB ..................earth pressure balanceFAA .................Federal Aviation AdministrationFEMA ............Federal Emergency Management AgencyFTA .................Federal Transit Administrationksi ...................kips per square inchLADBS ............City of Los Angeles Department of Building and SafetyLAWA .............Los Angeles World AirportsLAX .................Los Angeles International AirportLRTP ...............Long Range Transportation PlanMCE ...............Maximum Considered EarthquakeMDE ...............Maximum Design EarthquakeMPE ................Most Probable EventMetro .............Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityMOF ...............Maintenance and Operations FacilityMSL…………….Mean Sea Level NEPA ..............National Environmental Policy ActNGA ...............Next Generation AttenuationNIFZ……………Newport Inglewood Fault ZoneODE ...............Operating Design EarthquakePCC…………….Portland Cement Concretepcf ..................pounds per cubic footPHGA………….Peak Horizontal Ground AccelerationPSHA ..............Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysispsi ...................pounds per square inchROW ...............Right-of-way


ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS

atives Analysis American Standard Test Method below ground surface California Building Code California Environmental Quality Act

epartment of Conservation, Division of Mines and GeologyCGS…………….California Geological Survey (formerly known as CDMG)

Drilled Hole Central Terminal Area Design Basis Earthquake

Environmental Impact Report ……………Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DOGGR……….Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement

EFZ……………..Earthquake Fault Zone earth pressure balance Federal Aviation Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Transit Administration kips per square inch City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Los Angeles World Airports Los Angeles International Airport Long Range Transportation Plan Maximum Considered Earthquake Maximum Design Earthquake ost Probable Event

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Maintenance and Operations Facility

National Environmental Policy Act Next Generation Attenuation Newport Inglewood Fault Zone Operating Design Earthquake Portland Cement Concrete pounds per cubic foot

PHGA………….Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis pounds per square inch

Page vi


epartment of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology


SSPWC ...........Specifications of Public WoTSM ................Transportation System ManagementUBE ................Upper-Bound EarthquakeUSGS…………..United States Geological Survey


Specifications of Public Works Construction Transportation System Management

Bound Earthquake United States Geological Survey

Page vii



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. STUDY BACKGROUND The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have initiated a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Metro Green Line to Los Angeles International Airport (being prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The focus of this study is to plan, design and environmentally assess a fixed guideway transit connection between Metro’s regional studied by Metro, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), and other agencies, with recent efforts including the ongoing LAX Specific Plan Amendment Process,Interagency Task Force (2008), LAXExtension (1994). The Measure R sales tax, passed by Los Angeles County voters in 2008, included $200 million in funding for a fixed guideway connection to LAX. It is also identified in the financially constrained portion of Metro’s current Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This study will examine potential connections between the planned Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project’s Aviation/Century Station and the LAX Central Terminal Area (CTAAlternatives considered are summarized in Section by Manchester Avenue to the north, La Cienega Boulevardthe south and the LAX air cargo area toAngeles and Inglewood. An overview of the 1.1.1. Alternatives Considered Several potential alternatives, which include various routing and station options, are currenbeing studied as part of this Draft EIS/EIR. The number of alternatives and options is expected to decrease as the feasibility analysis advances and options that are determined not to meet the purpose and need or initial screening criteria are set asiconsideration. The alternatives being studied include:

• No Build – Existing transit and highway plans and programmed improvements through the year 2035.

• Transportation Systems Management (TSM)improvements to roadways designed to improve bus speeds along existing roadways from the Aviation/Century Station to LAX.


The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Federal Transit n (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have initiated a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement / Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) project. The Draft

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The focus of this study is to plan, design and environmentally assess a fixed guideway transit connection between Metro’s regional rail system and LAX. Such a connection has been studied by Metro, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), and other agencies, with recent efforts including the ongoing LAX Specific Plan Amendment Process, LAX/Metro Green Line

Force (2008), LAX Master Plan (2004) and the Metro Green Line Northern Extension (1994). The Measure R sales tax, passed by Los Angeles County voters in 2008, included $200 million in funding for a fixed guideway connection to LAX. It is also identified

y constrained portion of Metro’s current Long Range Transportation Plan

This study will examine potential connections between the planned Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project’s Aviation/Century Station and the LAX Central Terminal Area (CTAAlternatives considered are summarized in Section 1.1.1. The Project Study Area by Manchester Avenue to the north, La Cienega Boulevard to the east, Imperial Highway to the south and the LAX air cargo area to the west, and includes portions of the Cities of Los

. An overview of the Project Study Area is shown in Figure

Several potential alternatives, which include various routing and station options, are currenbeing studied as part of this Draft EIS/EIR. The number of alternatives and options is expected to decrease as the feasibility analysis advances and options that are determined not to meet the purpose and need or initial screening criteria are set aside from further consideration. The alternatives being studied include:

Existing transit and highway plans and programmed improvements through

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) – Lower cost capital and operational ts to roadways designed to improve bus speeds along existing roadways from

the Aviation/Century Station to LAX.

Page 1


The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Federal Transit n (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have initiated a Draft

Draft EIS/EIR) for the Draft EIS/EIR is

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California

The focus of this study is to plan, design and environmentally assess a fixed guideway transit rail system and LAX. Such a connection has been

studied by Metro, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), and other agencies, with recent efforts LAX/Metro Green Line

Master Plan (2004) and the Metro Green Line Northern Extension (1994). The Measure R sales tax, passed by Los Angeles County voters in 2008, included $200 million in funding for a fixed guideway connection to LAX. It is also identified

y constrained portion of Metro’s current Long Range Transportation Plan

This study will examine potential connections between the planned Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project’s Aviation/Century Station and the LAX Central Terminal Area (CTA).

Study Area is bounded to the east, Imperial Highway to

, and includes portions of the Cities of Los Study Area is shown in Figure 1.1.

Several potential alternatives, which include various routing and station options, are currently being studied as part of this Draft EIS/EIR. The number of alternatives and options is expected to decrease as the feasibility analysis advances and options that are determined not

de from further

Existing transit and highway plans and programmed improvements through

Lower cost capital and operational ts to roadways designed to improve bus speeds along existing roadways from


• Build Alternatives – Transit system(s) designed to connect or provide a more convenient connection to the airport for Metro Green and Crenshaw/Lmake use of a variety of technologies, such as light rail transit (LRT), automated people mover (APM), or bus rapid transit (BRT).

Figure

Source: ConnectLAX, 2011

1.2. REPORT PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE This report presents the results of Metro Green Line to LAX projectFigure 1.2, Alignment Location Map


Transit system(s) designed to connect or provide a more convenient connection to the airport for Metro Green and Crenshaw/LAX passengers. System can make use of a variety of technologies, such as light rail transit (LRT), automated people mover (APM), or bus rapid transit (BRT).

Figure 1.1. Project Study Area – Overview

TRUCTURE

This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed project. The project alignments under consideration are

nment Location Map.

Page 2


Transit system(s) designed to connect or provide a more convenient AX passengers. System can

make use of a variety of technologies, such as light rail transit (LRT), automated people

for the proposed project alignments under consideration are shown on


Figure

Sources: Esri, 2012b; ConnectLAX, 2011

The objective of this study is to conditions and federal, state, and local regulations relevant to the proposed projectexplorations were performed as part of this study.


Figure 1.2. Alignment Location Map

ConnectLAX, 2011

to describe geotechnical/subsurface/seismic existing site eral, state, and local regulations relevant to the proposed project

explorations were performed as part of this study.

Page 3


describe geotechnical/subsurface/seismic existing site eral, state, and local regulations relevant to the proposed project. No


2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Several federal and state laws regulate and protect geology, soils, and geologic resources. Below is a list of these statutes.

2.1. FEDERAL 2.1.1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 defines the term hazardous substance as any substanexposure to which results in, or may result in, adverse effects on health or safety. 2.1.2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act control hazardous waste from “cradletreatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste(EPA). The 1986 Amendments to the act also give the EPA the authorities to address environmental issues which may arise from underground petroleum storage tanks and other underground storage tanks. 2.1.3. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Actstress the importance of permanent site remediationSuperfund actions to follow State and Federal environmental law and regulations; increases state involvement in all phases of Superfund activities; increases focus on human health issues; encourages citizen input to remediation sites; and increases the size of the fund to 8.5 Billion US Dollars. SARA also requires the EPA to have an established Hazard Ranking System to accurately assess the relative degree of risk to human health at hazasites. 2.1.4. Toxic Substances Control Act The Toxic Substances Control Actrequire reporting, record-keeping, testing requirements, and restrictions of specific chemical substances and/or mixtures. The act specifically addresses production, importation, use, and disposal of a number of specific chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.


FRAMEWORK / METHODOLOGY

Several federal and state laws regulate and protect geology, soils, and geologic resources.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 defines the term hazardous substance as any substance, material, or waste, the exposure to which results in, or may result in, adverse effects on health or safety.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 designates the authority to us waste from “cradle-to-grave,” including generation, transportation,

treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste to the Environmental Protection Agency The 1986 Amendments to the act also give the EPA the authorities to address

tal issues which may arise from underground petroleum storage tanks and other

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

endments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 amendsof permanent site remediation of hazardous waste sites;

State and Federal environmental law and regulations; increases state involvement in all phases of Superfund activities; increases focus on human health

; encourages citizen input to remediation sites; and increases the size of the fund to 8.5 Billion US Dollars. SARA also requires the EPA to have an established Hazard Ranking System to accurately assess the relative degree of risk to human health at haza

Toxic Substances Control Act

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 designates to the EPA the authority to keeping, testing requirements, and restrictions of specific chemical es. The act specifically addresses production, importation, use, and

disposal of a number of specific chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), based paint.

Page 4


Several federal and state laws regulate and protect geology, soils, and geologic resources.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of ce, material, or waste, the

exposure to which results in, or may result in, adverse effects on health or safety.

of 1976 designates the authority to including generation, transportation,

to the Environmental Protection Agency The 1986 Amendments to the act also give the EPA the authorities to address

tal issues which may arise from underground petroleum storage tanks and other

amends CERCLA to of hazardous waste sites; requires that

State and Federal environmental law and regulations; increases state involvement in all phases of Superfund activities; increases focus on human health

; encourages citizen input to remediation sites; and increases the size of the fund to 8.5 Billion US Dollars. SARA also requires the EPA to have an established Hazard Ranking System to accurately assess the relative degree of risk to human health at hazardous waste

designates to the EPA the authority to keeping, testing requirements, and restrictions of specific chemical es. The act specifically addresses production, importation, use, and

disposal of a number of specific chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),


2.1.5. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 and all revisions through December 31, 1993, establishes a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from adverse effects of surface coal mining operations, and to assure that the rights of surface landowners and other persons with a legal interest in the land are fully protected from such operations. Further, the act assures that adequate procedures are undertaken to reclaim surface areas as contemporaneously as possible with the surface coal mining operatimining operations are not conducted where reclamation as required by this act is not feasible, and that surface coal mining operations are so conducted as to protect the environment.

2.2. STATE 2.2.1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act effective January 1, 1994, provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for occupancy across the trace of active faults. of the state with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes by facilitating seismic retrofitting tohistorical buildings, against ground shaking.active earthquake faults.

