Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Heizer Rock Sculpture, 6067 W
Geology and Soil Discipline Report The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures 6067 West Wilshire Blvd. Tract PM 4299, Lot A Los Angeles, California
July 7, 2014
Submitted To: Mr. Bill Kramer The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences 8949 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211
By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 664 West Broadway Glendale, CA 91204
51-1-10078-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2 2.1 General ...... 2 2.2 Site History ...... 2 2.3 Site Reconnaissance ...... 2 2.4 Existing Site Conditions ...... 3 2.5 Proposed Construction Plan ...... 3
3.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES ...... 4
4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 5 4.1 General ...... 5 4.2 State Level ...... 5 4.3 City Level ...... 6 4.4 Building Code Updates ...... 7
5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING ...... 7 5.1 General ...... 7 5.2 Geologic Units ...... 8 5.2.1 General ...... 8 5.2.2 Artificial Fill ...... 8 5.2.3 Alluvium ...... 9 5.2.4 Bedrock ...... 9 5.3 Groundwater ...... 9
6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...... 10 6.1 General ...... 10 6.2 Surface Fault Rupture ...... 10 6.3 Seismic Ground Shaking ...... 10 6.4 Liquefaction ...... 15 6.5 Landslides, Mudflow, and Slope Stability ...... 16 6.6 Tsunamis and Seiches ...... 16 6.7 Expansive Soil ...... 16 6.8 Compressible Soil ...... 17 6.9 Flooding and Inundation ...... 17 6.10 Oil Wells ...... 17 6.11 Tar Sands ...... 18 6.12 Methane Gas ...... 18 6.13 Petroleum –Impacted Groundwater ...... 18 6.14 Subsidence ...... 19
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
6.15 Mineral Resources ...... 19 6.16 Sedimentation and Erosion ...... 19 6.17 Landform Alteration ...... 20 6.18 Construction Related Impacts ...... 20
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...... 20 7.1 Seismic Ground Shaking ...... 20 7.2 Expansive Soil ...... 21 7.3 Oil Wells ...... 21 7.4 Tar Sands ...... 21 7.5 Petroleum-Impacted Groundwater ...... 22 7.6 Construction Related Impacts ...... 23
8.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 23 8.1 General ...... 23 8.2 Foundations ...... 23 8.3 Temporary Shoring ...... 24
9.0 LIMITATIONS ...... 24
10.0 REFERENCES ...... 26 10.1 Report Bibliography ...... 26 10.2 Technical Publications ...... 28
TABLE
1 Major Faults Considered Active in Southern California ...... 13 2 Major Faults Considered Potentially Active in Southern California ...... 14 3 List of Major Historic Earthquakes...... 15
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map 2 Site Plan 3 Geologic Map 4 Geologic Cross Section A-A’ 5 Geologic Cross Section B-B’ 6 Historic High Groundwater 7 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones 8 Active Fault Map (2 sheets) 9 Seismic Hazards 10 Oil Well Map
APPENDICES
A Field Explorations by Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc. B Explorations by Other Consultants C Preliminary Recommendations for Micropiles and Foundation Excavation Recommendations D Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 iii
GEOLOGY AND SOIL DISCIPLINE REPORT THE ACADEMY MUSEUM OF MOTION PICTURES 6067 WEST WILSHIRE BLVD., TRACT PM 4299, LOT A, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geology and soil discipline study for the proposed Academy Museum of Motion Pictures (Project). The information and recommendations in this report will be used to support the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluation of geology and soils. A summary of our site reconnaissance, records review, hazards analyses, groundwater review, and recommended measures to mitigate the potential soil and geologic hazards is presented. In addition, preliminary foundation design criteria are presented for planning purposes only. Additional subsurface explorations to support the foundation design will be completed when the Project schedule advances to final design.
The Project would be located within the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) Campus on an approximately 2.2-acre site at 6067 Wilshire Boulevard at the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue within the Wilshire Community Plan Area of the City of Los Angeles (Site), as shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site Plan (Figure 2). Existing structures immediately surrounding the Project consist of the Resnick Exhibition Pavilion and Broad Contemporary Art Museum (BCAM) to the east, which are part of the LACMA Campus.
The onsite soil includes a relatively thin layer of artificial fill overlying alluvial deposits consisting of stiff clay and dense tar-bearing sands. The tar-bearing sands are saturated with hydrocarbons, while the upper clay soils contain hydrocarbons to a lesser extent. The presence of the hydrocarbons is a result of the Project Site being over an oil field. Methane gas being generated from the oil field is also present. Groundwater is at a depth of approximately 10 feet below the ground surface.
Geologic hazards present on the Project Site with potential impacts include methane, expansive soils, tar sands, and seismic shaking. Each of these hazards can be mitigated through the appropriate level of planning and design.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 General
The proposed Project involves development of a museum that would be dedicated to films and filmmaking. The Project uses the May Company Building (Original Building), consisting of rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the original 1939 structure and demolition of the 1946 addition to the Original Building, along with construction of a new wing (New Wing) with a spherical structure (Sphere) housing a theater and enclosed view deck elevated above an open air piazza (Piazza), an underground utility corridor, and several pedestrian bridges linking the Sphere to the Original Building. Also proposed is a gas mitigation and monitoring system, as described in the Methane Report (Geosyntec Consultants, July 2014). This report refers to these project elements collectively as the Project. Construction is anticipated to commence following Project approval in 2014 with completion estimated in 2017.
2.2 Site History
The LACMA moved to its Wilshire Boulevard location in 1965, which included the Ahmanson Building, Hammer Building, and Bing Theater. Since that time, LACMA added several structures including the Art of the Americas and Pavilion for Japanese Art and the May Company Building. The May Company Building includes the original building constructed in 1939 with an addition in 1946. LACMA acquired the May Company Building in 1994 and designated the building LACMA West in 1998. In about the past decade, improvements to the LACMA Campus include the BCAM, the Resnick Exhibition Pavilion with an underlying subterranean garage (Pritzker Garage), and the Levitated Mass exhibit. The May Company Building is currently used for offices, storage, special events, and exhibit preparation.
2.3 Site Reconnaissance
We performed a site reconnaissance on February 4, 2013 to review the May Company Building and surrounding improvements. The site reconnaissance included observing the existing conditions in the area of the proposed improvements, and meeting with staff members of the Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information related to the groundwater levels at the Project Site, as well as experiences excavating through the near surface geologic units.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 2
2.4 Existing Site Conditions
The Project Site is defined as the May Company Building, associated loading dock, driveways and gravel parking lot, and pedestrian walkways. The building has a basement extending to approximately 15 feet below grade. The building is supported on a concrete mat slab foundation.
Within the LACMA Campus, the Project Site is bounded by a primarily open space grass area to the north, and the BCAM and Resnick Pavilion structures to the east. The Project Site is bounded to the south across Wilshire Boulevard by a mix of museums, galleries, cultural institutions, and commercial businesses; and to the west across Fairfax Avenue by commercial and residential uses.
The former Orange Grove Avenue connected Wilshire Boulevard to 6th Street, roughly along the eastern side of the Project Site. The street alignment likely contained various utilities, some of which may still be present. Evidence of various underground utilities crossing the Project Site was observed during our site reconnaissance.
In general, the Project Site slopes down to the south-southwest with about 2 to 3 feet difference in ground surface elevation from 6th Street to Wilshire Boulevard. An offsite drainage swale is present north of the Project Site, at the southern edge of the existing lawn. The drainage swale is on the order of 12 feet wide and 2 feet deep. The drainage swale is underlain by an eight-foot wide trench that was backfilled with sand, gravel, and permeable filter fabric topped with six inches of topsoil in the swale. The purpose of the trench is to allow surface water collected in the swale to filter through the sand, gravel, and fabric to a 4-inch perforated pipe located about 54 inches below the swale for drainage discharge.
2.5 Proposed Construction Plan
The existing basement of the Original Building will remain. The concrete basement topping slab of the building is located approximately 15 feet below ground surface. The design team is considering micropiles installed in the existing basement of the building to support proposed new shear walls for seismic upgrades and elevator pits. The construction of shear walls and elevator pits in the basement of the existing building will require penetration through the existing concrete mat slab foundation. Micropiles could be used to support elevator pits and shear walls. We anticipate the maximum depth for each micropile is 40 feet below basement of the Original Building. Since the groundwater level will be more than 10 feet above the bottom of excavation, we anticipate temporary dewatering wells or well points to lower groundwater level during construction. Permanent dewatering is not anticipated.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 3
The 1946 Addition will be demolished, but the existing basement walls and concrete mat slab foundation will remain.
The Sphere is a spherical structure constructed predominately of glass and steel that would house the Main Theater. The Sphere would be elevated a minimum of 12 feet above grade atop columns. The overall dimensions would be up to approximately 165 feet in width and approximately 130 feet in height above adjacent grade.
For foundation of the Sphere, the design team is considering augercast piles to support the proposed concrete mat slab foundation for the Sphere. The maximum anticipated depth of each augercast pile is 100 feet. We understand the proposed depth of excavation for most of the mat foundation of the Sphere will be approximately 7 feet below grade or about 4 feet above the anticipated high groundwater level. We do not anticipate dewatering will be required for this excavation depth.
A proposed underground utility corridor will link the Original Building to the Sphere. The depth of the utility corridor will be approximately 10 to 15 feet and the width will be approximately 10 feet.
There is no significant proposed modification to the existing grades of the Project Site. We anticipate minimal import of soil to the Project Site. Excess soils from excavation of augercast piles, micropiles, elevator pits, shear walls, mat foundation, and gas mitigation and monitoring system would be chemically analyzed prior to off-site disposal in accordance with a Soil Management Plan (Geosyntec Consultants, July 2014). The current estimated quantity of excess soil requiring export is 5,862 cubic yards.
3.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES
There have been several engineering-level geotechnical reports prepared for improvements within the surrounding LACMA Campus that we reviewed as a part of this study. The BCAM and Pritzker Garage are located immediately east of the Project. We previously completed geotechnical design and construction observation and testing reports for the BCAM and Pritzker Garage under our predecessor company, Van Beveren & Butelo (VB&B), Inc. (see reference list for report dates). We also performed the geotechnical design and construction for the Heizer Levitated Mass exhibit located to the northeast of the Project (Shannon & Wilson, 2009a,b; 2011a,b,c,d,e; 2012).
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 4
We reviewed reports completed by others in the Project Site vicinity for previous LACMA projects (Law/Crandall, 1998; Leroy Crandall, 1982, 1984; URS, 2003). We also reviewed geotechnical reports for the Westside Subway Extension (WSE) Project proposed by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), and that data has also been incorporated into this report (AMEC, 2011).
The geologic hazards analyses, mitigation, and preliminary design recommendations presented are based on the results of our prior field explorations, explorations by others, previously published laboratory test results, and engineering analyses completed for adjacent sites. The results of the field explorations by Shannon & Wilson (as VB&B) are presented in Appendix A. Relevant boring logs prepared by others are presented in Appendix B.
4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
4.1 General
This section provides an introduction to applicable laws, regulations, and codes that will govern the Project.
4.2 State Level
The State of California adopted the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), Volumes 1 and 2, which went into effect on July 1, 2013. Based in part on the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), the 2013 CBC makes up Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. In Chapter 16 of Volume 2 the code contains provisions for structural design which includes, among others, soil lateral loads (Section 1610) and earthquake loads (Section 1613). Provisions for soils and foundations which includes geotechnical explorations (Section 1803), excavation, grading and fill (Section 1804), and foundations (sections 1808-1810), among others, are presented in Chapter 18. Appendix J of the code applies to grading.
The Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act was passed by the State of California in 1972 to address the hazard and damage caused by surface fault rupture during an earthquake. The Act was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1994 (Alquist-Priolo Act). The Act has since been revised eleven times; most recently an interim version became available in 2007. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish “earthquake fault zones” along known active faults in the state. Cities and counties that include earthquake fault zones are required to regulate development projects within these zones.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 5
The State Seismic Safety Commission was established by the Seismic Safety Act in 1975 with the intent of providing oversight, review, and recommendations to the Governor, State Legislature, as well as state and local governments regarding seismic issues. The commission was renamed the Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission in 2006.
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act of 1990 was enacted, in part, to address seismic hazards not included in the Alquist-Priolo Act, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and or other seismic related ground failures. Under this Act, the State Geologist is assigned the responsibility of identifying and mapping seismic hazard zones. The recommended guidelines and criteria for the preparation of seismic hazard zones are presented in Special Publication 118, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones in California (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2004). The CGS, formerly the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) adopted seismic design provisions in Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (revised and readopted on September 11, 2008), and Special Publication 118.
4.3 City Level
The City of Los Angeles adopted portions of the 2013 CBC and 2012 IBC together with a series of City of Los Angeles amendments as the 2014 City of Los Angeles Building Code (LABC), Volumes 1 and 2. The 2014 amendments will be published on July 1, 2014. Together, the provisions in Volumes 1 and 2 of the LABC address issues related to site grading, cut and fill slope design, soil expansion, geotechnical studies before and during construction, slope stability, allowable bearing pressures and settlement below footings, effects of adjacent slopes on foundations, retaining walls, basement walls, shoring of adjacent properties, potential primary and secondary seismic effects. Volume 2 of the LABC has been amended with additional chapters, which include grading, excavations, and fills in Chapter 70.
The City of Los Angeles has also adopted a series of Grading Standards which supplement the requirements of the LABC. The Grading Standards include specific requirements for seismic design, slope stability, grading, foundation design, geologic studies and reports, soil and rock testing, and groundwater. The City Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) is responsible for implementing the provisions of the Building Code and Grading Standards. The City of Los Angeles requires that the firm performing geotechnical studies, sampling and testing have their laboratory certified by the LADBS’s Materials Control Section.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 6
The City’s primary seismic regulatory document is the Safety Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, adopted November 26, 1996. The City’s regulations incorporate the State’s requirements. The objective of the Safety Element is to better protect occupants and equipment during various types and degrees of seismic events. In the Safety Element, specific guidelines are included for the evaluation of fire, water related hazards, seismic events, geologic conditions, and hazardous materials. The City’s Emergency Operations Organization (EOO) helps to administer certain policies and provisions of the Safety Element. The EOO is a City department comprised of all City agencies, pursuant to City Administrative Code, Division 8, Chapter 3. The Administrative Code, EOO Master Plan and associated EOO plans establish the chain of command, protocols and programs for integrating all of the City’s emergency operations into one unified operation. Each City agency in turn has operational protocols, as well as plans and programs, to implement EOO protocols and programs. A particular emergency or mitigation triggers a particular set of protocols which are addressed by implementing plans and programs. The City’s emergency operations program encompasses all of these protocols, plans and programs. Therefore, its programs are not contained in one comprehensive document. The Safety Element goals, objectives and policies are broadly stated to reflect the comprehensive scope of the EOO. As it pertains to tsunamis and other flood hazards, the Safety Element refers to the City’s Flood Hazard Specific Plan, which addresses areas adjacent to hazards, agency involvement and coordination, and procedures to be implemented during an emergency. The applicable laws, regulations, and codes regarding to methane gas are described in the Methane Report (Geosyntec Consultants, July 2014).
4.4 Building Code Updates
The 2014 City of Los Angeles Building Code was recently adopted by the City of Los Angeles. The new code will published on July 1, 2014 and scheduled to take effect on the same day. We will review the geotechnical-related sections of Chapters 16 and 18 of the 2014 Code for any updates that may impact the Project. However, we do not anticipate significant geotechnical design changes due to this code update.
5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING
5.1 General
The Project Site is located in the coastal Los Angeles Basin of Southern California. The basin includes the low-lying area between the San Gabriel Mountains and the Pacific Ocean shoreline. Nearby hills and mountain ranges bordering the basin include the prominent Santa Monica
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 7
Mountains to the north, the Hollywood Hills to the northeast, the Elysian and Repetto Hills to the east, the Peninsular Ranges to the southeast, and the Baldwin Hills to the south.
The Project Site occupies the westerly extent of the La Brea Plain. The La Brea Plain is a broad, slightly elevated, and dissected surface underlain by coalescing Quaternary age alluvial fan and flood plain deposits. These alluvial sediments were deposited on the underlying Tertiary-age shallow marine sedimentary bedrock formations. Faulting and folding of the bedrock over millions of years has formed structural traps where petroleum deposits have accumulated in anticlinal folds and along fault blocks. Several oil and gas fields developed within this portion of the Los Angeles Basin, including the nearby Salt Lake and South Salt Lake fields.
The oil deposits are found at depths exceeding about 1,000 feet. Crude oil and methane gas leaking from the petroleum deposits has migrated towards the ground surface through fractures and faults in the bedrock, permeating into the overlying alluvium. Upon reaching shallower depths, the lighter petroleum components are altered by evaporation and biologic processes resulting in a more viscous remnant tar deposit, such as those exposed at the La Brea Tar Pits east of the Project Site.
5.2 Geologic Units
5.2.1 General
Regional geologic maps indicate the Project Site is underlain by alluvial sediments as shown in Figure 3 (Dibble, 1991). Previous geotechnical explorations in the vicinity of the Project Site indicate the alluvial deposits are covered by a relatively thin layer of artificial fill. Cross sections through the Project Site showing the distribution of the subsurface materials in relation to the existing conditions and proposed improvements are presented in Figures 4 and 5, Cross Sections A-A’ and B-B’, respectively. The subsurface conditions are described in more detail in the following sections.
5.2.2 Artificial Fill
The reviewed subsurface explorations encountered artificial fill in most of the borings at the Project Site, to depths of between about one and eight feet. The fill is of variable composition, consisting of clay, gravelly sand, clayey sand and silty sand.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 8
5.2.3 Alluvium
Below the relatively thin artificial fill, the Project Site is underlain by Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits, generally consisting of stiff to very stiff clays with some dense silt and silty sand layers. These relatively thin fine-grained materials overlie thicker deposits of dense to very dense sand. The fine-grained alluvial deposits can more specifically be referred to as the Lakewood Formation, while the deeper sand beds correspond to the San Pedro Formation (Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1961). Previous testing of the near surface clays indicates they have a medium expansion potential (VB&B, 2005).
Natural hydrocarbons are present in the alluvium due to the upward migration of crude oil leaking from oil deposits within the underlying bedrock. The crude oil has been altered near the ground surface to viscous tar, and the more permeable sand deposits are permeated with tar.
5.2.4 Bedrock
Recent geotechnical explorations for the nearby WSE Project indicates the alluvial sediments, therein referred to as the Lakewood and San Pedro Formations, are underlain by the Tertiary-age sedimentary bedrock of the Fernando Formation (AMEC, 2011). The sandy siltstone encountered at a depth of 80.5 feet below grade in VB&B Boring 2, drilled within the northern portion of the Project Site, correspond to the Fernando Formation.
5.3 Groundwater
The Project Site is located within the Central Groundwater Basin of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain (California Department of Water Resources, 2004 – Bulletin 118). The principal freshwater-bearing sediments of the Central Basin include the Holocene-age alluvial deposits, and the Pleistocene-age Lakewood and San Pedro Formations at depth (DWR, 1961).
According to the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Hollywood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, the historically shallowest depth to groundwater is on the order of 10 feet below existing grade, Figure 6 (CDMG, 1998). Data contained on the California State Water Resources Control Board GEOTRACKER GAMA website indicates groundwater is variable within the vicinity of the Project Site, although typically on the order of 10 to 15 feet below grade.
VB&B installed monitoring wells along the eastern side of the Project in 2004, as a part of previous work at the Project Site. Readings from these wells indicate groundwater was at a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade between August and October of 2004. Readings
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 9
from monitoring wells G-6 and S-106 for the WSE indicate groundwater was at a depth of approximately 13.5 feet and 17.5 feet, respectively (AMEC, 2011). G-6 and S-106 are located within Wilshire Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of the May Company Building. The readings were taken in late May and early June of 2011. These variations in groundwater depths could be the result of seasonal fluctuations, recent rainfall, and well locations that are further away from the Project Site. We anticipate the groundwater depth in general for the design and construction at the Project Site is about 10 feet
6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1 General
This section identifies potential geologic hazards at the Project Site and the potential for significant adverse impacts associated with geologic hazards. Specific geologic hazards that could impact the Project Site are strong ground shaking, expansive soils, tar sands, and methane gas. With the exception of methane gas, these geologic hazards, along with other potential geologic hazards in the area, are described in the following sections. Methane gas is addressed in the Methane Report (Geosyntec Consultants, July 2014). Where mitigation measures of the geologic hazard are required, we provide recommendations for these measures in Section 7.0.