2.2.2. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (the Act) of 1990 (Public ResourceDivision 2) directs the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) to delineate seismic hazard zones. threat to public health and safety and to minimize theand mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and state agencies are directed to use the seismic hazard zone maps in their landrequires that site-specific geotecurban development projects within the hazard zones. hazards are to be conducted under guidelines established by the California State Mining and Geology Board (DOC, 2008; also available on the Internet at:cgs/shzp/webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf 2.2.3. California Public Resources Code Pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 2200(CGS) of the Department of Conservation


Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 and all revisions through December 31, 1993, establishes a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from adverse effects of surface coal mining operations, and to assure that the rights of

s and other persons with a legal interest in the land are fully protected from Further, the act assures that adequate procedures are undertaken to reclaim

surface areas as contemporaneously as possible with the surface coal mining operatimining operations are not conducted where reclamation as required by this act is not feasible, and that surface coal mining operations are so conducted as to protect the environment.

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act effective January 1, 1994, is intended to provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for occupancy across the trace of active faults. Further, it is the intended to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes by facilitating seismic retrofitting to strengthen buildings, including historical buildings, against ground shaking. This Act applies to projects located in areas with

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act

The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (the Act) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Division 2) directs the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) to delineate seismic hazard zones. The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and state agencies are directed to use the seismic hazard zone maps in their land-use planning and permitting processes.

specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within the hazard zones. Evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazards are to be conducted under guidelines established by the California State Mining and

(DOC, 2008; also available on the Internet at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf

California Public Resources Code

Pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 2200-2211, the California Geological Surveyof the Department of Conservation is tasked with managing programs

Page 5


Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 and all revisions through December 31, 1993, establishes a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from adverse effects of surface coal mining operations, and to assure that the rights of

s and other persons with a legal interest in the land are fully protected from Further, the act assures that adequate procedures are undertaken to reclaim

surface areas as contemporaneously as possible with the surface coal mining operations, that mining operations are not conducted where reclamation as required by this act is not feasible, and that surface coal mining operations are so conducted as to protect the environment.

is intended to provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human

Further, it is the intended to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately

strengthen buildings, including This Act applies to projects located in areas with

s Code, Chapter 7.8, Division 2) directs the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and

The purpose of the Act is to reduce the loss of life and property by identifying

and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and state agencies are directed to use the use planning and permitting processes. The Act

hnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most Evaluation and mitigation of seismic

hazards are to be conducted under guidelines established by the California State Mining and http://www.conservation.ca.gov/

e California Geological Survey to reduce the


loss of life and property and protect the environment by mitigation of geologic hazards. Specific activities to be carried out by the divassessment, including identification and mapping of geologic hazards and estimates of their potential consequence to life, property, and the environment, and likelihood of occurrence. Further, the division is responsible for information advisory services, emergency response to geologic hazards, and development and application of mitigation methods.undergoing environmental review must fully address and mitigate impacts of geologic hazards identified by the CGS. 2.2.4. California Hazardous Waste Control Law The California Hazardous Waste Control California Hazardous Waste Control Program of 1972, by providing definitions of “waste” and what is “hazardous;” by creating a hazardous waste tracking program; and by creating a technical reference center for public and private use for dealing with all aspects hazardous waste management. 2.2.5. Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act The Carpenter-Presley-Tanner hazardous Waste Substances Account Act of 1981 created the Hazardous Substance Account and established a fee schedule on the land disposal of hazardous waste to cover the costs of remedial activities (site cleanup) and associated administrative costs, hazardous substance response equipment, health effects studies, and the expenses of the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Arbitration panel. 2.2.6. Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program establishes a set of guidelines concerning all those who deal with, at some point, the management of hazardous materials. 2.2.7. La Follette Bill of 1986 (Risk Management Plan) The La Follette Bill of 1986 (Risk Management Plan) requires a Risk Management Plan be prepared for commercial operations which 2.2.8. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 The South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 requires an AsbeNotification Form to be filled out by those who wish to demolish a building known to contain, or suspected of containing asbestos.


loss of life and property and protect the environment by mitigation of geologic hazards. Specific activities to be carried out by the division include, but are not limited to, hazard assessment, including identification and mapping of geologic hazards and estimates of their potential consequence to life, property, and the environment, and likelihood of occurrence.

responsible for information advisory services, emergency response to geologic hazards, and development and application of mitigation methods. Projects undergoing environmental review must fully address and mitigate impacts of geologic

California Hazardous Waste Control Law

The California Hazardous Waste Control Law of 1973 provided emergency regulations for the California Hazardous Waste Control Program of 1972, by providing definitions of

rdous;” by creating a hazardous waste tracking program; and by reference center for public and private use for dealing with all aspects

Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act

Tanner hazardous Waste Substances Account Act of 1981 created the Hazardous Substance Account and established a fee schedule on the land disposal of hazardous waste to cover the costs of remedial activities (site cleanup) and associated

nistrative costs, hazardous substance response equipment, health effects studies, and the expenses of the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Arbitration panel.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program

e and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program establishes a set of guidelines concerning all those who deal with, at some point, the management of hazardous materials.

La Follette Bill of 1986 (Risk Management Plan)

6 (Risk Management Plan) requires a Risk Management Plan be prepared for commercial operations which use hazardous materials.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403

The South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 requires an AsbeNotification Form to be filled out by those who wish to demolish a building known to contain, or suspected of containing asbestos.

Page 6


loss of life and property and protect the environment by mitigation of geologic hazards. ision include, but are not limited to, hazard

assessment, including identification and mapping of geologic hazards and estimates of their potential consequence to life, property, and the environment, and likelihood of occurrence.

responsible for information advisory services, emergency response to Projects

undergoing environmental review must fully address and mitigate impacts of geologic

3 provided emergency regulations for the California Hazardous Waste Control Program of 1972, by providing definitions of what is

rdous;” by creating a hazardous waste tracking program; and by reference center for public and private use for dealing with all aspects of

Tanner hazardous Waste Substances Account Act of 1981 created the Hazardous Substance Account and established a fee schedule on the land disposal of hazardous waste to cover the costs of remedial activities (site cleanup) and associated

nistrative costs, hazardous substance response equipment, health effects studies, and

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program

e and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program establishes a set of guidelines concerning all those who deal with, at some point, the

6 (Risk Management Plan) requires a Risk Management Plan be

stos Notification Form to be filled out by those who wish to demolish a building known to contain,


2.3. LOCAL 2.3.1. City of Los Angeles The City of Los Angeles has implemented a general plandocument that outlines specific objectives and guidelines for future growthrequires each local government to adopt a local General Plan, which must contain at least seven “elements”, also referred to as chapters or topics:

• Land Use • Transportation • Housing • Conservation • Noise • Open Space • Safety • Optional A city-specific building code establishes minimum development and building standards safeguard the public’s safety and welfare. 2.3.1.1. General Plan The General Plan System for the City of Los AngelUse Element comprised of 35 community plans, twelve citywide elements which address various citywide topics, a Monitoring System, and an Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure. The General Plan Framework Elemedevelopment policies by providing a comprehensive longThe Framework Element serves as subregional input to the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and provides a context for cooperative planning efforts between the City of Los Angeles, adjacent cities, and the County of Los Angeles. The Framework Element, along with the Air Quality Element and the Transportation Element, ensures conformity between the Los Angeles City General Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Regional Air Quality Management Plan. Comprehensive Plan and Guide include Growth Management and Mobility components.


The City of Los Angeles has implemented a general plan, which is a long range policy that outlines specific objectives and guidelines for future growth. California law

requires each local government to adopt a local General Plan, which must contain at least seven “elements”, also referred to as chapters or topics:

establishes minimum development and building standards safeguard the public’s safety and welfare.

The General Plan System for the City of Los Angeles includes the Framework Element, a Land Use Element comprised of 35 community plans, twelve citywide elements which address various citywide topics, a Monitoring System, and an Annual Report on Growth and

The General Plan Framework Element is a guide for communities to implement growth and development policies by providing a comprehensive long-range view of the City as a whole. The Framework Element serves as subregional input to the Southern California Association of

Comprehensive Plan and Guide and provides a context for cooperative planning efforts between the City of Los Angeles, adjacent cities, and the County of Los

The Framework Element, along with the Air Quality Element and the Transportation , ensures conformity between the Los Angeles City General Plan and the Regional

Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Regional Air Quality Management Plan. Comprehensive Plan and Guide include Growth Management and Mobility components.

Page 7


, which is a long range policy California law

requires each local government to adopt a local General Plan, which must contain at least

establishes minimum development and building standards to

es includes the Framework Element, a Land Use Element comprised of 35 community plans, twelve citywide elements which address various citywide topics, a Monitoring System, and an Annual Report on Growth and

nt is a guide for communities to implement growth and range view of the City as a whole.

The Framework Element serves as subregional input to the Southern California Association of Comprehensive Plan and Guide and provides a context for cooperative

planning efforts between the City of Los Angeles, adjacent cities, and the County of Los The Framework Element, along with the Air Quality Element and the Transportation , ensures conformity between the Los Angeles City General Plan and the Regional

Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Regional Air Quality Management Plan. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide include Growth Management and Mobility components.


2.3.1.2. City Codes The proposed Project routing options for build alternatives are entirely within the City of Los Angeles. Accordingly, the City of Los Angeles will likely have jurisdiction over permits and/or approvals. The purpose of the building codes are to prosafeguard the public’s safety and welfare by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location and maintenance of all dwellings, other structures, certain equipment and grading. Prior to issuancewill have to be prepared to address route specific geotechnical considerations. The City of Los Angeles has adopted the Los Angeles Building Code.Building Code adopts by reference portio Chapters 1 through 96 of the Los Angeles Building Code as published by the International Code Council are Divisions 1 through 96, respectively, of Article 1, Chapter IX, of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. For uniformitdivision and section numbers are stated in the published code. Angeles Building Code addresses grading permits.

2.3.2. City of Inglewood Although the proposed Project routing options foCity of Los Angeles, the City of Inglewood is located in the immediate vicinityInglewood’s General Plan is a long range policy document that sets forth goals, policies, and directions for the City’s growth. Code as its building code.

2.4. METHODOLOGY The existing geotechnical/subsurface/seismic conditions based on review of pertinent documents available inprepared by CGS, USGS, LAWA, reviewed. Existing surface conditions were observed in the field and by reviewing aerial photographs. Using this information, potential following CGS guidelines for geologic/seismic considerations in environmental impact reports (CDMG, 1986a) and current industry standards


The proposed Project routing options for build alternatives are entirely within the City of Los Angeles. Accordingly, the City of Los Angeles will likely have jurisdiction over permits and/or approvals. The purpose of the building codes are to provide minimum standards to safeguard the public’s safety and welfare by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location and maintenance of all dwellings, other structures, certain equipment and grading. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, geotechnical investigations will have to be prepared to address route specific geotechnical considerations.

The City of Los Angeles has adopted the Los Angeles Building Code. The Los Angeles Building Code adopts by reference portions of the California Building Code.

Chapters 1 through 96 of the Los Angeles Building Code as published by the International Code Council are Divisions 1 through 96, respectively, of Article 1, Chapter IX, of the Los

For uniformity with the California Building Code (CBC), only the division and section numbers are stated in the published code. Section 106 of the Los Angeles Building Code addresses grading permits.

Although the proposed Project routing options for build alternatives are entirely within the the City of Inglewood is located in the immediate vicinity.