6.2 Surface Fault Rupture
The numerous faults in southern California include active, potentially active and inactive faults. Classifications for these major groups are based upon criteria developed by the CGS (formerly CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Act program. By definition, an active fault has ruptured within Holocene geologic time (about the last 11,000 years). The closest Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (AP Zone) to the Project Site is approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest as shown in Figure 7. This zone is associated with the Newport-Inglewood fault zone (Treiman and Lundberg, 1999). Active faults are not known to be located at the Project Site and surface rupture from fault plane displacement propagating to the surface is therefore considered remote (CDMG, 1986; CGS, 1999).
6.3 Seismic Ground Shaking
Potentially active faults are those faults that display latest movement during Quaternary Geologic time where Holocene activity cannot be demonstrated. The Quaternary includes the Holocene and Pleistocene Epochs and represents the last 2.6 million years of geologic time. Potentially active faults are not considered an imminent fault rupture hazard but the potential cannot be
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 10
completely dismissed. Inactive faults are those faults where the latest displacement is older than the Pleistocene (2.6 million years) and are not considered a surface rupture hazard. Figure 8, Active Fault Maps, illustrate the Project Site relative to active and potentially active faults in the region.
The closest potentially active fault is the Santa Monica fault and Hollywood fault located approximately 3.8 and 2.7 miles to the northwest and north of the Project Site, respectively, at the southern base of the Hollywood Hills (USGS, 2008). However, the City of Los Angeles Safety Element Exhibit A (1996) shows the minimum distance between the Project Site and the fault zone is only 1.4 miles. The Hollywood fault and Santa Monica fault are generally poorly- defined near the surface and has been located based upon water well, oil well, and geophysical data, as well as near-surface trenching and drilling by numerous investigators. Both faults are considered active, based upon geomorphic evidence and fault trenching and drill hole correlation studies, but have not yet been included within an AP Zone by the State Geologist. Portions of the Hollywood fault are identified as a Fault Rupture Hazard Study Area in the City of Los Angeles Safety Element (Los Angeles City Planning Department, 1996).
Another active fault in close proximity to the Project Site is the Newport-Inglewood fault located approximately 3 miles to the west (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008). However, the City of Los Angeles Safety Element Exhibit A (1996) shows the minimum distance between the Project Site and the fault zone is 1.9 miles. The Newport-Inglewood fault is a right-lateral fault. The fault extends for 47 miles from Culver City southeast to Newport Beach at which point it runs out into the Pacific Ocean. The fault has a slip rate of approximately 1 millimeter per year and is predicted to be capable of generating a 6.0 to 7.0 moment magnitude (Mw) earthquake on the moment magnitude scale.
The Project Site is approximately 4.5 miles west of the boundary of the Elysian Park fold and thrust belt. The Elysian Park fault is a blind fault (i.e. a buried fault that does not extend to the surface) capped by a fold and thrust structure. The axial trend of the fold extends approximately 12 miles through the Elysian Park-Repetto Hills from about Silver Lake on the west to the Whittier Narrows on the east. The 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake (magnitude 5.9) has been attributed to subsurface thrust faults, which are reflected at the earth's surface by a west- northwest trending anticline known as the Elysian Park anticline, or the Elysian Park fold and thrust belt. The subsurface faults that create the structure are not exposed at the surface; however, as demonstrated by the 1987 earthquake and two smaller earthquakes on June 12, 1989, the faults are a source for future seismic activity. As such, the Elysian Park fold and thrust
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 11
belt should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes and seismic shaking.
The active Mission Wells segment of the San Fernando fault zone is about 15 miles north- northeast of the Project Site. The San Fernando fault zone is one of the four segments of the Sierra Madre fault zone (Treiman, 2000). Surface rupture occurred along the Tujunga, Sylmar, and Mission Wells segments of the San Fernando fault zone during the February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The San Fernando fault zone comprises a number of left lateral/reverse frontal faults bounding the southern margin of the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. This fault slipped on February 9, 1971, causing an earthquake of magnitude 6.4.
The Northridge thrust fault is an inferred blind thrust fault that is considered the western extension of the Oak Ridge fault. This thrust fault is believed to be the causative fault of the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake. The Northridge thrust is located beneath the majority of the San Fernando Valley. This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the Northridge thrust is an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The fault is located approximately 17 miles north and northwest of the Project Site.
The Oak Ridge fault is a blind thrust fault located beneath the Santa Susana Mountains approximately 31 miles northeast of the Project Site (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). The fault associated with the 1994 Northridge earthquake is probably part of the Oak Ridge fault system, as it shares many of the characteristics of this fault. This blind thrust fault is known either as the Pico thrust, named for the Pico anticline (a geologic fold it is creating), or as the Northridge thrust.
A list of known active faults and their distances from the Project Site are indicated in Table 1, Major Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 12
TABLE 1 MAJOR FAULTS CONSIDERED TO BE ACTIVE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Maximum Approximate Credible Slip Distance Direction Earthquake Fault Rate From Project From Site* Project (mm/yr) Mw Source Type (miles) Site Santa Monica 7.2 (c) RO 4.0 3.8 W Newport-Inglewood-Rose 7.0 (d) SS 1.0 3.0 SW Canyon fault zone (1.9) Hollywood 7.0 (c) RO 1.5 2.7 N (1.4) Elysian Park fold and thrust belt 7.1 (c) RO 1.7 4.5 E Raymond 6.7 (f) RO 0.4 8.8 NE Verdugo 6.75 (d) RO 0.5 9.6 NE Sierra Madre fault zone – 7.3 (c) RO 4.0 14 NE Sierra Madre section Sierra Madre fault zone – 6.8 (g) RO 5.0 14.7 N San Fernando section Northridge 6.9 (h) RO 1.5 17 NNW Elsinore fault zone – 7.1 (b) SS 3.0 18 SE Whittier section Oak Ridge 6.7 (g) RO 4.0 31 NW San Andreas fault zone – 8.2 (e) SS 30.0 36 NE Mojave section (a) Greensfelder, CDMG Map Sheet 23, 1974. (b) Blake, 1995 (c) Dolan et al., 1995 (d) Mualchin & Jones, 1992 (e) OSHPD, 1995 (f) Wesnousky, 1986 (g) SCEDC (h) Peterson el al., 1996 Mw Moment Magnitude SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique
* Project Site to fault distances measured using location determined by a search of the U.S. Geological Survey 2008 National Seismic Hazards Maps – Fault Parameters (Petersen et al., 2008). Number in () indicates Project Site to fault distance measured from the Los Angeles Safety Element Exhibit A, Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones and Fault Rupture Study Areas in the City of Los Angeles (1996).
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 13
A list of known potentially active faults and their distances from the Project Site are indicated below in Table 2, Major Faults Considered to be Potentially Active:
TABLE 2 MAJOR FAULTS CONSIDERED TO BE POTENTIALLY ACTIVE
Maximum Distance Direction Credible Slip Rate From From Fault Earthquake (mm/yr) Project Site* Project (Miles) Site Mw Source Type Overland Avenue 6.0 (a) SS 0.1 4 SW Charnock 6.5 (a) SS 0.1 6 SW MacArthur Park 6.1 (d) SS 0.1 7 E Coyote Pass 6.7 (c) RO 0.1 8 E Sierra Madre fault zone – 6.9 (e) RO 6.2 19 NW Santa Susana section Los Alamitos 6.2 (c) SS 0.1 20 SE Sierra Madre fault zone – 6.7 (a) RO 0.1 21 ENE Duarte section San Jose 6.7 (e) RO 0.5 28 E Elsinore fault zone – 7.0 (d) NO 1.0 35 SE Chino section San Jacinto fault zone – 6.4 (h) SS n/d 56 E San Bernardino section (Rialto-Colton) (a) Slemmons, 1977 (b) Greensfelder, CDMG Map Sheet 23, 1974 (c) Mark, 1977 (d) Blake, 1995 (e) Dolan et al., 1995 (f) Mualchin & Jones, 1992 (g) OSHPD, 1995 (h) Wesnousky, 1986 SS Strike Slip NO Normal Oblique RO Reverse Oblique n/d Not determined
* Project Site to fault distances measured using location determined by a search of the U.S. Geological Survey 2008 National Seismic Hazards Maps – Fault Parameters (Petersen et al., 2008).
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 14
Several earthquakes of moderate to large magnitude (greater than 5.3) have occurred in the southern California area within the last 80 years. A list of these earthquakes is included below in Table 3, List of Major Historic Earthquakes.
TABLE 3 LIST OF MAJOR HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES
Distance to Date of Direction to Earthquake Magnitude Epicenter Earthquake Epicenter (miles) Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 36 S San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 24 NW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 16 E Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 25 NE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 88 E Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 111 E Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 14 NW Project Site to earthquake epicenter distances measured using Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.
To mitigate the potential for future damage from strong seismic events, we recommend that new structures be analyzed using seismic designs from the latest building codes as discussed in Section 7.0 below.
6.4 Liquefaction
According to the Seismic Hazard Zone (SHZ) map for the Hollywood Quadrangle, the Project Site is not located within an area designated by the state geologist where historic occurrence of liquefaction or local geologic, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement to the extent that mitigation would be required (CGS, 1999) as shown in Figure 9. Liquefaction potential is greatest where there is an anticipated significant ground motion on submersed loose granular soils (sands or silts), especially within a depth of about 50 feet or less below ground surface. In general, liquefaction potential decreases as clay and gravel content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases.
The geologic materials underlying the Project Site generally consist of a surficial deposit of stiff cohesive (fine-grained) soil underlain by dense to very dense tar sands. The anticipated groundwater depth is about 10 feet. Because of the stiff and dense nature of the soil below the
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 15
groundwater table, it is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction occurring beneath the Project Site during a severe earthquake is low, which is consistent with the SHZ map (CGS, 1999).
6.5 Landslides, Mudflow, and Slope Stability
Hazards associated with slope stability include landslides and mudflows. The Project Site is not located within areas designated by the state geologist where previous occurrence of landslide movement or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement to the event that mitigation would be required, Figure 9 (CGS, 1999). It is located in the northern part of the Los Angeles Basin, a low-lying sediment-filled plain. The potential for slope stability hazards at the Project Site is negligible.
6.6 Tsunamis and Seiches
The Project Site is located approximately 8½ miles from the Pacific Ocean shoreline. As a result of this distance, tsunamis are not considered a significant hazard to the Project Site. Large bodies of uncovered water such as reservoirs, lakes or ponds are not located up gradient, in the vicinity of the Project Site. The nearest applicable body of water is the Hollywood Reservoir, approximately 4 miles toward the northeast. As such, hazards related to seiches are considered remote to the Project Site.
There are two bodies of water present at the LACMA Campus. The larger of the two is the small lake located along Wilshire Boulevard, east of the Bing Building. The existing grades in the vicinity of the lake are on the order of two to seven feet higher than the water surface elevation. The lowest area is in the northwestern area of the lake. Although seiche is not anticipated, the water could flow from the lake toward the existing Bing Building. The second body of water is a small pond near the northeastern corner of the Hammer Building. The pond is within a topographic low area that includes La Brea Tar Pits “Pit 91.” Although seiche is not anticipated, the water could flow from the small pond toward Pit 91. In the case of both the lake and the pond, the potential for seiche of the onsite bodies of water to impact the Project is negligible.
6.7 Expansive Soil
The clay soils within the alluvium and some of the fill are subject to expansion and shrinkage resulting from changes in the moisture content. Tests performed previously on samples of the clays from the BCAM (VB&B, 2005) indicate the fine-grained alluvial deposits have a medium expansion potential. Mitigation measures for the expansive soil hazard are provided in Section 7.2 below.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 16
6.8 Compressible Soil
Non-engineered fill and near surface alluvial deposits may be weak and compressible, particularly with the addition of water. Where present, these materials may be subject to settlement and are not suitable for support of foundations, slabs on grade, paving or new compacted fills. The fill is relatively thin (likely less than 10 feet) as shown in our cross sections, resulting in a potential for settlement due to new loads imposed on the fill from the Project.
As discussed in Section 2.5 above, the proposed mat foundation will remove up the 7 feet of the existing fill, which is the majority of the existing fill thickness. The structure is also proposed to be supported on deep foundations, embedded into the underlying stiff/dense alluvial deposits. The stiff/dense alluvial deposits are likely not significantly compressible. Therefore, the potential for building settlement from the potentially compressible existing fill is unlikely.
6.9 Flooding and Inundation
According to City of Los Angeles Safety Element flood hazard maps (Los Angeles City Planning Department, 1996, Exhibit F), the Project Site borders or is mapped within a 100-year flood plain area (Los Angeles City Planning Department, 1996, Exhibits F and G). However, the Safety Element maps are based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map available at that time. According to the most recent FEMA maps, the Project Site is located within a mapped FEMA Flood Zone X area (FEMA, 2008). A Flood Zone X area is defined as an area that is higher in elevation than the 500-year flood event and has a minimal flood hazard. Based on the latest FEMA mapping, the possibility of flooding at the Project Site is minimal. The project civil engineer should confirm the flooding potential.
6.10 Oil Wells
According to data presented on the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) website, the Project Site is located within the limits of the Salt Lake Oil Field (DOGGR, 2010) as shown in Figure 10. The well locations shown are generally considered approximate. Oil and gas wells in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site include the Chevron Salt Lake 10 and 27 wells.
. The Chevron Salt Lake 10 is located approximately 200 feet west of Project Site. . The Chevron Salt Lake 27 is approximately 500 feet north of the Project Site.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 17
According to Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) records, both wells are buried and idle. No abandoned or active oil wells are shown within the footprint of the Project Site based on the DOGGR maps. However, the DOGGR well locations are approximate and locations errors are possible. Although the likelihood of encountering an abandoned oil well is low, mitigation is recommended in the event an oil well is encountered.
6.11 Tar Sands
Based on our previous experience at the LACMA Campus, we anticipate soil excavated above groundwater likely would not contain significant natural oil or tar. As such, it likely could be disposed of as clean or non-impacted soil. Spoils from excavations including drilled pile spoils that extend below groundwater could contain natural oil or tar. Excavation spoils will likely require chemical analyses for offsite disposal characterization.
During previous basement excavation work completed for the Pritzker Garage and WSE Project, tar sands were encountered below elevations ranging between +138 to +156 feet above mean sea level or between 10 and 28 feet below grade. Deep foundations, currently proposed for the Project Site, will likely penetrate the tar sands. Impacts from excavating the foundations into the tar sands are dependent on the deep foundation system used, but could consist of drilling spoils generated from installation of augercast piles as an example. A discussion of mitigation to address potential impacts from excavation in the tar sands and preliminary recommendations for foundation design are described in the following sections.
6.12 Methane Gas
The Project Site is located within an area of known shallow methane accumulation. Information on methane gas is provided in the Methane Report (GeoSyntec Consultants, July 2014).
6.13 Petroleum –Impacted Groundwater
Relatively shallow groundwater is present at the Project Site. The groundwater will need to be collected during dewatering associated with excavation and construction. Due to the presence of the tar sands and urban environment clean and/or contaminated water may be encountered. It will have to be chemically analyzed in order to determine the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods.
We anticipate impacts from groundwater for the Project Site based on our preliminary recommendations for deep foundations and relatively small areas of excavation below the
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 18
groundwater table, specifically elevator pits and potential deep underground utilities. Similar to the “Tar Sands” section above, deep foundations penetrating the groundwater could require treatment and disposal of water displaced in the hole by concrete. Localized dewatering could also be required for the elevator pits and deep utility trenches.
6.14 Subsidence
Subsidence of the ground surface can be caused by the removal of groundwater and/or petroleum from the subsurface sources. If in sufficient volumes, the extraction the pore fluid can cause permanent collapse of the pore space due to consolidation and potentially damage structural improvements.
The Project Site is located in the southern part of the Salt Lake Oil Field, however documentation of subsidence in the vicinity of the Project Site was not found. Similarly, subsidence due to the extraction of groundwater was not found.
Temporary construction dewatering will be performed in limited small areas for new shear wall and elevator pit foundation excavations is anticipated. Groundwater extracted during this temporary dewatering will be relatively small volumes to produce a localized drawdown around the excavation. The relatively stiff/dense soil below the existing basement is unlikely to settle from the temporary dewatering. Therefore, the subsidence related to oil or groundwater removal is not considered a significant impact to the Project.
6.15 Mineral Resources
There are no known economically, non-petroleum related, extractable deposits of mineral resources such as building stone, clay or light-weight aggregate beneath the Project Site. No mitigation measures are required.
6.16 Sedimentation and Erosion
The Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts associated with sedimentation or erosion. Grading, excavation, and other earth-moving activities could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation during construction. For grading performed in the “rain season”, generally November to April, provisions will need to be made to control erosion. Construction activities should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Los Angeles Building Code, as well as those of the Regional Water Quality Control Board through the City’s Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 19
6.17 Landform Alteration
The Project Site is a relatively flat-lying parcel within a dense urban area. No significant landform alteration is planned as a part of the proposed Project.
6.18 Construction Related Impacts
Potential construction related impacts due to the Project include damage to existing adjacent buildings (BCAM, Resnick Pavilion Pritzker Garage), roadways, driveways, walkways and underground utilities. Renovation and expansion of the existing May Company Building may require temporary cuts including slopes and/or shoring to facilitate construction. Potential impacts of temporary cuts include damage to existing buildings, roadways, driveways, sidewalks and underground utilities from temporary slope failures or settlement associated with deflection of temporary shoring.
Proposed excavations for the Project are anticipated to be less than 10 feet deep within the Project Site footprint. As shown in Figure 2, the distance to the eastern structures is at least 50 feet. Therefore, the potential to impact the adjacent structures during construction excavation is limited. Mitigation measures for construction related impacts to the adjacent streets and surrounding community are provided in the next section.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Recommendations to mitigate the geologic hazards identified in the previous section are discussed in this section. The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the final geotechnical design for the Project. Geotechnical observation and testing will be required during the foundation construction, grading and any other geotechnical-related construction.
7.1 Seismic Ground Shaking
Earthquakes along several active faults in the region (see Figure 8) could cause moderate to strong ground shaking at the Project Site. The intensity of earthquake motion will depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the earthquake fault, earthquake magnitude, earthquake duration, and site-specific geologic conditions.
For final design, we will estimate peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the Project Site using the online probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) tools available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2008), which are based on the 2008 updates to the national seismic hazard maps (Petersen and others, 2008). The PSHA is a method for estimating ground motions
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 20
that takes into account uncertainties and randomness in potential earthquake source, size, location, recurrence, and source-to-site attenuation. The results of the PSHA for the Project Site will be used to develop the design-level PGA. The most likely sources for this ground motion are known faults (e.g., Newport-Inglewood fault, Hollywood fault, and Santa Monica fault). Ground motions may be amplified or attenuated in the softer alluvial deposits at the Project Site depending on the level of ground shaking on the underlying bedrock, soil type, depth to bedrock, and other factors.
To mitigate the potential for future damage from strong seismic events, we recommend that new structures be analyzed using seismic designs from the latest building codes.
7.2 Expansive Soil
Moderately expansive soil is present onsite, posing a potential impact to lightly-loaded foundation elements and flatwork (e.g., sidewalks, driveways). The impacts can be mitigated through design or by excavation and replacement of the expansive materials with a soil with a low or non-expansive potential.
7.3 Oil Wells
Although the likelihood is low, should any known or previously undiscovered oil production wells be encountered on the Project Site during construction activities, the Applicant or construction manager shall halt work in the immediate area and notify DOGGR and the City of Los Angeles Fire Department immediately. Any such wells shall be abandoned or re-abandoned in accordance with the requirements of DOGGR and the Los Angeles Fire Department.
7.4 Tar Sands
The deep foundation installation to support new structures as well as elevator pits or other deep utility excavations at the Project Site could extend into the tar sands. These deposits occur at depths below approximate elevation +140 feet or 28 feet below grade (VB&B, 2005). On average, these deposits contain about 15 percent tar within the nearby proposed Wilshire/Fairfax station footprint for the WSE project (Metro, 2012). Analytical testing of soil samples collected from borings drilled within 100 feet of the proposed Wilshire/Fairfax station footprint indicates that excavation spoils with naturally occurring tar may not be acceptable as daily cover material in certain Class II landfills (Metro, 2012).