Inglewood’s General Plan is a long range policy document that sets forth goals, policies, and ’s growth. The City of Inglewood has adopted the California Building

The existing geotechnical/subsurface/seismic conditions within the study areabased on review of pertinent documents available in the literature. Reports and maps

LAWA, City of Los Angeles, and others (see References) wxisting surface conditions were observed in the field and by reviewing aerial

photographs. Using this information, potential geologic hazards were identified by generally eologic/seismic considerations in environmental impact

(CDMG, 1986a) and current industry standards.

Page 8


The proposed Project routing options for build alternatives are entirely within the City of Los Angeles. Accordingly, the City of Los Angeles will likely have jurisdiction over permits and/or

vide minimum standards to safeguard the public’s safety and welfare by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location and maintenance of all dwellings, other structures, certain

of a grading permit, geotechnical investigations will have to be prepared to address route specific geotechnical considerations.

The Los Angeles

Chapters 1 through 96 of the Los Angeles Building Code as published by the International Code Council are Divisions 1 through 96, respectively, of Article 1, Chapter IX, of the Los

(CBC), only the Section 106 of the Los

r build alternatives are entirely within the The City of

Inglewood’s General Plan is a long range policy document that sets forth goals, policies, and The City of Inglewood has adopted the California Building

within the study area were evaluated and maps

see References) were xisting surface conditions were observed in the field and by reviewing aerial

geologic hazards were identified by generally eologic/seismic considerations in environmental impact


2.5. IMPACT THRESHOLDS 2.5.1. National Environmental According to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CRegulations Section 1500-1508), the determination of a significant impact is a function of both context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests and the locality. Both shortrefers to the severity of impact. To determine significance, the seexamined in terms of the type, quality and sensitivity of the resource involved; the location of the proposed project; the duration of the effect (shortof context. Adverse impacts will vsurrounding area. 2.5.2. California Environmental In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Metro Green Line to LAX Project would have a significant impact related to materials and mineral resources

• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:○ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated oEarthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;

○ Strong seismic ground shaking;

○ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;

○ Landslides.

• Result in substantial Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsubsidence, liquefaction or collapse;

• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;

• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water

• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;


nvironmental Policy Act

the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal 1508), the determination of a significant impact is a function of

both context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the

the locality. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. Intensity refers to the severity of impact. To determine significance, the severity of the impact must be examined in terms of the type, quality and sensitivity of the resource involved; the location of the proposed project; the duration of the effect (short- or long-term) and other consideration of context. Adverse impacts will vary with the setting of the proposed action and the

nvironmental Quality Act

In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Metro Green Line to LAX Project would have a significant impact related to geology an soils, hazards and hazardous materials and mineral resources if it would:

Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistEarthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;

Strong seismic ground shaking;

related ground failure, including liquefaction; and

Result in substantial Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;

Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;

Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;

Page 9


ederal 1508), the determination of a significant impact is a function of

both context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the

term effects are relevant. Intensity verity of the impact must be

examined in terms of the type, quality and sensitivity of the resource involved; the location of term) and other consideration

ary with the setting of the proposed action and the

In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Metro Green Line to LAX an soils, hazards and hazardous

Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of

n the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on

Result in substantial Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;

Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a lateral spreading,

B of the Uniform Building Code

septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,


• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;

• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous matesubstances, or waste within one

• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;

• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area

• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;

• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with plan or emergency evacuation plan;

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands;

• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; and/or

• Result in the loss of availability of a locallydelineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan


ate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials

Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous matesubstances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school

Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a gnificant hazard to the public or the environment;

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result

people residing or working in the project area;

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;

Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water;

Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Page 10


ate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials

Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;

Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety

an adopted emergency response

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water;

rtant mineral resource recovery site


3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1. REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC 3.1.1. Topography The Project routing options lie on the relatively levlocated on the northwestern margin of the Los Angeles Basin Physiographic province. The ground surface within the Project Study Areamean sea level (msl) on the east to Our review of the topographic maps for the (USGS, 1964) indicates local surfaceTopographically, the site is geneinto storm drain systems emptying into the Pacific Ocean located approximately 2 miles to the west of the Project Study Area 3.1.2. Geology The Project Study Area is located on the northwestern margiPhysiographic Province. The Los Angeles Basin, a structural trough, is a northwestalluviated lowland plain approximately 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. Mountains and hills that generally expose Late Cretaceous to Labound the Basin along the north(Santa Ana Mountains) and southeastthe Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California, is characterized primarily by four sub-parallel structural blocks, Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern and Central Blocks sliced longitudinally by young, steeply dipping northwestlocated at the northerly terminus of the Peninsular Ranges, is the site of active sedimentation and the strata is interpreted to be as much as 31,000 feet thick in the center of trough of the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The northern portion of the Southwestern block of the Los Angeles Basin. Present structural relief of the basin resulted chiefly from upper Miocene to lodifferential sinking, local uplift, folding and faulting. through present time as evidenced by warped Quaternary strata, relative uplift and subsidence of highland and lowland areas and historical earthquakeZone as well as other regional faults within the basin.


FFECTED ENVIRONMENT / EXISTING CONDITION

HYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING

lie on the relatively level, southeastward sloping Torrance plain located on the northwestern margin of the Los Angeles Basin Physiographic province. The

Project Study Area ranges from approximately Elevation +95 feet mean sea level (msl) on the east to Elevation +108 feet msl on the west.

topographic maps for the Venice and Inglewood 7.5-minute (USGS, 1964) indicates local surface-water sheet flow is generally toward the southTopographically, the site is generally level with sheet flow drainage over paved surfaces and into storm drain systems emptying into the Pacific Ocean located approximately 2 miles to

Project Study Area.

is located on the northwestern margin of the Los Angeles Basin The Los Angeles Basin, a structural trough, is a northwest

alluviated lowland plain approximately 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. Mountains and hills that generally expose Late Cretaceous to Late Pleistocene-age sedimentary and igneous rocks bound the Basin along the north (Santa Monica Mountains), northeast (Puente Hills)

and southeast (San Joaquin Hills) (Yerkes, 1965). The Basin, part of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California, is characterized primarily by four

parallel structural blocks, Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern and Central Blocks dinally by young, steeply dipping northwest-trending fault zones. The Basin,

located at the northerly terminus of the Peninsular Ranges, is the site of active sedimentation and the strata is interpreted to be as much as 31,000 feet thick in the center of trough of the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The Project Study Area is within northern portion of the Southwestern block of the Los Angeles Basin.

Present structural relief of the basin resulted chiefly from upper Miocene to lodifferential sinking, local uplift, folding and faulting. Deformation of the basin continues through present time as evidenced by warped Quaternary strata, relative uplift and subsidence of highland and lowland areas and historical earthquakes along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone as well as other regional faults within the basin.

Page 11


S

el, southeastward sloping Torrance plain located on the northwestern margin of the Los Angeles Basin Physiographic province. The

ranges from approximately Elevation +95 feet

minute quadrangles water sheet flow is generally toward the south-southeast.

rally level with sheet flow drainage over paved surfaces and into storm drain systems emptying into the Pacific Ocean located approximately 2 miles to

n of the Los Angeles Basin The Los Angeles Basin, a structural trough, is a northwest-trending

alluviated lowland plain approximately 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. Mountains and hills age sedimentary and igneous rocks

(Puente Hills), east (Yerkes, 1965). The Basin, part of

the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California, is characterized primarily by four parallel structural blocks, Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern and Central Blocks

trending fault zones. The Basin, located at the northerly terminus of the Peninsular Ranges, is the site of active sedimentation and the strata is interpreted to be as much as 31,000 feet thick in the center of the synclinal

is within the

Present structural relief of the basin resulted chiefly from upper Miocene to lower Pliocene Deformation of the basin continues

through present time as evidenced by warped Quaternary strata, relative uplift and subsidence Inglewood Fault


3.2. LOCAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC S The Project Study Area lies within a subTorrance Plain, a coastal lowland area that hawashes that drain the highland areas to the north. underlain by artificial fill overlying marine and nongreyish brown to light brown, pebbly gravels, sands, silts and clay (Geologic Map). The Torrance Plain is overlain to the west by the inactive El Segundo Sandhills, which consist of a threedunes stretching along the Pacific coast from the Ballona Escarpment to the Palos Verdes Hills (USGS, 1956). The geologic material within the Sandartificial fill overlying unconsolidated, poorl

Figure

Source: CGS, 2010


SETTING

lies within a sub-setting of the Los Angeles Basin known as the Torrance Plain, a coastal lowland area that has been elevated and dissected by streams and washes that drain the highland areas to the north. The Project Study Area is expected to be

overlying marine and non-marine sediments consisting of light n, pebbly gravels, sands, silts and clay (Figure 3.1.

The Torrance Plain is overlain to the west by the inactive El Segundo which consist of a three- to six-mile-wide belt of recent and older wind

dunes stretching along the Pacific coast from the Ballona Escarpment to the Palos Verdes The geologic material within the Sandhills is expected to consist of

artificial fill overlying unconsolidated, poorly graded, friable fine sands and occasional silt.

Figure 3.1. Regional Geologic Map

Page 12


setting of the Los Angeles Basin known as the s been elevated and dissected by streams and

is expected to be marine sediments consisting of light

Regional The Torrance Plain is overlain to the west by the inactive El Segundo

ent and older wind-blown sand dunes stretching along the Pacific coast from the Ballona Escarpment to the Palos Verdes

hills is expected to consist of y graded, friable fine sands and occasional silt.


3.2.1. Geologic Structure Geologic structure of alluvial and windblown soils is anticipated to be generallyto massive; however, it can be interpreted that crossstratification, transverse bar-tabular crosssedimentary structures can exist at depth. Dependent upon comaterials, these sedimentary features 3.2.2. Groundwater The Project Study Area is located within the West Coast Groundwater Basincontained by the Ballona Escarpment to the north, the east, the Palos Verdes Hills to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the westflow in the West Coast Groundwater Basin is primarily controlled by hydrologic properties of unconsolidated, permeable Quaternary sepermeable aquitards. Water bearing units and aquitards include the localized Semiperched Aquifer, the Upper and Lower Bellflower Aquitards, and the Gage Aquifer. The Gage Aquifer is underlain by the El Segundo Aquiclude and the Silverado Aquifer. Groundwater levels within the Project Study Areabelow ground surface (bgs). Groundwaterpumping practices. Zones of discthe Project Study Area, generally at depths of approximately 20 to 60 feet bgs. The Gage Aquifer is unconfined and encountered at approximately 100 to 110 feet bgs. The general flow direction is toward the southeast. The underlying El Segundo Aquiclude is estimated to be 40 to 100 feet thick, followed by the Silverado Aquifer located within the San Pedro Formation, which ranges from 100 to 500 feet thick. In the Project Study Area, west of the Gardena syncline, the El Segundo Aquitard is discontinuous, allowing the Gage Aquifer to merge with and become indistinguishable from the Silverado Aquifer. Regional groundwater flow in the West Coast Basin is generally westward towards the Pacific Ocean. However, groundwater historical dewatering of the freshwater aquifers. Tinitiated to control saltwater intrusionof freshwater injection wells installed groundwater generally flows westerly and is considered to be Sepulveda Boulevard, groundwaterinjection. The area east of Sepulvedathrough the City of Los Angeles and the Dominguez Channel. There are Study Area, as groundwater beneath


Geologic structure of alluvial and windblown soils is anticipated to be generallyto massive; however, it can be interpreted that cross-stratification, channel trough cross

tabular cross-stratification, thin bedding and laminated sedimentary structures can exist at depth. Dependent upon composition of geologic materials, these sedimentary features have the potential to perch groundwater.

located within the West Coast Groundwater Basin, which is contained by the Ballona Escarpment to the north, the Newport-Inglewood fault zone east, the Palos Verdes Hills to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Groundwater flow in the West Coast Groundwater Basin is primarily controlled by hydrologic properties of unconsolidated, permeable Quaternary sediments that are partially separated by less

. Water bearing units and aquitards include the localized Semiperched Aquifer, the Upper and Lower Bellflower Aquitards, and the Gage Aquifer. The Gage Aquifer is

Aquiclude and the Silverado Aquifer.