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 21
Tar sands encountered during deep foundation installation could be disposed of at a landfill, exported to a thermal treatment facility, or treated via bioremediation. Bioremediation is commonly done on site, which may not be practical. Therefore, we anticipate tar sand excavation spoils would be disposed of at a landfill that accepts petroleum-impacted materials, or at a thermal treatment facility. Contaminated soils have historically been disposed of at municipal solid waste landfills within the Los Angeles region. Regulations defining petroleum impacted soils are listed under California Water Code section 13050. Regional Water Quality Board Order No. R4-2011-0052 establishes region-wide waste acceptance requirements for the disposal or on-site use of contaminated soils at municipal waste landfills.
If hydrocarbon concentrations are higher than the accepted disposal criteria of the facility, an Acute Aquatic Toxicity Test (Bioassay Fish Kill Test) may be required to evaluate if the soil would be accepted to that facility, assuming no other constituents are hazardous. Soil sample analytical test results from the Metro WSE borings were compared to the accepted disposal threshold levels for the Waste Management McKittrick Class II Landfill (Metro, 2012). Metro concluded the laboratory test results indicate the tar sands could be considered as non‐hazardous for disposal purposes (Metro, 2012). Assuming future results of excavated soil from the Project Site are similar in character to the waste profile described in the Metro report, the soils could be disposed of at a Class II Landfill such as McKittrick.
7.5 Petroleum-Impacted Groundwater
Groundwater contaminated with natural oil and tar and methane and hydrogen sulfide gases may be present. See the Methane Report by Geosyntec Consultants (July 2014) for more information regarding mitigation.
Dewatering is not anticipated for deep foundations, but groundwater could be generated during the drilling process. The amount of groundwater together with the spoils from drilling is anticipated to be relatively small depending on the deep foundation selected. The drilling contractor should be prepared to contain and dispose of the groundwater during construction.
Dewatering could be required for other excavations, and could consist of sumps and/or trenches, pumped wells, vacuum wellpoints, or eductors/ejectors. Selection of the appropriate dewatering system would depend on the size of the excavation and depth of dewatering. For the elevator pits and underground utilities, we would anticipate sumps and/or trenches would be utilized to dewater these relatively small excavations.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 22
7.6 Construction Related Impacts
Considering the Project Site is located adjacent to existing buildings, roadways, walkways and utilities, there is the potential for construction related impacts from foundation excavation, deep foundation installation and site grading. Potential construction related impacts are mitigated through design and construction of temporary facilities (e.g. shoring, temporary cut) in conformance with Sections 1804 and 1807 of the City of Los Angeles Building Code (2011).
8.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General
The following foundation design criteria are preliminary and provided for planning purposes only. A site-specific geotechnical exploration program will be required for the proposed Project during the design phase.
The geologic materials at the Project Site include a relatively thin veneer of undocumented fill overlying alluvial deposits. The alluvium generally consists of stiff to very stiff clays with some dense silt and silty sand layers overlying deposits of dense to very dense sand. We anticipate structures will be founded in these alluvial deposits.
8.2 Foundations
Spread footings or mat foundations supported in the stiff or dense alluvial deposits are likely suitable for the proposed Project with proper structural design and detailing. We will provide allowable soil bearing and lateral load capacities for the footings during final design.
Deep foundations are also suitable for the Project. The current deep foundation support under consideration is augercast piles for the Sphere. The current deep foundation support for retrofit of the Original Building area shear walls is micropiles. Final design recommendations, including vertical and lateral capacities, will be developed during final design. Other deep foundation systems could be suitable for the Project and will also be evaluated during final design. Driven piles are not recommended for deep foundation support given noise and vibration issues in an urban environment. The preliminary recommendations for micropiles and foundation excavation recommendation report are attached in Appendix C. The report was prepared by Shannon & Wilson and submitted on June 18, 2013.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 23
8.3 Temporary Shoring
The use of temporary shoring systems may be necessary when construction requires excavation adjacent to existing subsurface and at-grade structures and adjacent to public right-of-ways. Temporary shoring system options may include:
. soldier pile and timber lagging, . soldier pile and steel sheets, . soldier pile system with tie-backs, or . secant walls.
Temporary shoring for the Pritzker Garage below the Resnick Exhibition Pavilion, constructed in 2007, consisted of steel solider piles in drilled shafts backfilled with concrete and restrained with temporary tie-back anchors; treated timber lagging was installed between solider piles.
The 2007 temporary shoring system included a dewatering system around the perimeter of the garage to permit construction under a dry condition and improve the stability of the shored excavation. The dewatering system consisted of deep wells around the perimeter of the garage and a system of interior trenches connected to the exterior wells. The wells were periodically plugged by tar from the tar sands and were replaced as needed.
Treatment of the groundwater extracted for dewatering for volatile organic compounds or other petroleum-related impacts and disposal of tar laden sediments should be considered in the Project planning and construction, where applicable.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the described Project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during subsurface explorations performed by us and others. We have made our recommendations based upon experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. The recommendations apply to the specific Project discussed in this report; therefore, any change in the structure configuration, loads, location, or the site grades should be provided to us so that we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 24
10.0 REFERENCES
10.1 Report Bibliography
Numerous geotechnical studies have been performed within the Project Site for existing Projects. Those prior studies have formed the basis for the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. An alphabetical listing of the prior reports, by the firm responsible for preparation of those reports is presented below.
AMEC, 2011, Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Report, Westside Subway Extension Project, report dated December 21, 2011. Geosyntec Consultants, 2014, Methane Report, Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, report dated July 2014. Metro, 2011, Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Data Report. Metro, 2012, Westside Subway Extension Project Advanced Preliminary Engineering, P No. PS-4350-2000, Geotechnical Synopsis Report, Section 1, prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff, report dated September 27, 2012.
Metro, 2013, Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report, Wilshire/Fairfax Station, Section 1, Westside Subway Extension, Project No. 4953-11-1423, prepared by AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., report dated May 22, 2013. Law/Crandall, 1998, Supplementary Soil Investigation, Proposed Hancock Park Capital Improvements, Wilshire Boulevard between Carson Avenue and Ogden Drive, Los Angeles, California, report dated January 21, 1998. LeRoy Crandall & Associates, 1982, Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed Additions, 5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, report dated March 9, 1982. LeRoy Crandall & Associates, 1984, Completion of Exploration Program, Proposed Additions, 5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, report dated May 3, 1984. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2009a, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Heizer Rock Sculpture, 6067 W. Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, report dated October 30, 2009. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2009b, Report of Geologic Evaluation, Proposed Michael Heizer Levitated Mass Exhibit, 6067 W. Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, report dated December 11, 2009. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011a, Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Michael Heizer Levitated Mass Exhibit, letter dated April 12, 2011. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011b, Revised Rock Properties Data Report, Proposed Michael Heizer Levitated Mass Exhibit, Los Angeles, California, report dated May 26, 2011.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 26
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011c, Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Gantry Crane Foundation, Proposed Michael Heizer Levitated Mass Exhibit, letter dated June 23, 2011. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011d, Clarification of Rock Mechanics Laboratories, Proposed Michael Heizer Levitated Mass Exhibit, letter dated June 24, 2011. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2011e, Inc., Rock and Steel Plate Friction, Proposed Michael Heizer Levitated Mass Exhibit, letter dated July 8, 2011. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2012, Inc., Final Report of Geotechnical Observation and Testing Construction of Reinforced Concrete Ramp Structure, Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), Michael Heizer Levitated Mass Exhibit, letter dated March 16, 2012. URS, 2003, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Museum Replacement Project, 5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, report dated November 12, 2003. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2005a, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Broad Contemporary Art Museum and Subterranean Garage, report dated January 27, 2005. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2005b, Response to Correction Letter by the City of L.A, letter dated July 29, 2005. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2005c, Response to Question by City of L.A, letter dated October 4, 2005. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2005d, Supplement Shoring Design Information, Removal of Retaining Wall Adjacent to Sixth Street, letter dated October 27, 2005. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2005e, Review of Shoring Drawing Removal of Retaining Wall Adjacent to Sixth Street, letter dated December 21, 2005. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2006a, Approval for Auger-Cast Piles, Proposed BCAM Building, letter dated July 14, 2006. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2006b, Interim Compaction Report, report dated July 18, 2006. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2006c, Disposal of Site Runoff into Soils, letter dated October 4, 2006. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2007, PCC Paving Design, letter dated March 30, 2007. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2008a, Final Report of Geotechnical Observation and Testing, report dated January 11, 2008. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2008b, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Phase 2 Project, report dated March 31, 2008. Van Beveren & Butelo, Inc., 2008c, Response to Question by City of L.A, letter dated January 31, 2008.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 27
10.2 Technical Publications
The following technical publications were reviewed as part of the preparation of the Geologic Setting and Geologic Hazards portion of this report:
California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/pages/index.aspx. California Department of Water Resources, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/. California Department of Water Resources, 1961, Planned Utilization of the Groundwater Basins of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County, Appendix A, Ground Water Geology. Bulletin No. 104. California Department of Water Resources, 2004, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin, Central Subbasin. Updated 02/27/2004. Website: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/4-11.03.pdf Accessed February 14, 2013. California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Hollywood Quadrangle, March 25, 1999. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, 1985, Task Force Report on the March 24, 1985 Methane Gas Explosion and Fire in the Fairfax Area. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, 2004, Methane and Methane Buffer Zones, Ordinance No. 175,790, passed February 12, 2004, effective March 29, 2004. Dibblee Geological Foundation, 1991, Geologic Map of the Hollywood and Burbank (South ½) Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, by Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr., 1991, Map #DF-30, First Printing, May, 1991. Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T.K., Yeats, R.S., Shaw, J., Suppe, J., Huftile, G.J., and Gath, E.M., 1995, Prospects for larger or more frequent earthquakes in the Los Angeles metropolitan region: Science, V. 267, p. 199-205. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008, Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1605F. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 23, p. 12 and map. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6. Los Angeles City Planning Department, 1996, Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan, City Planning Case No. 95-0371, adopted by the City Council November 26, 1996, 60 pg.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 28
Mark, R.K., 1977, Application of linear statistical models of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes, Geology 5, 464-466. Maulchin, L. and Jones, A.L., 1992, Peak acceleration from maximum credible earthquakes in California (rock and stiff soil sites). California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-08, 33 p. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2007, Groundwater Assessment Study, Report Number 1308. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 92-1. Petersen, M.D., Frankel, A.D., Harmsen, S.C., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Wesson, R.L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O.S., Perkins, D.M., Luco, N., Field, E.H., Wills, C.J., and Rukstales, K.S., 2008, Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazards Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128, 61 p. Slemmons, D.B., 1977, State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States: Report 6, faults and earthquake magnitude: U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, 129 p. with 37 p. appendix. Treiman, J.A., and Lundberg, M.M., compilers, 1999, Fault number 127a, Newport-Inglewood- Rose Canyon fault zone, north Los Angeles Basin section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website http//earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults, accessed February 26, 2013. Treiman, J.A., compiler, 2000, Fault number 105b, Sierra Madre fault zone, San Fernando section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website http//earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults, accessed February 20, 2013. U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2006, Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website: http//earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/, accessed February 20, 2013. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes, Quaternary faults, and seismic hazards in California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B12, p. 12,587-12,631. Ziony, J.I., and Jones, L.M., 1989,Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map.
51-1-10078-001 R01 Rev5/wp/ady 51-1-10078-001 29 Sacramento
Project Location
Los Angeles
CALIFORNIA PROJECT
Louis Larios LOCATION
N. Fairfax Ave. Sixth Street Login:
Wilshire Blvd. 07-03-2014 Date:
San Vicente Blvd. S, Fairfax Ave.
0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE: 1"=2000'
Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Miracle Mile District Los Angeles, California
NOTE VICINITY MAP Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission \\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 1 - VICINITY MAP.dwg JUDQWHGE\*RRJOH(DUWK0DSSLQJ6HUYLFH July 2014 51-1-10078-001 FIG. 1 Filename: A LEGEND 6th STREET VB&B Boring Location and Number 6 (Report dated October 30, 2009)
VB&B Boring Location and Number 5 (Report dated March 31, 2005)
Heizer Levitated VBB Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Mass Exhibit 3 Location and Number (Report dated March 31, 2008) 1 (138) 4 (138) Elevation of Top of Asphalt Sand (150) 6 Parsons Brinkerhoff (AMEC) Boring (140) G-5 Location and Number (Report dated December 2, 2011)
URS Boring Location and Number Louis Larios Outline of B-2 (Report dated August 2, 2002) 1 Existing 2-Level 5 (140) Underground (147) URS Boring Location and Number Login: Parking Structure B-8 (Report dated November 12, 2003) 2 Cross Section Location 07-03-2014 A (138.5) (See Figures 4 and 5)
Date: Approximate Limits of Resnick Exhibition Pavilion Proposed structures
FAIRFAX AVENUE Approximate Area of Demolition PROPOSED PROPOSED SPHERE BUILDING DEMOLITION North Piazza M-112 B (140)
2 B-2 0 40 80 160 (--) Entrance Pavilion (151) SCALE: 1"=80' Unenclosed Structure NOTES PROPOSED ACADEMY MUSEUM OF B-1 Ahmanson MOTION PICTURES Building 1. Map adapted from Site Plan by Gensler, dated Broad Contemporary February 8, 2008. B-3 Art Museum 2. Map adapted from Site Plan by Renzo Piano Existing May Company Building Workshop, dated April 2, 2013. (136) B' Building B-5 3. Logs of borings and CPT are attached in 3 (136) B-7 Appendix A. (137) (140)3 (141) South Piazza B-8 Academy Museum of Motion Pictures (142) Miracle Mile District B-2 Los Angeles, California G-123 M-10 (146) B-4 (121) (131) (133) WILSHIRE BOULEVARD B-6 SITE PLAN CB-104 G-5 (142) (128)
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 2 - SITE PLAN.dwg Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG West\001 Geology and LACMA \\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 July 2014 51-1-10078-001 A'
S. ORANGE FIG. 2 GROVE AVE. Filename: PROJECT LOCATION 27 Louis Larios 10 Login: South Salt Lake Oil Field 07-03-2014 Date:
LEGEND
Geologic Units 0 1000 2000 4000 Qa Alluvium
SCALE: 1"=2000' Qae Alluvium (Elevated)
Oil Wells 10 Chevron 10 Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Miracle Mile District 27 Chevron Salt Lake 27 Los Angeles, California
GEOLOGIC MAP NOTE
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 3 - GEOLOGIC MAP.dwg Map adapted from drawing titled Geologic Map of the July 2014 51-1-10078-001 Hollywood and Burbank Quadrangle, by Thomas W. Dibblee, jr., 1991. FIG. 3 Filename: LIMITS OF MAY COMPANY BUILDING Wilshire Blvd. 6th Street A LIMITS OF SPHERE BUILDING (URS, 2003) Intersection of A' 180 (VB&B, 2005) (VB&B, 2005) (26 ft East) B-B' 180 (AMEC, 2009) (10 ft West) (8 ft West) BOTTOM OF NEW MAT FOUNDATION Approximate Existing EL. +161 ft Ground Surface ? EL +168 ft EL +168 ft EL +168 ft EL +165 ft 22 12 1 u 18 c 13 160 18 EXISTING u 24 BASEMENT 160 14 7 14 4 u 11 Approx. 15' Below Grade 8 c 18 12 2 14 u 15 14 19 18 11 22 c 42 ? 22 3 Louis Larios 140 30 u 89 140 ? 33 35 40 2 16 45 14 50 40 10/20/03 c 67
Login: 50 43 50 42 77 85/9" 50/10" c 85/11" 07-03-2014 120 >50 4 120 50 4 63/10" 92
Date: 50/10" c 87/7" 60 >50 4 Approximate Elevation in Feet (MSL) Elevation in Feet Approximate
50/5" 70 50/10" c 75/5" >50 100 50 100 92/10" 50/4" 50/10" ? c 100/4" 8/23/04 >50 ? ? 68 79/10" 5 ? c 125 ? 80 80 >50 5 48 84 8/23/04 c 105 5/22/09
60 BORING LEGEND Boring Designation 0 20 40 0 50 100 (VBB, 2004) Boring Source, Report Year Projection Distance in Feet and Direction (8 ft West) Vertical Scale in Feet Horizontal Scale in Feet Elevation of boring Vertical Exaggeration = 2.5X EL +165 ft STRATUM LEGEND NOTES 59 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blows/Foot Water Level 1 Medium dense, gray, silty SAND to poorly graded 1. This subsurface cross section is generalized from 25 -Inch I.D. Thick Wall Sampler Observed in 8 fine SAND (SP, SM) materials observed in soil borings. Variations may Observation Well 8 Blows/Foot Driven Unless Otherwise Noted exist between this cross section and actual Academy Museum of Motion Pictures 2 Medium stiff, bluish gray, silty CLAY, clayey SILT to conditions. Water Level 5 Miracle Mile District 5 clayey SAND (CL, ML, SC) 2. 2 8-inch I.D. thick wall sampler driven by 300 lb Observed in Borehole 2 8-Inch I.D. Thick Wall Sampler Los Angeles, California u Hammer and 18-inch Drop. 70/3" Blows/Foot Driven Unless Otherwise Noted 3 Medium dense, bluish gray silty SAND to sandy SILT 3. Boring Location Plan is shown in Figure 2. Well Intake Zone (SM, ML) 25 -Inch I.D. Thick Wall GEOLOGIC c 125 8 Blows/Foot Driven Unless Otherwise Noted CROSS SECTION A-A' 4 Very dense, black, poorly graded fine SAND with ? ?
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 4 5 - CROSS SECTIONS.dwg 4 5 - CROSS Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG West\001 Geology and LACMA \\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 asphalt (SP) Approximate Geologic Bottom of Boring July 2014 51-1-10078-001 8/23/04 Contact 5 Very dense, gray, sandy SILT (ML) Date Drilled FIG. 4 Filename: Fairfax Ave. LIMITS OF MAY COMPANY BUILDING B B' 180 (URS, 2011 ) 180 (14 ft North) (URS, 2003) (URS, 2003) (URS, 2003) Intersection of (19 ft North) (24 ft South) (11 ft South) (URS, 2003) A-A' Approximate Existing EL +168 ft Ground Surface EL +165 ft EL +165 ft EL +165 ft EL +165 ft u 18 u 18 1 u 11 1 160 EXISTING BASEMENT u 24 u 51 u 2 160 EL. +152.25 ft u 17 u u u Approx. 15' Below Grade 11 u 20 68 3
2 u u 14 15 u 12 2 61 u 11 12 23 39 3 3 140 u 89 u 81 71 140 Louis Larios u 109/11" 2 2 14 33 24 u 54
Login: u u 70/5" 118/10" 70/4"
76 99 4 u 88
07-03-2014 120 u 120 u 70/4" 70/3" 92
u 116 138/8" 70/1" Date: 4 10/17/03 10/16/03 10/15/03 Approximate Elevation in Feet (MSL) Approximate Elevation in Feet (MSL) Elevation in Feet Approximate 4
100 100
7/6/11 (No N-Values from SPT are Reported on the 80 Log of Boring) 80
60 60 BORING LEGEND Boring Designation 0 20 40 0 50 100 (VBB, 2004) Boring Source, Report Year Projection Distance in Feet and Direction (8 ft West) Vertical Scale in Feet Horizontal Scale in Feet Elevation of boring Vertical Exaggeration = 2.5X EL +165 ft STRATUM LEGEND NOTES 59 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blows/Foot Water Level 1 Medium dense, gray, silty SAND to poorly graded 1. This subsurface cross section is generalized from 25 -Inch I.D. Thick Wall Sampler Observed in 8 fine SAND (SP, SM) materials observed in soil borings. Variations may Observation Well 8 Blows/Foot Driven Unless Otherwise Noted exist between this cross section and actual Academy Museum of Motion Pictures 2 Medium stiff, bluish gray, silty CLAY, clayey SILT to conditions. Water Level 5 Miracle Mile District 5 clayey SAND (CL, ML, SC) 2. 2 8-inch I.D. thick wall sampler driven by 300 lb Observed in Borehole 2 8-Inch I.D. Thick Wall Sampler Los Angeles, California u Hammer and 18-inch Drop. 70/3" Blows/Foot Driven Unless Otherwise Noted 3 Medium dense, bluish gray silty SAND to sandy SILT 3. Boring Location Plan is shown in Figure 2. Well Intake Zone (SM, ML) 25 -Inch I.D. Thick Wall GEOLOGIC c 125 8 Blows/Foot Driven Unless Otherwise Noted CROSS SECTION B-B' 4 Very dense, black, poorly graded fine SAND with ? ?