Project Study Area have historically been deeperroundwater depths can vary by season and in response todiscontinuous perched groundwater may be encountered within

, generally at depths of approximately 20 to 60 feet bgs.

The Gage Aquifer is unconfined and encountered at approximately 100 to 110 feet bgs. The oward the southeast. The underlying El Segundo Aquiclude is

estimated to be 40 to 100 feet thick, followed by the Silverado Aquifer located within the San Pedro Formation, which ranges from 100 to 500 feet thick. In the Project Study Area, west of

rdena syncline, the El Segundo Aquitard is discontinuous, allowing the Gage Aquifer to merge with and become indistinguishable from the Silverado Aquifer.

Regional groundwater flow in the West Coast Basin is generally westward towards the Pacific However, groundwater near LAX has been affected by saltwater intrusion

of the freshwater aquifers. The West Coast Basin Barrier Project was initiated to control saltwater intrusion by creating a groundwater barrier consistinof freshwater injection wells installed parallel to the coast. West of Sepulveda Boulevard

flows westerly and is considered to be of a brackish quality. ESepulveda Boulevard, groundwater generally flows to the east as a result of freshwater

The area east of Sepulveda Boulevard is located in drainage sub-basinCity of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Public Works storm drains to the

. There are no public drinking water wells located within the roundwater beneath it is not potable (i.e. pure enough for consumption).

Page 13


Geologic structure of alluvial and windblown soils is anticipated to be generally thickly bedded stratification, channel trough cross-

stratification, thin bedding and laminated mposition of geologic

potential to perch groundwater.

which is Inglewood fault zone to the

Groundwater flow in the West Coast Groundwater Basin is primarily controlled by hydrologic properties of

diments that are partially separated by less . Water bearing units and aquitards include the localized Semiperched

Aquifer, the Upper and Lower Bellflower Aquitards, and the Gage Aquifer. The Gage Aquifer is

deeper than 40 feet by season and in response to local

perched groundwater may be encountered within , generally at depths of approximately 20 to 60 feet bgs.

The Gage Aquifer is unconfined and encountered at approximately 100 to 110 feet bgs. The oward the southeast. The underlying El Segundo Aquiclude is

estimated to be 40 to 100 feet thick, followed by the Silverado Aquifer located within the San Pedro Formation, which ranges from 100 to 500 feet thick. In the Project Study Area, west of

rdena syncline, the El Segundo Aquitard is discontinuous, allowing the Gage Aquifer to

Regional groundwater flow in the West Coast Basin is generally westward towards the Pacific affected by saltwater intrusion due to he West Coast Basin Barrier Project was

by creating a groundwater barrier consisting of a series est of Sepulveda Boulevard,

quality. East of as a result of freshwater

basins that flows Los Angeles County Public Works storm drains to the drinking water wells located within the Project potable (i.e. pure enough for consumption).


Numerous existing groundwater monitoring vicinity are identified in Camp, Dr

3.3. FAULTS AND SEISMICITY 3.3.1. General The primary seismic hazards for sites in the region include strong ground shaking and surface fault rupture. Leighton’s discussion of faults potentially impacting the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and landuse criteria associated with faults. had surface displacement within Holocene Tis used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) as mandated by the AlquistEarthquake Faulting Zones Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in 2007 (Hart and Bryant, 2007). The intent of this act is to ensure tnot sited across the traces of active faults. Based on our review, the do not traverse an EFZ (CGS, 2000). A Regional Fault Map (Figure 3.to major regional faults. The closest activethe Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ)northwest-trending, approximately 2disrupting early Holocene to Late Pleistoceneseismic evidence that the zone is tectonically active; thus, the surrounding metropolitan area is subject to certain seismic risksbeen associated with the NIFZ since 1920 (Barrows, 1974). The proposed Project routing optionsSepulveda Boulevard (Jennings, 1977). The Charnock fault is an inferred fault paralleling the trend of the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ). The Charnock fault fails to displace the “50-foot gravel” of the Ballona Gap (Poland et al., 1959), but is depicted as cutting Pleistocene (11,000 to 180,000 years ago) deposits. The fault has not been observed at the surface, therefore its trace should be considered approximate. The Charnock fault is probably Pre-Holocene (11,000 years BP) and, thus, does not meet thefault based on currently available information.

1 Anticlinal folds are folds in a rock body from which the strata dip away in opposite directions. The core of the folds contain the oldest rocks, which convex upwards


groundwater monitoring wells within the study area and immediate identified in Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (2001).

he primary seismic hazards for sites in the region include strong ground shaking and surface discussion of faults potentially impacting the site is prefaced with a

scussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and landuse criteria associated with faults. By definition of the CGS, an active fault is a fault which has

within Holocene Time (about the last 11,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) as mandated by the AlquistEarthquake Faulting Zones Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in 2007 (Hart and Bryant, 2007). The intent of this act is to ensure that urban development and habitable structures are not sited across the traces of active faults. Based on our review, the Project routing options

an EFZ (CGS, 2000).

.2.) is attached to illustrate the proximity of the The closest active-zoned faults are is the Compton Thrust fault andFault Zone (NIFZ). The NIFZ, an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone,

pproximately 2- to 4-mile wide belt of anticlinal folds1 and faults disrupting early Holocene to Late Pleistocene-age and older deposits. There is abundant seismic evidence that the zone is tectonically active; thus, the surrounding metropolitan area ubject to certain seismic risks. At least five earthquakes of magnitude 4.9 or larger have

been associated with the NIFZ since 1920 (Barrows, 1974).

routing options cross a mapped trace of the Charnock fault east of rd (Jennings, 1977). The Charnock fault is an inferred fault paralleling the

trend of the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ). The Charnock fault fails to displace the foot gravel” of the Ballona Gap (Poland et al., 1959), but is depicted as cutting

Pleistocene (11,000 to 180,000 years ago) deposits. The fault has not been observed at the surface, therefore its trace should be considered approximate. The Charnock fault is probably Holocene (11,000 years BP) and, thus, does not meet the State’s definition of an active

fault based on currently available information.

1 Anticlinal folds are folds in a rock body from which the strata dip away in opposite directions. The core of the which convex upwards

Page 14


wells within the study area and immediate

he primary seismic hazards for sites in the region include strong ground shaking and surface discussion of faults potentially impacting the site is prefaced with a

scussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and land-By definition of the CGS, an active fault is a fault which has

11,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zones Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in 2007 (Hart and Bryant,

hat urban development and habitable structures are routing options

d to illustrate the proximity of the routing options s are is the Compton Thrust fault and

Priolo Fault Zone, is a and faults

age and older deposits. There is abundant seismic evidence that the zone is tectonically active; thus, the surrounding metropolitan area

At least five earthquakes of magnitude 4.9 or larger have

cross a mapped trace of the Charnock fault east of rd (Jennings, 1977). The Charnock fault is an inferred fault paralleling the

trend of the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ). The Charnock fault fails to displace the foot gravel” of the Ballona Gap (Poland et al., 1959), but is depicted as cutting the upper

Pleistocene (11,000 to 180,000 years ago) deposits. The fault has not been observed at the surface, therefore its trace should be considered approximate. The Charnock fault is probably

tate’s definition of an active

1 Anticlinal folds are folds in a rock body from which the strata dip away in opposite directions. The core of the


Sources: Esri, 2012; CGS, 2010; CGS, 2002

To properly evaluate potential seismic hazards, trouting options (western end, center, and eastern end) were selected for analysis (benchmark locations on Figure 3.2, Regional Fault Map).proximity and seismic ground motion hazard are similar for the three benchmark locations. For simplicity, only results for the central benchmark are presented. Regional faults within approximately 100 kilometers location (Sepulveda Boulevard) are summarized in the table below.on the statewide probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and the subsequent (CGS, 2003).


Figure 3.2. Regional Fault Map

s: Esri, 2012; CGS, 2010; CGS, 2002

To properly evaluate potential seismic hazards, three specific locations within the Project routing options (western end, center, and eastern end) were selected for analysis (benchmark

, Regional Fault Map).The results of our evaluation indicate that faultseismic ground motion hazard are similar for the three benchmark locations.

For simplicity, only results for the central benchmark are presented.

Regional faults within approximately 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the central benchmark considered capable of producing significant seismic shaking

below. The slip rates and maximum magnitude events are based on the statewide probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and the subsequent

Page 15


hree specific locations within the Project routing options (western end, center, and eastern end) were selected for analysis (benchmark

The results of our evaluation indicate that fault seismic ground motion hazard are similar for the three benchmark locations.

the central benchmark considered capable of producing significant seismic shaking

The slip rates and maximum magnitude events are based on the statewide probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and the subsequent update report


Table 3.1, Active Faults, is a summary of active faults, the approximate distance to thebenchmark location, the maximuestimated site intensity.

Sepulveda Boulevard (N33.9444° and W-118.3961) Abbreviated Fault Name

COMPTON THRUST

NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)

PALOS VERDES

SANTA MONICA

MALIBU COAST

HOLLYWOOD

ELYSIAN PARK THRUST

RAYMOND

ANACAPA-DUME

NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge)

VERDUGO

WHITTIER

SIERRA MADRE

SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)

SAN GABRIEL

SANTA SUSANA

CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT

SAN JOSE

HOLSER

SIMI-SANTA ROSA

OAK RIDGE (Onshore)

CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)

NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)

CUCAMONGA

SAN CAYETANO

ELSINORE-GLEN IVY


is a summary of active faults, the approximate distance to thelocation, the maximum earthquake magnitude, peak site acceleration, and

Table 3.1. Active Faults

Approximate Distance from

Routing Options

miles (km)

Estimated Maximum Earthquake Event

Maximum Earthquake Magnitude

(Mw)

Peak Site Acceleration (g)

4.7 6.8 0.524

5.0 6.9 0.411

5.2 7.1 0.426

9.3 6.6 0.296

10.3 6.7 0.282

10.4 6.4 0.235

12.6 6.7 0.227

16.2 6.5 0.146

18.5 7.3 0.212

19.4 6.9 0.154

19.4 6.7 0.134

21.9 6.8 0.114

23.4 7.0 0.131

25.2 6.7 0.095

26.7 7.0 0.106

27.5 6.6 0.078

28.0 6.5 0.071

30.3 6.5 0.064

31.9 6.5 0.059

33.9 6.7 0.063

34.7 6.9 0.072

35.2 6.7 0.060

36.9 6.9 0.065

40.1 7.0 0.063

41.1 6.8 0.052

44.0 6.8 0.048

Page 16


is a summary of active faults, the approximate distance to the m earthquake magnitude, peak site acceleration, and


Estimated Site

Intensity (Modified Mercalli)

X

X

X

IX

IX

IX

IX

VIII

VIII

VIII

VIII

VII

VIII

VII

VII

VII

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI



SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture

SAN ANDREAS - Mojave

OAK RIDGE(Blind Thrust Offshore)

CHANNEL IS. THRUST (Eastern)

VENTURA - PITAS POINT

SANTA YNEZ (East)

SAN ANDREAS - Carrizo

CORONADO BANK

MONTALVO-OAK RIDGE TREND

SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO

SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino

SAN ANDREAS - Southern

M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA

CLEGHORN

RED MOUNTAIN

ELSINORE-TEMECULA

SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY

GARLOCK (West)

PLEITO THRUST

BIG PINE

NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)

ROSE CANYON

NORTH CHANNEL SLOPE

SANTA YNEZ (West)

WHITE WOLF

HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT

SAN JACINTO-ANZA

SANTA ROSA ISLAND



Routing Options

miles (km)



(Mw)


44.9 7.8 0.110

44.9 7.1 0.060

48.6 6.9 0.045

50.0 7.4 0.064

51.3 6.8 0.038

52.4 7.0 0.045

52.7 7.2 0.054

53.9 7.4 0.062

54.8 6.6 0.030

55.0 6.7 0.033

55.8 7.3 0.055

55.8 7.4 0.060

58.1 6.7 0.030

59.2 6.5 0.025

60.8 6.8 0.030

63.6 6.8 0.030

64.2 6.8 0.028

SAN JACINTO VALLEY 66.7 6.9 0.030

67.7 7.1 0.036

68.2 7.2 0.035

69.4 6.7 0.024

69.7 7.0 0.029

79.2 6.9 0.024

79.3 7.1 0.026

80.3 6.9 0.024

82.4 7.2 0.027

84.5 7.1 0.027

86.0 7.2 0.028

86.7 6.9 0.020

Page 17



Estimated Site


VII

VI

VI

VI

V

VI

VI

VI

V

V

VI

VI

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

IV

V

V

V

IV



ELSINORE-JULIAN

NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)

LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS

GARLOCK (East)

PINTO MOUNTAIN

Source: EQFAULT (Blake, 2000) Note: Peak Site Acceleration based on Sadigh et al. (1997)

3.4. GROUND SHAKING Seismic hazards that could affect the earthquake occurring along one of several major active faults in the region. The magnitude of ground shaking is generally characterized by using the Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA). To take into consideratiomotion study was performed using the computer program EZEngineering, Inc., 2011) to estimate ground motion parameters for the site and the results are shown in Table 3.2, Ground Motion Study Results

Table

Event

Most Probable Event (MPE)

Operating Design Earthqua

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)

Upper-Bound Earthquake (UBE)

Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)

Source: Risk Engineering, Inc., 2011Note: Using an average of three NGA attenuation relationships.

The average of three different Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) relationships by Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) and Chiou and Youngs (2007the analysis. The results of the analysis suggest that the PHGA, with



Routing Options

miles (km)



(Mw)


88.5 7.1 0.025

93.3 6.7 0.015

93.5 7.3 0.028

95.1 7.3 0.027

96.3 7.0 0.021

Peak Site Acceleration based on Sadigh et al. (1997)

Seismic hazards that could affect the routing option include ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along one of several major active faults in the region. The magnitude of ground shaking is generally characterized by using the Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA). To take into consideration the impact of regional faults, a site-specific ground motion study was performed using the computer program EZ-FRISK Version 7.

) to estimate ground motion parameters for the site and the results are , Ground Motion Study Results.

Table 3.2. Ground Motion Study Results

Average Return Period

Sepulveda Boulevard

Most Probable Event (MPE) 72 years

Operating Design Earthquake (ODE) 200 years

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) 475 years

Bound Earthquake (UBE) 949 years

Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) 2,000 years

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) 2,475 years

: Risk Engineering, Inc., 2011 Note: Using an average of three NGA attenuation relationships.

different Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) relationships by Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) and Chiou and Youngs (2007

s. The results of the analysis suggest that the PHGA, with a 10 percent probability

Page 18



Estimated Site


V

IV

V

V

IV

de ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along one of several major active faults in the region. The magnitude of ground shaking is generally characterized by using the Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration

specific ground FRISK Version 7.62 (Risk

) to estimate ground motion parameters for the site and the results are

Sepulveda Boulevard

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.49

0.58

0.61

different Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) relationships by Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) and Chiou and Youngs (2007) were used in

a 10 percent probability


of exceedance in 50 years (recurrence interval of 475 years), is in the order of approximately 0.40g to 0.41g. This level of ground motion is considered the Design Basis (DBE). The PHGA, with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (recurrence interval of 949 years), is in the order of approximately 0.49gconsidered the Upper-Bound Earthquake (UBE). The design criteria set by Metrorequires that for important structures, such as those comprising the proposed project, special earthquake protection criteria be followedfor the Metro Rail projects includes maintaining public safety during and after a Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE), and alsooperation during and after an Operating Design Earthquake (ODE). the earthquake event with a 40 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of 200 years. Such an event can reasonably be expected to occur during the 100earthquake event with a 5 percent probability ofto an average recurrence interval of 2,000 years. Other design criteria for the seismic design of the proposed project are the Most ProbEvent (MPE) and the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The MPE is defined as the earthquake event with a 50 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of approximately 75 years. The MCE is deearthquake event with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of approximately 2,500 years. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) uses the MCE as the basis for seismic design reoverview of regional historical seismicity see


of exceedance in 50 years (recurrence interval of 475 years), is in the order of approximately . This level of ground motion is considered the Design Basis Earthquake PHGA, with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (recurrence

the order of approximately 0.49g. This level of ground motion is Bound Earthquake (UBE).

teria set by Metro (Rail and Transit Design Criteria and Standards, 1996) requires that for important structures, such as those comprising the proposed project, special earthquake protection criteria be followed. The driving philosophy behind earthquake de

includes maintaining public safety during and after a Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE), and also imparting confidence in the overall system’s continued operation during and after an Operating Design Earthquake (ODE). The ODE is defined as the earthquake event with a 40 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of 200 years. Such an event can reasonably be expected to occur during the 100-year facility design life. The MDE is defined as the earthquake event with a 5 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of 2,000 years.

Other design criteria for the seismic design of the proposed project are the Most ProbEvent (MPE) and the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The MPE is defined as the earthquake event with a 50 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of approximately 75 years. The MCE is defined as the earthquake event with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of approximately 2,500 years. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) uses the MCE as the basis for seismic design requirements. For a general overview of regional historical seismicity see Figure 3.3, Historical Seismicity Map

Page 19


of exceedance in 50 years (recurrence interval of 475 years), is in the order of approximately Earthquake

PHGA, with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (recurrence . This level of ground motion is

(Rail and Transit Design Criteria and Standards, 1996) requires that for important structures, such as those comprising the proposed project, special

. The driving philosophy behind earthquake design includes maintaining public safety during and after a Maximum

confidence in the overall system’s continued E is defined as

the earthquake event with a 40 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of 200 years. Such an event can reasonably be

he MDE is defined as the exceedance in 100 years, which corresponds

Other design criteria for the seismic design of the proposed project are the Most Probable Event (MPE) and the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The MPE is defined as the earthquake event with a 50 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds

fined as the earthquake event with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds to an average recurrence interval of approximately 2,500 years. The 2010 California Building

For a general Historical Seismicity Map.


Figure

Sources: Esri, 2012; USGS, 2011

3.5. LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a build up of poreduring severe ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine- to medium-grained, cohesioninclude sand boils, excessive settlement, bearing capacity failures, and lateral spreading. A review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Inglewood, and Venice 7.5 Minute Quadrangles (CDMG, 1999) indicates tidentified as being susceptible to liquefaction, as depicted onMap, Seismic Hazards Zone Map.


Figure 3.3. Historical Seismicity Map

Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a build up of pore-water pressure during severe ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density),

grained, cohesion-less soils. Effects of severe liquefaction can include sand boils, excessive settlement, bearing capacity failures, and lateral spreading.

A review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Inglewood, and Venice 7.5 Minute Quadrangles (CDMG, 1999) indicates that the routing option is not located in an area identified as being susceptible to liquefaction, as depicted on Figure 3.4. Seismic Hazard

Hazards Zone Map.

Page 20


water pressure during severe ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density),

s soils. Effects of severe liquefaction can include sand boils, excessive settlement, bearing capacity failures, and lateral spreading.

A review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Inglewood, and Venice 7.5 Minute is not located in an area

. Seismic Hazard


Figure

Sources: Esri, 2012; CGS, 2003

3.6. SEISMICALLY-INDUCED S Seismically-induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). These settlements occuwithin loose to moderately dense sandy soil, due to a reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event. Much of the artificial fill along the proposed Also, substantial portions of the sandy alluvium within the El Segundo Sand Hills along the routing option are anticipated to be loose or medium dense. Accordingly, the proposed routing option is deemed susceptible to seismically


Figure 3.4. Seismic Hazard Map

SETTLEMENT

induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and induced settlement (below groundwater). These settlements occu

within loose to moderately dense sandy soil, due to a reduction in volume during and shortly

Much of the artificial fill along the proposed routing option is expected to be uncertified. the sandy alluvium within the El Segundo Sand Hills along the

are anticipated to be loose or medium dense. Accordingly, the proposed is deemed susceptible to seismically-induced settlement.

Page 21


induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and induced settlement (below groundwater). These settlements occur primarily

within loose to moderately dense sandy soil, due to a reduction in volume during and shortly

is expected to be uncertified. the sandy alluvium within the El Segundo Sand Hills along the

are anticipated to be loose or medium dense. Accordingly, the proposed


3.7. LANDSLIDES According to the Los Angeles County Seismic Safety Element (1990) and the City of Los Angeles Safety Element (1996), the having a potential for slope instability. Additionally, the within an area identified as having a potential for seismic slope instability (CDMG, 1999). There are no known landslides near the proposed path of any known or potential landslides.flat; therefore, the potential of landslides is considered low.

3.8. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8.1. Urban Contamination Throughout the Project Study Area, the routing optionsindustrial and commercial propertiesinternational airport facility. Due to the nature of the activities that occur at these facilities/businesses, the potential for encountering preduring any construction project, particularly within an urban areaidentifies historical and current facilities/property uses and related environmental issues can potentially affect construction activities Classification criteria used to identify the potential impacts of propertStudy Area are as follows:

• High: Facilities with known or along the routing options (i.e.undocumented and the contamination is known or suspected to exist on the site

• Moderate: On-site facilities generators), or sites that have residual contaminsubject to remediation efforts. Facilities where upgroundwater contamination Area are classified as Moderate. background that typically useare also classified as Moderate

• Low: Facilities that completed remediation, have not reported releases of hazardous substances, or have historically utilized only small amounts of known contaminants (i.esmall quantity generators) and are unlikely to negatively affect the

Properties identified to present a high risk to the Project 3.3, High Priority Environmental Concern Sites Priority/Concern.


Angeles County Seismic Safety Element (1990) and the City of Los Angeles Safety Element (1996), the Project Study Area is not within an area identified as having a potential for slope instability. Additionally, the Project Study Area is not located

an area identified as having a potential for seismic slope instability (CDMG, 1999). There are no known landslides near the proposed Project routing options, nor are they in the path of any known or potential landslides. The topography of the routing option flat; therefore, the potential of landslides is considered low.