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 4 5 - CROSS SECTIONS.dwg 4 5 - CROSS Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG West\001 Geology and LACMA \\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 asphalt (SP) Approximate Geologic Bottom of Boring July 2014 51-1-10078-001 8/23/04 Contact 5 Very dense, gray, sandy SILT (ML) Date Drilled FIG. 5 Filename: Louis Larios Login: 07-03-2014
PROJECT Date: LOCATION
0 0.5 1 2 Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Miracle Mile District SCALE: 1 inch = 1 mile Los Angeles, California
NOTES 1. Numbers are depth below ground surface. HISTORIC HIGH GROUNDWATER 2. Map adapted from Seismic Hazard Zone Report
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 6 - HISTORIC HIGH GROUNDWATER.dwg For the Hollywood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los July 2014 51-1-10078-001 Angeles County, California, Plate 1.2, 1998. FIG. 6 Filename: PROJECT LOCATION Louis Larios Login: 07-03-2014 Date:
0 2000 4000 8000
SCALE: 1" = 4000'
Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Miracle Mile District Los Angeles, California
ALQUIST-PRIOLO FAULT ZONES NOTE
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 7 - ALQUIST-PRIOLO FAULT ZONES.dwg Map adapted from drawing titled State of California Special July 2014 51-1-10078-001 Studies Zones, Hollywood and Beverly Hills Quadrangle, by Division of Mines and Geology, dated July 1, 1986. FIG. 7 Filename: Filename: \\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 8 - ACTIVE FAULT MAP.dwg Date: 07-03-2014 Login: Louis Larios Map adaptedfromFaultActivity Mapof California, 2010 byCaliforniaGeological Survey. 0 20,000 SCALE: 1"=40,000' See Sheet2of 40,000 NOTE 80,000 LOCATION PROJECT July 2014 Academy MuseumofMotionPictures ACTIVE FAULTMAP Los Angeles,California Miracle MileDistrict 51-1-10078-001 Sheet 1of2 FIG. 8 Filename: \\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 8 - ACTIVE FAULT MAP.dwg Date: 07-03-2014 Login: Louis Larios Map adaptedfromFaultActivity Mapof California, 2010 byCaliforniaGeological Survey. 0 5,000 SCALE: 1"=10,000' 10,000 NOTE 20,000 LOCATION PROJECT July 2014 Academy MuseumofMotionPictures ACTIVE FAULTMAP Los Angeles,California Miracle MileDistrict 51-1-10078-001 Sheet 2of FIG. 8 PROJECT LOCATION Louis Larios Login: 07-03-2014 Date:
0 1000 2000 4000 Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Miracle Mile District SCALE: 1"=2000' Los Angeles, California
SEISMIC HAZARDS NOTE
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 9 - SEISMIC HAZARDS.dwg Map adapted from drawing titled State of California July 2014 51-1-10078-001 Seismic Hazards Zones, Hollywood Quadrangle, By Division of Mines and Geology, Dated March 25, 1999. FIG. 9 Filename: PROJECT LOCATION Louis Larios
Login: Salt Lake Oil Field AVENUE
WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 07-03-2014
FAIRFAX Date:
0 1000 2000
Scale in Feet
LEGEND
Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Miracle Mile District Los Angeles, California
NOTE OIL WELL MAP Map adapted from Oil Field Map, District 1, Map
\\Lax-fs1\vol1\PROJECTS\10078 LACMA West\001 Geology and Soil Discipline Report\Graphics\FIG 10 - OIL WELL MAP.dwg 118, by Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal July 2014 51-1-10078-001 Resources, dated September 17, 2003. FIG. 10 Filename:
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATIONS BY VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC.
51-1-10078-001
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATIONS BY VAN BEVEREN & BUTELO, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
A-1 Log of Boring B-1 (2 sheets) A-2 Log of Boring B-2 (3 sheets) A-3 Log of Boring B-3 (2 sheets) A-4 Log of Boring B-4 (2 sheets) A-5 Log of Boring B-5 (2 sheets) A-6 Log of Boring B-6 (2 sheets) A-7 Log of Cone Penetration Test CPT-1 (1 sheet) A-8 Log of Cone Penetration Test CPT-2 (1 sheet) A-9 Log of Cone Penetration Test CPT-3 (1 sheet)
51-1-10078-001-R01 AA/wp/ADY 51-1-10078-001 A-i LOG OF BORING B-1 FIG. A-1 Sheet 1 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-1 FIG. A-1 Sheet 2 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-2 FIG. A-2 Sheet 1 of 3 LOG OF BORING B-2 FIG. A-2 Sheet 2 of 3 LOG OF BORING B-2 FIG. A-2 Sheet 3 of 3 LOG OF BORING B-3 FIG. A-3 Sheet 1 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-3 FIG. A-3 Sheet 2 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-4 FIG. A-4 Sheet 1 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-4 FIG. A-4 Sheet 2 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-5 FIG. A-5 Sheet 1 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-5 FIG. A-5 Sheet 2 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-6 FIG. A-6 Sheet 1 of 2 LOG OF BORING B-6 FIG. A-6 Sheet 1 of 2 LOG OF CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-1 FIG. A-7 Sheet 1 of 1 LOG OF CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-2 FIG. A-8 Sheet 1 of 1 LOG OF CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-3 FIG. A-9 Sheet 1 of 1
APPENDIX B
EXPLORATIONS BY OTHER CONSULTANTS
51-1-10078-001
APPENDIX B
EXPLORATIONS BY OTHER CONSULTANTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
B-1 Log of MACTEC Cone Penetration Test CB-104 (2 sheet) B-2 Log of AMEC Boring G-5 (3 sheets) B-3 Log of AMEC Boring G-123 (3 sheets) B-4 Log of AMEC Boring & Monitoring Well M-10 (4 sheets) B-5 Log of AMEC Boring & Monitoring Well M-112 (4 sheets) B-6 Log of URS Boring B-1 for BCAM (1 sheet) B-7 Log of URS Boring B-2 for BCAM (2 sheets) B-8 Log of URS Boring B-3 for BCAM (2 sheets) B-9 Log of URS Boring B-4 for BCAM (2 sheets) B-10 Log of URS Boring B-5 for BCAM (2 sheets) B-11 Log of URS Boring B-6 for BCAM (2 sheets) B-12 Log of URS Boring B-7 for BCAM (2 sheets) B-13 Log of URS Boring B-8 for BCAM (2 sheets) B-14 Log of URS Boring B-2 Entrance Pavilion (2 sheets)
51-1-10078-001-R01 AB/wp/ADY 51-1-10078-001 B-i LOGS OF MACTECH CONE PENETRATION TEST CB-104 FIG. B-1 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF MACTECH CONE PENETRATION TEST CB-104 FIG. B-1 Sheet 2 of 2 LOG OF AMEC BORING G-5
FIG. B-2 Sheet 1 of 3 LOG OF AMEC BORING G-5
FIG. B-2 Sheet 2 of 3 LOG OF AMEC BORING G-5
FIG. B-2 Sheet 3 of 3 LOG OF AMEC BORING G-123
FIG. B-3 Sheet 1 of 3 LOG OF AMEC BORING G-123
FIG. B-3 Sheet 2 of 3 LOG OF AMEC BORING G-123
FIG. B-3 Sheet 3 of 3 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-10 FIG. B-4 Sheet 1 of 4 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-10 FIG. B-4 Sheet 2 of 4 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-10 FIG. B-4 Sheet 3 of 4 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-10 FIG. B-4 Sheet 4 of 4 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-112 FIG. B-5 Sheet 1 of 4 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-112 FIG. B-5 Sheet 2 of 4 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-112 FIG. B-5 Sheet 3 of 4 LOG OF AMEC BORING & MONITORING WELL M-112 FIG. B-5 Sheet 4 of 4 LOGS OF URS BORING B-1
FIG. B-6 Sheet 1 of 1 LOGS OF URS BORING B-2
FIG. B-7 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-2
FIG. B-7 Sheet 2 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-3
FIG. B-8 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-3
FIG. B-8 Sheet 2 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-4
FIG. B-9 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-4
FIG. B-9 Sheet 2 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-5
FIG. B-10 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-5
FIG. B-10 Sheet 2 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-6
FIG. B-11 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-6
FIG. B-11 Sheet 2 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-7
FIG. B-12 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-7
FIG. B-12 Sheet 2 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-8
FIG. B-13 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-8
FIG. B-13 Sheet 2 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-2
FIG. B-14 Sheet 1 of 2 LOGS OF URS BORING B-2
FIG. B-14 Sheet 2 of 2
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY RECOMMMENDATIONS FOR MIRCROPILES AND FOUNDATION EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
51-1-10078-001 Preliminary Recommendations for Micropile and Foundation Excavation Recommendations The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Los Angeles, California
June 18, 2013
Submitted To: Ms. Heather Cochran Managing Director, Academy Museum Project The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences 8949 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211
By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 664 West Broadway Glendale, CA 91204
51-1-10078-002
ALASKA CALIFORNIA COLORADO FLORIDA MISSOURI OREGON WASHINGTON
June 18, 2013
Ms. Heather Cochran Managing Director, Academy Museum Project The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences 8949 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211
RE: PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MICROPILE AND FOUNDATION EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS THE ACADEMY MUSEUM OF MOTION PICTURES LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Cochran:
This letter presents our preliminary recommendations for proposed micropile foundations and excavations for the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures project. Mr. Anthony Biddle of AMA, Inc. requested the information at the June 5, 2013 design meeting at SPF Architects in Culver City. We understand our preliminary recommendations will be used in estimating foundation costs for the proposed existing building renovation and new structure.