ATERIALS

Throughout the Project Study Area, the routing options traverse urbanized areas with properties, parking lots, gasoline stations, open space, and an . Due to the nature of the activities that occur at these

he potential for encountering pre-existing hazardous waste material ect, particularly within an urban area, is possible.

historical and current facilities/property uses and related environmental issues affect construction activities in the Project Study Area.

to identify the potential impacts of properties located within the Project

acilities with known or highly probable soil/groundwater contamination(i.e., LUSTs and facilities where remediation is incomplete or

undocumented and the contamination is known or suspected to exist on the site

site facilities with potential soil contamination (i.e., USTs, largesites that have residual contamination from releases that may have been

subject to remediation efforts. Facilities where up-gradient, offsite properties have groundwater contamination that has the potential to migrate beneath the Project Study Area are classified as Moderate. Facilities with a heavy industrial/manufacturing background that typically use, or have used, significant quantities of hazardous materials

as Moderate.

acilities that completed remediation, have not reported releases of hazardous nces, or have historically utilized only small amounts of known contaminants (i.e

small quantity generators) and are unlikely to negatively affect the Project Study Area

Properties identified to present a high risk to the Project Study Area are present, High Priority Environmental Concern Sites and Figure 3.5, Environmental Sites of High

Page 22


Angeles County Seismic Safety Element (1990) and the City of Los is not within an area identified as

is not located an area identified as having a potential for seismic slope instability (CDMG, 1999).

, nor are they in the tion is relatively

urbanized areas with ng lots, gasoline stations, open space, and an

. Due to the nature of the activities that occur at these existing hazardous waste material

possible. This report historical and current facilities/property uses and related environmental issues that

located within the Project

probable soil/groundwater contamination located ere remediation is incomplete or

undocumented and the contamination is known or suspected to exist on the site).

, large-quantity ation from releases that may have been gradient, offsite properties have

that has the potential to migrate beneath the Project Study with a heavy industrial/manufacturing significant quantities of hazardous materials

acilities that completed remediation, have not reported releases of hazardous nces, or have historically utilized only small amounts of known contaminants (i.e.

Project Study Area.

are presented in Table Environmental Sites of High


Table 3.3. High Priority Environment

Map ID

Database Type Site Name

1 CERCLIS, RCRAGN, UST, HWMAN

Transportation Security Administration at LAX

3 OTHER, RCRAGN, UST

Regency Development Corp.

4 LUST, RCRAGN, ERNS, UST, HWMAN

Budget Rent

9 LUST, UST, RCRAGN LAFD – 95

10 LUST, SPILLS, UST, ERNS, RCRAGN, HWMAN

LAX Fuel

23 ERNS LAX Fuel Corp.

40 WDS (identified on Geotracker), UST

Skyview Center

45 LUST, UST, HWMAN Resort Rent A Car

54 SPILLS, LUST, UST Delta Airlines

62 LUST, UST, ERNS, RCRAGN, HWMAN

LAX Terminal 1

64 ERNS LAX Fuel Corp.

67 LUST, HWMAN LAX Terminal 6

68 LUST Avis Car Rental

69 LUST King Delivery Inc(Dollar parking lot)

70 SPILLS Honeywell International Corp.

Note: Database Type in bold typeface indicates a release to soil and/or groundwater that is not a closed case or an ERNS release that may have been a large quantity a


. High Priority Environmental Concern Sites

Site Name Address Los Angeles, 90045

Finding

Transportation Security Administration at LAX

5757 W Century Blvd.

• Discovery 11/25/2008, prescreening 8/31/2010

Regency Development Corp.

9700 Bellanca Ave. • LA County Site Mitigation ListStatus not reported

Budget Rent-A-Car 9775 Airport Blvd. • Open – Remediation

– Fire Station 10010 International Rd.

• Gasoline release to soil• Open – Verification Monitoring

LAX Fuel 1 World Way • Spills: Release of other solvent or non-petroleum hydrocarbon to groundwater

• Open – Remediation• LUST 1: Diesel release to soil • Case Closed • LUST 2: Hydrocarbon release • Open – Remedial Action

LAX Fuel Corp. 96th St. & Sepulveda Blvd.

• Smell reported from sewer, truck sent to cleanup; however source of leak unclear

Skyview Center 6053 Century Blvd. • Ozone injection to mitigate diesel compounds to soil

• Open Resort Rent A Car 6151 98th St. • Release of diesel to soil

• Open – Site AssessmentDelta Airlines 6150 W Century

Blvd. • Spills 1 – No Furthe• Spills 2 – Release of solvents to groundwater

• Open – Verification MonitoringLAX Terminal 1 100 World Way • Release of gasoline to soil

• Open – Site AssessmentLAX Fuel Corp. 700 World Way • Release of jet fuel 9/8/94

• Quantity reported to be “400”• No additional information

LAX Terminal 6 600 World Way • Release of aviation fuel to soil• Open – Site Assessment

Avis Car Rental 9419 Airport Blvd. • Release of gasoline to • Open – Verification

King Delivery Inc. (Dollar parking lot)

5600 Arbor Vitae St. • Release of gasoline to • Open –Remedial Action

Honeywell International Corp.

9225 Aviation Blvd. • Release of petroleum/fuels/oils VOCs to soil and groundwater

• Open – Site AssessmentNote: Database Type in bold typeface indicates a release to soil and/or groundwater that is not a closed case or an ERNS release that may have been a large quantity and the cleanup method was not listed.

Page 23


Finding

Discovery 11/25/2008, pre-Cerclis screening 8/31/2010

LA County Site Mitigation List Status not reported

Remediation

Gasoline release to soil

Verification Monitoring

Spills: Release of other solvent or petroleum hydrocarbon to

Remediation

LUST 1: Diesel release to soil

LUST 2: Hydrocarbon release

Remedial Action

Smell reported from sewer, vacuum truck sent to cleanup; however source of leak unclear

Ozone injection to mitigate diesel compounds to soil

Release of diesel to soil

Site Assessment

No Further Action

Release of solvents to

Verification Monitoring

Release of gasoline to soil

Site Assessment

t fuel 9/8/94

Quantity reported to be “400”

No additional information

Release of aviation fuel to soil

Site Assessment

Release of gasoline to groundwater

erification Monitoring

Release of gasoline to groundwater

Remedial Action

Release of petroleum/fuels/oils and VOCs to soil and groundwater

Site Assessment

Note: Database Type in bold typeface indicates a release to soil and/or groundwater that is not a closed case or an ERNS


Figure 3.5. Environmental Sites of High

Source: ConnectLAX, 2011

3.8.2. Oil and Gas The western portion of the Project Study Area is located adjacent to the northern limit of a methane buffer zone associated with the El Segundo Oil Field. The El Segundo Oil Field located approximately 1.3 miles south of the southernmost Project to the town of EI Segundo and the Standard Oil Company's El Segundo refinery site. The ofield is served and bisected by several major highways connecting the Marina Del Rey, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach on the west side of the Los Angeles Basin. approximate location of the oil field and its position with respect the Project are shown on Figure 3.6, Methane Hazards and Resources (DOGGR) Oil Wells. Common features associated with oil field properties include the release of methane and hydrogen sulfide soil leaking wells, and wells not plugged and abandoned to current standards. identifies at least one abandoned oil wellCentury Boulevard.


. Environmental Sites of High-Priority/Concern

The western portion of the Project Study Area is located adjacent to the northern limit of a er zone associated with the El Segundo Oil Field. The El Segundo Oil Field

located approximately 1.3 miles south of the southernmost Project routing optionsto the town of EI Segundo and the Standard Oil Company's El Segundo refinery site. The ofield is served and bisected by several major highways connecting the Marina Del Rey, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach on the west side of the Los Angeles Basin. approximate location of the oil field and its position with respect the Project routing

, Methane Hazards and Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Oil Wells. Common features associated with oil field properties include

the release of methane and hydrogen sulfide soil gas, oil seepage, tar impregnated soils, plugged and abandoned to current standards. The DOGGR

identifies at least one abandoned oil well (inactive, plugged) previously located northerly of W.

Page 24


The western portion of the Project Study Area is located adjacent to the northern limit of a er zone associated with the El Segundo Oil Field. The El Segundo Oil Field

routing options, adjacent to the town of EI Segundo and the Standard Oil Company's El Segundo refinery site. The oil field is served and bisected by several major highways connecting the Marina Del Rey, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach on the west side of the Los Angeles Basin. The

routing options , Gas and Geothermal

Oil Wells. Common features associated with oil field properties include gas, oil seepage, tar impregnated soils,

The DOGGR previously located northerly of W.


Figure 3.6. Methane Hazards and DOGGR Oil Wells

Sources: Esri, 2012; DOGGR, 2010; City of Los Angeles, 2004

Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide areunderground segments and other excavations through soil and also through discontinuities (fractures, faults, etc.) in bedrock. construction and operation to ensure that they do not adversely impact constructioperation of the system. Methane: Methane (CH4) is a naturally occurring the decomposition of organic materials. Methane is common in oil and gas fields and often occurs associated with hydrogen sulfide gas. toxic. Rather, it is considered asphyxiating ascompared to air of 0.55) is lighter than air and tends to rise through the ground and dissipateIts concentrations are typically reported as percent volume in air relative to the lower and upper explosive limits, 5 and 15 percent volume respectively.


. Methane Hazards and DOGGR Oil Wells

, 2012; DOGGR, 2010; City of Los Angeles, 2004

and Hydrogen Sulfide are considered hazardous. These gases may seep into d other excavations through soil and also through discontinuities

(fractures, faults, etc.) in bedrock. As such, they require special consideration for both the construction and operation to ensure that they do not adversely impact constructi

is a naturally occurring colorless and odorless gas associated with the decomposition of organic materials. Methane is common in oil and gas fields and often occurs associated with hydrogen sulfide gas. Methane gas, while explosive, is not highly

is considered asphyxiating as oxygen is displaced. Methane (relative is lighter than air and tends to rise through the ground and dissipateically reported as percent volume in air relative to the lower and

upper explosive limits, 5 and 15 percent volume respectively.

Page 25


seep into the d other excavations through soil and also through discontinuities

As such, they require special consideration for both the construction and operation to ensure that they do not adversely impact construction and

gas associated with the decomposition of organic materials. Methane is common in oil and gas fields and often

gas, while explosive, is not highly relative density

is lighter than air and tends to rise through the ground and dissipate. ically reported as percent volume in air relative to the lower and


Hydrogen Sulfide: Hydrogen sulfide organic and inorganic matter that conhighly toxic when inhaled. A mixture of Hydrogen Sulfide and air is considered explosiveHydrogen sulfide (relative density accumulate above the groundwater table and within depressionsHydrogen Sulfide concentrations are typically reported as part per million (ppm) with maximum allowable in the working environment being 10 ppm. limits are 4.3 and 45.5 percent volume respectively.

3.9. MINERAL RESOURCES Regarding loss of mineral resources, the geologic materials, such as sand and gravel, that may be considered mineral resources and which could be used as construction aggregate. However, been previously mined in the area, mining the material uneconomical.

3.10. EXISTING STRUCTURES Construction and operation of the various alternatives beinsubterranean disturbances. The and in industrial and commercial areas. Proposed structures are generally within the right-of-way (ROW) or within areas of structures will remain outside of the Project ROW planned construction. Although proper design and careful installation of shoring can typically mitigate potential disturbances to structures adjacent to excavations, the need for additional protection measures will ultimately depend on excavation methods, existing building foundations, and whether the buildings can satisfactorily accommodate the expected settlement due excavation-related deformation. Foundation layouts during advanced conceptual engineering activity A survey of existing buildings and infrastructure likely to be impacted by the project will be essential to help identify structures that may require the implementation of additional protection measures. The potential settlement of existing structures adjacent to planned shoring and excavation should also be evaluated. Sensitive structures, those that may be damaged by minor settlement (less than ¼ inch), may require underpinning. A survey of existing utilities potentially impacted by the Project was performed by others (ConnectLAX, 2011a). A preliminary survey of existing building foundations was performed as part of the current study.


Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is produced by the anaerobic decomposition of organic and inorganic matter that contains sulfur, distinguished by its rotten eggs smell

A mixture of Hydrogen Sulfide and air is considered explosivedensity compared to air of 1.189) is heavier than air and tends to

above the groundwater table and within depressions within the ground.Hydrogen Sulfide concentrations are typically reported as part per million (ppm) with maximum allowable in the working environment being 10 ppm. Its lower and upper explosive

re 4.3 and 45.5 percent volume respectively.

Regarding loss of mineral resources, the Project Study Area traverses areas underlain by geologic materials, such as sand and gravel, that may be considered mineral resources and

be used as construction aggregate. However, since these materials have not been previously mined in the area, mining the material has likely been found to be

Construction and operation of the various alternatives being considered may result in The Project routing options are located within an

industrial and commercial areas. Proposed structures are generally within the within areas to be acquired for the Project ROW. However, a number

will remain outside of the Project ROW within the zone of influence of the

Although proper design and careful installation of shoring can typically mitigate potential sturbances to structures adjacent to excavations, the need for additional protection measures will ultimately depend on excavation methods, existing building foundations, and whether the buildings can satisfactorily accommodate the expected settlement due

related deformation. Foundation layouts for affected buildings will be obtained during advanced conceptual engineering activity.

A survey of existing buildings and infrastructure likely to be impacted by the project will be p identify structures that may require the implementation of additional

protection measures. The potential settlement of existing structures adjacent to planned shoring and excavation should also be evaluated. Sensitive structures, those that may be

ged by minor settlement (less than ¼ inch), may require underpinning.

A survey of existing utilities potentially impacted by the Project was performed by others A preliminary survey of existing building foundations was performed as

Page 26


is produced by the anaerobic decomposition of , distinguished by its rotten eggs smell. It is

A mixture of Hydrogen Sulfide and air is considered explosive. ) is heavier than air and tends to

within the ground. Hydrogen Sulfide concentrations are typically reported as part per million (ppm) with

Its lower and upper explosive

traverses areas underlain by geologic materials, such as sand and gravel, that may be considered mineral resources and

these materials have not been found to be

g considered may result in an existing airport

industrial and commercial areas. Proposed structures are generally within the Project . However, a number

within the zone of influence of the

Although proper design and careful installation of shoring can typically mitigate potential sturbances to structures adjacent to excavations, the need for additional protection measures will ultimately depend on excavation methods, existing building foundations, and whether the buildings can satisfactorily accommodate the expected settlement due to

will be obtained

A survey of existing buildings and infrastructure likely to be impacted by the project will be p identify structures that may require the implementation of additional

protection measures. The potential settlement of existing structures adjacent to planned shoring and excavation should also be evaluated. Sensitive structures, those that may be

A survey of existing utilities potentially impacted by the Project was performed by others A preliminary survey of existing building foundations was performed as


3.10.1. Central Terminal Area Existing structures potentially impacted by Project routing options include multipassenger terminal buildings, elevated roadway structures, multicontrol towers, central plant, theme buildingMost of the structures are supported on shallow spreadthat extend several feet below the lowest floor level (Camp, DresserStructures founded on deep fill are supported on drilled piles ranging in diameter from 18 inches for parking structures to 8 feet for elevated roadways (Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., 2001).

Sources: ConnectLAX, 2011, LADBS Building Records


Existing structures potentially impacted by Project routing options include multipassenger terminal buildings, elevated roadway structures, multi-story parking structures,

theme building, and ancillary maintenance facilitiesMost of the structures are supported on shallow spread-type foundations (footings, mats) that extend several feet below the lowest floor level (Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., 2001)Structures founded on deep fill are supported on drilled piles ranging in diameter from 18 inches for parking structures to 8 feet for elevated roadways (Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.,

Figure 3.7. Existing Structures

ConnectLAX, 2011, LADBS Building Records

Page 27


Existing structures potentially impacted by Project routing options include multi-story story parking structures,

, and ancillary maintenance facilities (Figure 3.7). type foundations (footings, mats)

& McKee, Inc., 2001). Structures founded on deep fill are supported on drilled piles ranging in diameter from 18 inches for parking structures to 8 feet for elevated roadways (Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.,


3.10.2. Off-Airport Area Existing structures potentially impacted by Project routing options include buildings (primarily along Century Boulevard and Aistructures, warehouse buildings, office buildings, and retail structuresdatabase of existing buildings potentially impacted by the Project is shown in Airport Area Structures. The database was compiled using publicly available information and visual inspection. Based on the available information, highappear to be supported on pile foundations. Warehouse buildings and retail structures appear to be supported on shallow spread


Existing structures potentially impacted by Project routing options include highprimarily along Century Boulevard and Airport Boulevard), multi-story parking

structures, warehouse buildings, office buildings, and retail structures (Figure potentially impacted by the Project is shown in Table

Airport Area Structures. The database was compiled using publicly available information and

Based on the available information, high-rise buildings and multi-story parking structures pported on pile foundations. Warehouse buildings and retail structures

appear to be supported on shallow spread-type foundations (footings, mats).

Page 28


high-rise hotel story parking

Figure 3.7). An initial Table 3.4, Off-

Airport Area Structures. The database was compiled using publicly available information and

story parking structures pported on pile foundations. Warehouse buildings and retail structures


Table

Street Address Parcel Number

9430 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020008

9432 S BELLANCA AVE

4125021007

9420 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020007

9400 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020007

- 4125020006

9326 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020006

9310 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020006

- 4125020006

9201 S PORTAL AVE 4125020005

5630 W ARBOR VITAE ST/9201 S BELLANCA

AVE 4125020016

- 4125020016

9221 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020016

- 4125020016

9301 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020016

- 4125020016

- 4125020016

- 4125020016

- 4125020016

9319-9323 S BELLANCA AVE

4125020012

5651-5661 W 96TH ST 4125021025

5701-5721 W 96TH ST 4125021014

5735-5737 W 96TH ST 4125021008

5730 W ARBOR VITAE ST

4125020002

5740 W ARBOR VITAE ST

4125020001

5755-5763 W 96TH ST 4125021024


Table 3.4. Off-Airport Area Structures

Parcel Area (sq. ft.)