We based our preliminary recommendations on the available information from previous geotechnical explorations at adjacent project. The recommendations presented herein are not intended for final design, which will require additional geotechnical explorations. Our geotechnical report for final design will supersede the recommendations in this letter.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The proposed project will develop the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, which will contain over 290,000 square feet of galleries, exhibition spaces, movie theaters, educational areas, and special event spaces. The site is located at the northeast corner of Fairfax Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard as shown in attached Figure 1. The museum will consist of the 1938 LACMA West building and a new glass sphere building that will house a theater. The existing LACMA West building will be partially demolished at its north end and the rest of the building will be
664 WEST BROADWAY GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91204-1008 818-543-4560 FAX: 818-543-4565 TDD 1-800-833-6388 www.shannonwilson.com 51-1-10078-002 Ms. Heather Cochran The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures June 18, 2013 Page 2 of 7
renovated. The new theater will be constructed to the north and adjacent to the renovated LACMA West building. A 15,000-square-foot landscaped public plaza is planned to serve as a gathering space for visitors and connect the museum with the LACMA campus.
There is no significant proposed modification to the existing grades of the site. The theater will not have a basement. The existing one–level basement of the LACMA West building will remain. The top of basement slab of the LACMA West is located approximately 15 feet below ground surface, or at approximately elevation (El.) +152.
The site plan and subsurface profiles are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
MICROPILES
Micropiles will be installed in the existing basement of LACMA West building to support proposed shear wall and elevator pits. The locations of shear wall and elevator pits have not been finalized by the design team at the time this letter was prepared, but we understand they will be along the north end of the LACMA West building. We made capacity calculations for 6- inch, 8-inch, and 10-inch diameter micropiles as shown in Figure 4. These calculated capacities must be revised for final design using additional geotechnical exploration data. Our final report will provide additional design details and construction recommendations for micropiles.
AUGERCAST PILES
Augercast piles will be installed to support the reinforced concrete mat foundation for the new theater. The distance between the theater and the LACMA West building has not been finalized by the design team at the time of this memo was written. We provided preliminary design recommendations for 18-inch, 24-inch, and 30-inch diameter augercast piles in our Preliminary Augercast Foundation letter report, dated April 9, 2013.
GROUNDWATER
According to the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Hollywood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, the historically shallowest depth to groundwater is on the order of 10 feet below existing grade or at approximately elevation (El.) +157 feet. Data contained on the California State Water Resources
51-1-10078-002 L02/wp/ADY 51-1-10078-002
Ms. Heather Cochran The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures June 18, 2013 Page 3 of 7
Control Board GEOTRACKER GAMA website indicates groundwater is variable near the site, and ranges from about 10 to 15 feet below grade or between El. +152 and +157 feet.
Monitoring wells were installed along the eastern side of the site in 2004. Readings from these wells indicate groundwater was at a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade or El. +157 feet between August and October of 2004. Several monitoring wells were installed near the LACMA campus along Wilshire Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue in 2011 for the Westside Subway Project. Readings from these wells indicate groundwater varied between El. +117 and +152 feet during May and June of 2011.
Based on the groundwater data discussed above, w e recommend assuming a preliminary design groundwater depth of 10 feet below grade or at El. +157 feet.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
New Theater
We understand the proposed depth of excavation for most of the mat foundation of the new theater building will be approximately 7 feet below grade or to El. +161, which is about 4 feet above the anticipated groundwater level at El. +157. This excavation depth is based on an assumed top of mat 3 feet below grade, the mat will be 3 feet thick, and 1 foot of overexcavation will be required to prepare the subgrade. We do not anticipate dewatering will be required for this excavation depth.
Where temporary excavation support is required, we anticipate soldier piles and lagging, or sheet piles may be required if the temporary slope cut in soil of 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) is not practical.
Based on our previous experience at the site, we anticipate soil excavated above groundwater likely would not contain significant natural tar. As such, it likely could be disposed of as clean soil. Spoils from drilling augercast piles that extend below groundwater could contain natural tar. Excess soils from augercast pile installation should be chemical analyzed prior to off-site disposal.
51-1-10078-002 L02/wp/ADY 51-1-10078-002
Ms. Heather Cochran The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures June 18, 2013 Page 4 of 7
Existing LACMA West
Elevator Pit Excavation
We understand the top of existing basement slab of LACMA West building is at approximately 15 feet below outside grade or at El. +152.25. The existing 4-inch-thick basement slab is constructed over 2½-foot-thick backfill over approximately 1 foot and 11 inches thick reinforced concrete mat foundation. The typical section of the building foundation from 1939 construction drawings by Albert C. Martin Architect is presented in Figure 5.
The locations of five new elevator pits provided by SPF Architects are shown in Figure 6. These elevator pits will be constructed in the basement. The approximated dimensions of each proposed pit are summarized in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ELEVATOR PITS
Approx. Approximate Bottom Elevator Pit Remarks Size of Pit Elevation E-3, F-8 and 12 inches below top of Pit construction will penetrate the slab, but 11’ by 11’ H-4 basement slab not the mat. 4’-6” below top of basement Pit construction will likely penetrate the G-3 7’ by 20’ slab mat. 4’-6” below top of basement Pit construction will likely penetrate the G-12 12’ by 14’ slab mat.
The proposed elevator pits E-3, F-8 and G-3 will not penetrate the mat; therefore, construction dewatering is not anticipated during excavation for pit construction.
The proposed elevator pits G-3 and G-12 will likely penetrate the mat. A site plan and cross sections at these pits provided by Buro Happold (structural engineer) are shown in Figure 7. We anticipate construction dewatering will be required to excavate these elevator pits. Groundwater is also anticipated during installation of micropiles. Because the groundwater level will be more than 10 feet above the bottom of excavation, we anticipate the dewatering wells or well points will be required to lower groundwater level during construction.
51-1-10078-002 L02/wp/ADY 51-1-10078-002
Ms. Heather Cochran The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures June 18, 2013 Page 5 of 7
Shear Wall Construction
The existing basement walls of the LACMA West building along the South, East and West perimeter will be retrofitted by adding steel reinforcement and shortcrete. The structural engineer indicated the retrofitted walls will be founded on existing mat foundation. In addition, two new interior shear walls will be constructed between column grids G-1 and G-3, and between G-11 and G-12. The length of each shear wall is approximately 30 to 35 feet. These shear walls will be supported on micropiles. The locations and detail of shear walls provided by SPF Architects and Buro Happold on June 11 and 12, 2013 are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
The construction of two interior shear walls at column line G will require penetration through the existing mat; therefore, dewatering is anticipated during excavation. Since the groundwater level will be more than 10 feet above the bottom of excavation, we anticipate dewatering wells or well points to lower groundwater level during construction.
Dewatering and Groundwater Disposal
Deeper excavations will be required for isolated areas, including shear wall foundations and two deep elevator pits. We anticipate construction dewatering for the excavations will require well points or wells. Dewatering effluent analytical testing and treatment will be required for disposal purposes.
Based on our experience, records and a recent phone interview with the dewatering contractor (Mr. Jerry King, Hydroquip Pump and Dewatering Corp. of Santa Fe Springs, California) regarding the dewatering and groundwater disposal during construction of the underground parking garage at LACMA in 2009, we anticipate the dewatering and groundwater treatment and disposal could include:
1. One or two dewatering wells at each excavation area. Each well should extend at least 20 feet into the tar sand stratum or approximately 40 feet below the basement slab. Each well should be capable of continuously operating and controls to avoid well running dry. The wells should be designed to reduce the potential for plugging from tar.
51-1-10078-002 L02/wp/ADY 51-1-10078-002
Ms. Heather Cochran The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures June 18, 2013 Page 6 of 7
2. The dewatering effluent likely will require pretreatment before it can be discharged to the storm drain or sanitary sewer system. Figure 8 shows a process flow diagram for the groundwater treatment system that was used for the underground parking garage project in 2009. The treatment system in 2009 was designed and operated by Pure Effect, Inc. of Orange, California. The system consists of a frac tank, a bag filter and two carbon filter units. The discharge permit in 2009 was prepared and submitted by Apex Companies, LLC of San Diego, California.
The documentations regarding dewatering and dewatering effluent disposal from the 2009 parking garage project are attached in Appendix A for information. The documents include:
. Final Dewatering Design/Proposal by Hydroquip Corp., . Water Treatment System (Quotation) by Pure Effect, Inc., and, . Notice of Intent (Permit) for Waste Water Discharge to California Regional Water Quality Control Board by Apex Companies, LLC.
LIMITATIONS
The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter.
51-1-10078-002 L02/wp/ADY 51-1-10078-002
51-1-10078-002 Micropile Capacity NXN 2013-06-14 6/18/2013
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Micropile Axial Capacity (Based on Borings B‐1 & M‐112) Allowable Load (kips) Depth below Pile Cap (feet) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0' 0 No Load Zone
Clay, Silt, and Sand 6‐inch dia. pile (CL, ML, SM, SC) 10 8‐inch dia. pile
10‐inch dia. pile 15'
20
Asphalt Sand (SP) (feet) 30 Depth
40
50
60' 60
NOTES Academy Museum of Motion Pictures 1. The analyses are based on a single micropile. Miracle Mile District Los Angeles, California 2. The analyses do not considered structural resistance of micropile section. MICROPILE AXIAL CAPACITY 3. The factor of safety of 2.0 is used to calculate the pile allowable load based on Working Stress Design (WSD) Method. LOAD V. DEPTH
4.The pile resistance between casing and soil in the top 10 feet of pile is June 2013 51-1-10078-002 neglected per City of Los Angeles Building Code (2011). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 4
Sheet A-1 of 14 Sheet A-2 of 14 Sheet A-3 of 14 Sheet A-4 of 14 Sheet A-5 of 14 Sheet A-6 of 14 Sheet A-7 of 14 Sheet A-8 of 14 Sheet A-9 of 14 Sheet A-10 of 14 Sheet A-11 of 14 Sheet A-12 of 14 Sheet A-13 of 14 Sheet A-14 of 14
APPENDIX B
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
51-1-10078-002 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 51-1-10078-002 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: Dated:June 18, 2013 To: The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and
Sciences Attn: Ms. Heather Cochran
Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors, which were considered in the development of the report, have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect.
1/2010
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based on interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland
1/2010
APPENDIX D
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
51-1-10078-001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 51-1-10078-001 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: July 7, 2014 To: The Academy of Motion Pictures
Arts and Sciences Attn: Mr. Bill Kramer
Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors, which were considered in the development of the report, have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect.
1/2010
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based on interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland
1/2010