Full Geotechnical

Report Available

Stories Foundation Information

4125020008 26589.90 - -

4125021007 70095.50 - -

4125020007 15394.30 - -

4125020007 20972.60 - -

4125020006 18985.70 - -

4125020006 36253.20 - -

4125020006 36276.40 - -

4125020006 36299.30 - -

4125020005 36237.20 - -

4125020016 14360.00 - -

4125020016 13375.80 - -

4125020016 14850.90 - -

4125020016 13750.80 - -

4125020016 14850.90 - -

4125020016 13750.90 - -

4125020016 3750.20 - -

4125020016 4050.20 - -

4125020016 89331.20 - -

4125020012 82317.90 - -

4125021025 137616.90 - 1*

4125021014 130778.00 - 1*

4125021008 43560.60 - 1*

4125020002 102021.50 - -

4125020001 68136.90 - -

4125021024 119827.90 - 1*

Page 29


Foundation Information

-

Area 1 on Figure 3.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



5767-5771 W 96TH ST 4125021010

- 4125020014

5760-5800 W ARBOR VITAE ST

4125020014

9520 S BELFORD AVE/5815 W 96TH ST

4125023007

9514 S BELFORD AVE 4125023917

9508-9512 1/2 S BELFORD AVE

4125023909


4125023908

9426-9436 S BELFORD AVE

4125023915


4125023900


4125023001

9406 S BELFORD AVE 4125022906

9400 S BELFORD AVE 4125022909

9324 S BELFORD AVE 4125022014

9318 S BELFORD AVE 4125022014

9312 S BELFORD AVE 4125022014

9306 S BELFORD AVE 4125022905

9300 S BELFORD AVE 4125022900

5819 W 93RD ST 4125022900

5823-5829 1/2 W 93RD ST

4125022915

5833-5839 W 93RD ST 4125022914

5841 W 93RD ST 4125022910

5847 W 93RD ST 4125022910

9519 S BELFORD AVE/5831 W 96TH ST

4125023905

5833-5837 W 96TH ST 4125023902

5839-5843 1/2 W 96TH ST

4125023904

5845-5851 W 96TH ST 4125023912

5855 W 96TH ST 4125023907

9420-9440 S AIRPORT BLVD

4125023903



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4125021010 98028.20 - 1*

4125020014 50362.70 - -

4125020014 122584.20 - -

4125023007 7981.40 - -

4125023917 7440.50 - -

4125023909 7440.50 - -

4125023908 7440.50 - -

4125023915 7440.50 - -

4125023900 7440.50 - -

4125023001 7650.80 - -

4125022906 7337.30 - -

5022909 7200.50 - -

4125022014 7200.40 - -

4125022014 7200.50 - -

4125022014 7440.10 - -

4125022905 7213.10 - -

4125022900 11785.90 - -

4125022900 9281.00 - -

4125022915 7334.00 - -

4125022914 7200.50 - -

4125022910 7200.50 - -

4125022910 7750.50 - -

4125023905 6398.40 - -

4125023902 6311.20 - -

4125023904 6311.20 - -

4125023912 6311.20 - -

4125023907 6129.90 - -

4125023903 81612.50 - -

Page 30



-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-




4125023910

5836 W 95TH ST 4125023922

5842 W 95TH ST 4125023925

5848 W 95TH ST 4125023923

5854 W 95TH ST 4125023924

5855 W 95TH ST 4125023924

5849 W 95TH ST 4125023924

5843 W 95TH ST 4125023901

5833-5837 1/2 W 95TH ST

4125023911


4125023914

9410 S AIRPORT BLVD

4125022903

- 4125022901

5860-5880 W 93RD ST/9311-9400 S BELFORD AVE

4125022901

5705 W 98TH ST 4125024022

5707 W 98TH ST 4125024022

5721 W 98TH ST 4125024010

5739 W 98TH ST 4125024011

5807 W 98TH ST 4125024019

- 4125024019

5835 W 98TH ST 4125024016

- 4125024013

9750 S AIRPORT BLVD

4125024020

9620 S AIRPORT BLVD

4125023034

5760 W 96TH ST 4125024026

5730-5736 W 96TH ST 4125024028

5716-5720 W 96TH ST 4125024027

5706 W 96TH ST 4125024024

5700 W 96TH ST 4125024024



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4125023910 7285.80 - -

4125023922 6232.60 - -

4125023925 6012.10 - -

4125023923 7613.20 - -

4125023924 8393.40 - -

4125023924 8489.90 - -

4125023924 7018.20 - -

4125023901 6225.50 - -

4125023911 6228.30 - -

4125023914 6999.90 - -

4125022903 28301.20 - -

5022901 1146.90 - -

4125022901 138082.70 - -

4125024022 112604.70 - 2*

4125024022 54432.00 - 2*

4125024010 54038.30 - -

4125024011 106858.10 - -

4125024019 45002.80 - 1*

4125024019 7493.70 - -

4125024016 67504.70 - -

4125024013 11236.80 - -

4125024020 124223.80 Yes 5 Shallow

Foundations

4125023034 114053.00 - 11*

4125024026 74601.00 - 1*

4125024028 41954.50 1*

4125024027 60831.40 Yes 1 Shallow

Foundations

4125024024 41981.20 - 2*

4125024024 8968.50 - 2*

Page 31



-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Shallow Foundations

-

-

-

Shallow Foundations

-

-




4125024024

- 4125024003

- 4125024002


4125024025

9601 S BELFORD AVE 4125023926


4125023913

9613 S BELFORD AVE 4125023016

9619 S BELFORD AVE 4125023015


4125023906


4125023927


4125023919


4125023921


4125023920

9606 S BELFORD AVE 4125023916

9600 S BELFORD AVE 4125023918

9601 S AIRPORT BLVD

4124009921

- 4124029026

5900 W 96TH PL 4124029026

- 4124029025

5906-5910 W 96TH PL 4124029011

- 4124029024

5912 W 96TH PL 4124029024

- 4124029029

5918 W 96TH PL 4124029023

- 4124029022

5922 W 96TH PL 4124029010

- 4124029021

5928 W 96TH PL 4124029009

- 4124029020



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4125024024 72751.90 - 2*

4125024003 4515.20 - -

4125024002 17987.30 - -

4125024025 19732.90 - -

4125023926 7888.30 - -

4125023913 7127.90 - -

4125023016 7033.90 - -

4125023015 7892.90 - -

4125023906 10752.10 - -

4125023927 7450.30 - -

4125023919 9745.00 - -

4125023921 7193.30 - -

4125023920 6520.50 - -

4125023916 6600.40 - -

4125023918 7535.20 - -

09921 36688.00 - -

4124029026 1835.20 - -

4124029026 7558.10 - -

4124029025 510.00 - -

4124029011 5865.80 - -

4124029024 510.00 - -

4124029024 5865.70 - -

4124029029 510.00 - -

4124029023 5865.50 - -

4124029022 510.00 - -

4124029010 5865.40 - -

4124029021 510.00 - -

4124029009 5865.20 - -

4124029020 510.00 - -

Page 32



-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



5932 W 96TH PL 4124029039

- 4124029019

5938 W 96TH PL 4124029038

- 4124029038

- 4124029018

5942 W 96TH ST 4124029037

- 4124029037

- 4124029037

- 4124029017

5948 W 96TH ST 4124029036

- 4124029036

- 4124029036

- 4124029016

5952 W 96TH ST 4124029035

- 4124029035

- 4124029015

5958 W 96TH ST 4124029034

- 4124029034

- 4124029014

5962 W 96TH ST 4124029033

- 4124029033

- 4124029013

9717-9775 S Airport Blvd.; 5901-5919 W

98th St. 4124029031

5966 W 96TH ST 4124029032

- 4124029012

5972 W 96TH ST 4124029012

9790 S BELLANCA AVE

4125026014

9784 S BELLANCA AVE

4125026013

9780 S BELLANCA AVE

4125026012

9700 S BELLANCA AVE

4125026011



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4124029039 5865.60 - -

4124029019 510.00 - -

4124029038 5865.00 - -

4124029038 592.80 - -

4124029018 510.00 - -

4124029037 5864.80 - -

4124029037 1530.20 - -

4124029037 770.70 - -

4124029017 510.00 - -

4124029036 5864.60 - -

4124029036 1518.50 - -

4124029036 267.40 - -

4124029016 510.00 - -

4124029035 5864.50 - -

4124029035 1076.60 - -

4124029015 510.00 - -

4124029034 5864.40 - -

4124029034 552.30 - -

4124029014 510.00 - -

4124029033 5864.20 - -

4124029033 205.30 - -

4124029013 510.00 - -

4124029031 148258.80 - 1*

4124029032 5864.30 - -

4124029012 510.00 - -

4124029012 5863.90 - -

4125026014 8450.50 - -

4125026013 29944.40 - -

4125026012 39535.90 - -

4125026011 39617.60 - -

Page 33



-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-




4125021027


4125021026

9855-9905 N BELLANCA AVE/5651-5657 W CENTURY

BLVD

4125025040

- 4125025035

5707 W CENTURY BLVD

4125025035

5767 W CENTURY BLVD

4125025036

5827 W CENTURY BLVD

4125025039

5831 W CENTURY BLVD

4125025039

9840 N AIRPORT BLVD/5835-5891 W Century BLVD

4125025039

- 4125025039

- 4125025039

5756 W 98TH ST 4125025030

5747 W 98TH ST 4125025036

- 4125025036

5720 W 98TH ST 4125025028

- 4125025035

- 4125025035

- 4125025035

- 4125025028

5700 W 98TH ST 4125025040

5607-5625 W CENTURY BLVD

4125026010

9900 N BELLANCA AVE

4125026010

- 4125026010

5601 W CENTURY BLVD

4125026007

- 4125026007

- 4125026007



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4125021027 62734.70 - -

4125021026 87116.50 - -

4125025040 77994.30 No ? Deep

Foundations

4125025035 10658.60 - -

4125025035 86282.90 - -

4125025036 85510.50 - 8*

4125025039 83363.00 - 16*

4125025039 21001.40 - 16*

4125025039 244405.70 - 16*

4125025039 22131.00 - 16*

4125025039 88516.60 - 16*

4125025030 52265.30 - 15*

4125025036 33140.10 - -

4125025036 6114.70 - -

4125025028 59778.70 - 7*

4125025035 26467.80 - 12*

4125025035 6928.20 - 12*

4125025035 3301.60 - 12*

4125025028 7502.30 - -

4125025040 76952.10 No 3

4125026010 35654.00 - -

4125026010 7791.50 - -

4125026010 14324.40 - -

4125026007 36734.20 Yes 0* Shallow

Foundations

4125026007 7984.00 - -

4125026007 38855.00 - -

Page 34



-

-

Deep Foundations


-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Shallow Foundations

-

-



- 4125026802

9830 S BELLANCA AVE

4125026009

5928 W 98TH ST 4124030041

9801 S AIRPORT BLVD

4124030041

9841 N AIRPORT BLVD

4124030042

5901 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030042

5940 W 98TH ST 4124030015

5933 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030016

5941 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030016

5935 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030016

5911 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030016

5960 W 98TH ST 4124030039

5959 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030040

5980 W 98TH ST 4124030043

6053 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030038

6033 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030037

6101 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030036

6120 W 98TH ST 4124030900

6145 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030900

6135 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030900

6141 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030900

- 4124028041

5978 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

5982 W 96TH ST 4124028041



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4125026802 10084.40 - -

4125026009 47316.70 - -

4124030041 62618.10 - 8*

4124030041 62618.10 - 8*

4124030042 70937.00 - 15*

4124030042 70937.00 - -

4124030015 67500.20 - 6*

4124030016 73094.70 - 12*

4124030016 73094.70 - 12*

4124030016 73094.70 - 12*

4124030016 73094.70 - 12*

4124030039 60945.40 - -

030040 79488.30 - 13*

4124030043 66698.30 - 15*

4124030038 71399.60 - 12*

4124030037 68463.60 - 14*

4124030036 248577.20 Yes 12 (office) and 2 (bank)

Deep Foundation

4124030900 109280.40 - -

4124030900 109280.40 - -

4124030900 109280.40 - -

4124030900 109280.40 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5863.80 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5863.60 - -

Page 35



-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Deep Foundations

-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-



- 4124028041

5988 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

5994 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6000 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6006 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6010 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6016 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6020 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6026 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6032 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6036 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6042 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6046 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6052 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6100 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124028041

6106-6108 W 96TH ST 4124028041

- 4124027030

- 4124027029

9750 S VICKSBURG AVE

412027900



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5863.40 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5863.30 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5863.20 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5863.00 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5862.90 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5862.70 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5862.60 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5862.40 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5862.30 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5862.10 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5862.00 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5861.80 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5861.70 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5861.60 - -

4124028041 510.00 - -

4124028041 5861.40 - -

4124027030 500.00 - -

4124027029 1250.10 - -

42379.00 - -

Page 36



-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- Area 5 on Figure 3.7 -



6175 W 98TH ST 412027900

6250 W 96TH ST 4124025049

9611 S VICKSBURG AVE

4124025049

9700 S SEPULVEDA BLVD

4124026900

- 4124030023

6140 W 98TH ST 4124030029

6151 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030029

6140 W 98TH ST 4124030029

6151 W CENTURY BLVD

4124030034

- 4124026004


4124026005

6211 W CENTURY BLVD

4124026005

6225 W CENTURY BLVD

4124026005

6251 W CENTURY BLVD

4124026005

6255 W CENTURY BLVD

4124026005


4124026002

5758 W Century Blvd 4129028900

5800 W Century Blvd 4129028900

5932 Century Blvd 4129028900

5600-5628 W Century Blvd; 5720 W AVION DR; 10040 -10080 S INTERNATIONAL

ROAD; 5640 W 104TH ST; 10001-10385 S AVIATION BLVD

4129028900

6300 W 96TH ST 4117035900


4117035900



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


42379.00 - -

4124025049 6277.00 - -

4124025049 6277.00 - -

4124026900 179728.50 - -

4124030023 62936.90 - 6*

29 78656.70 - -

4124030029 78656.70 - -

4124030029 78656.70 - -

4124030034 76777.40 - 12*

4124026004 7260.80 - 5*

4124026005 201627.10 - -

4124026005 201627.10 - -

4124026005 201627.10 - -

4124026005 201627.10 - -

4124026005 201627.10 - -

4124026002 4574.40 - 9*

028900 245513.30 Yes 2 Probable Deep Foundations

4129028900 356934.50 Yes ? Shallow

Foundations

4129028900 - Yes ? Shallow

Foundations

4129028900 1016383.50 No ? Shallow

Foundations

4117035900 114338.40

4117035900 114338.40 Yes 3 Probable Deep Foundations

Page 37



-

-

-

-

-


-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Probable Deep Foundations


Shallow Foundations

Shallow Foundations

Shallow Foundations

- Area 8 on Figure 3.7 Probable Deep

Foundations



6320 W 96TH ST 4117035900

701 World Way 4129027902

- 4129027902

255-277 W Center Way; 245 E WORLD WAY; 10201 S Lincoln

Blvd.

4129027902

Source: LADBS Building Records Note: *asterisk denotes value obtained from field reconnaissance



Full Geotechnical

Report Available


4117035900 114338.40 Yes 1 Deep

Foundations

4129027902 326186.70 Yes 2 Deep

Foundations

4129027902 10139.80

4129027902 93882.10 Yes ? Probable Deep Foun

*asterisk denotes value obtained from field reconnaissance

Page 38



Deep Foundations

Deep Foundations

Probable Deep Foundations

Geology, Soils and Seismicity Baseline Technical Study –...

Documents

Transcript of Geology, Soils and Seismicity Baseline Technical Study –...