4.D. Geology and Soils...4.D Geology and Soils August 2014 City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.D‐2 underlain by Tertiary‐age sedimentary

CityofLosAngeles AcademyMuseumofMotionPicturesProjectSCH#2013051086 4.D‐1

4.D GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. INTRODUCTION

This section evaluates potential geologic and soils hazards associated with the Project including faultrupture; seismic ground shaking; groundwater; liquefaction; expansive and compressible soils; tar sandsandoilwells;erosion;andconstructioneffects. Thissection isbased, inpart,on informationandfindingscontained in the Geology and Soil Discipline Report, prepared for the Project by Shannon & WilsonGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultants,Inc.;1theWaterResourcesTechnicalReportpreparedbyKPFFConsultingEngineers;2andtheMethaneReportpreparedbyGeosyntecConsultants. 3 TheGeologyandSoilDiscipline Report is provided in Appendix G of this Draft EIR; theWater Resources Technical Report isprovidedinAppendixI;andtheMethaneReportisprovidedinAppendixH‐1. Relatedissuesofmethaneandhydrogensulfidegases,contaminatedsoil,andcontaminatedgroundwaterarefurtheraddressedinSection4.E,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,anderosionandwaterqualityareaddressedinSection4.F,HydrologyandWaterQuality,ofthisDraftEIR.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

a. Existing Conditions

(1) Geological Setting

TheProjectSiteislocatedwithinthecoastalLosAngelesBasin(“Basin”)ofSouthernCalifornia. TheBasinincludesthelow‐lyingareabetweentheSanGabrielMountainsandthePacificOcean.Mountainrangesandhills bordering the Basin include the Santa Monica Mountains to the north, the Hollywood Hills to thenortheast, theElysian andRepettoHills to thenortheast, thePeninsularRanges to the southeast, and theBaldwinHillstothesouth.

TheProjectSitesitsatopthewesternexpanseoftheLaBreaPlain,abroad,slightlyelevatedplainextendingsouthfromtheSantaMonicaMountainsandcomprisingQuaternary‐agealluvialfanandfloodplaindeposits.ThesealluvialsedimentsweredepositedatopunderlyingTertiary‐ageshallowmarinesedimentarybedrockformations.

(a) Geologic Materials

PreviousgeotechnicalinvestigationsundertakenonportionsoftheLACMACampusinrecentyearsandcitedintheGeologyandSoilDisciplineReportpreparedforthisProjectindicatethattheProjectSiteisunderlainbyarelativelythinlayerofartificialfilltodepthsofbetweenoneandeightfeet.Thefillvariesincompositionbut generally consists of clay, gravelly sand, clayey sand and silty sand. Below the fill, theProject Site isunderlainbythickdepositsofPleistocene‐agealluvialmaterialsgenerallyconsistingofstifftoverystiffclaysanddensetar‐bearingsands.Thefine‐grainedalluvialdepositsarereferredtoastheLakewoodFormation,while the deeper sand beds are known as the San Pedro formation. Recent geotechnical explorationsundertakenbyMetroforthenearbyMetroWestsideSubwayExtensionindicatethatalluvialsedimentsare1 Shannon&WilsonInc.,GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,ProposedAcademyMuseumofMotionPictures,LosAngeles,California,

July2014.2 KPFFConsultingEngineers,Inc.,AcademyofMotionPicturesProjectWaterResourcesTechnicalReport,July2014.3 GeosyntecConsultants,MethaneReportAcademyMuseumofMotionPictures,July2014.

4.D Geology and Soils August 2014


underlainbyTertiary‐agesedimentarybedrockoftheFernandoFormation.Sandysiltstone,correspondingtotheFernandoFormation,wasencounteredatadepthof80.5feetbelowgradeinthenorthernportionoftheProjectSite.4

(b) Earthquake Faults

TherearenumerousfaultsinSouthernCalifornia,includingactive,potentiallyactive,andinactivefaults.Anactivefault isonethathascausedasurfacerupturewithintheHoloceneEpoch(i.e., thelast11,000years)andcontinuestohavethepotentialtocausesurfacerupture. FaultsnotactivewithintheHoloceneEpoch,butthatstilldemonstratemovementwithinQuaternarygeologictime(i.e.,upto2.6millionyearsago),areconsidered to be potentially active but less likely to cause surface rupture. Inactive faults are those notactivewithintheQuaternarygeologictime.DistancesbetweentheProjectSiteandactivefaultsinSouthernCaliforniaare listed inTable4.D‐1,MajorFaultsConsideredtobeActive inSouthernCalifornia,andTable4.D‐2,MajorFaultsConsideredtobePotentiallyActiveinSouthernCalifornia.

Table 4.D‐1

Major Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California

Fault

Maximum Credible

Earthquake (magnitude)

Slip Rate (mm/yr)

Distance from Project Site (miles) Direction of Fault

Hollywood 7.0 1.5 2.7

North

Newport‐InglewoodFaultZone 7.0 1.0 3.0

Southwest

SantaMonica 7.2 4.0 3.8 WestElysianParkFoldandThrustBelt 7.1 1.7 4.5 EastRaymond 6.7 0.4 8.8 NortheastVerdugo 6.75 0.5 9.6 NortheastSierraMadre–SierraMadreSection 7.3 4.0 14 NortheastSierraMadre–SanFernandoSection 6.8 5.0 14.7 NorthNorthridge 6.9 1.5 17 North/NorthwestElsinore–WhittierSection 7.1 3.0 18 SoutheastOakRidge 6.7 4.0 31 NorthwestSanAndreas–MojaveSection 8.2 30.0 36 Northeast

Note: Distances are based on U.S. Geological Survey 2008 National Seismic Hazards Maps. Source: Shannon & Wilson, Geology and Soil Discipline Report, July 2014 and PCR Services Corporation, July 2014.

4 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,page9,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.

August 2014 4.D Geology and Soils


ThenearestactivefaultsystemstotheProjectSiteareSantaMonica‐Hollywood(consideredbranchesofthesame fault system) and Newport‐Inglewood. As depicted in Table 4.D‐1, the Project Site is locatedapproximately 2.7miles south of theHollywood branch of the SantaMonica‐Hollywood fault system andapproximately3.0milesnortheastoftheNewport‐Inglewoodfaultsystem.ThelevelofgroundshakingthatwouldbeexperiencedattheProjectSitefromactive,potentiallyactive,orblindthrustfaults(i.e.,nosurfacetraces) in the region are a function of several factors including earthquake magnitude, type of faulting,rupturepropagationpath,distance fromtheepicenter,earthquakedepth,durationofshaking,andProjectSitetopographyandgeology.

TheHollywoodFaultzone,extendsforadistanceofapproximatelyeightmilesthroughBeverlyHills,WestHollywood,andHollywoodtotheLosAngelesRiverandtheSantaAnaFreeway(I‐5).Thefaultwaslocatedthroughwaterwell, oilwell, and geophysical data, aswell as surface trenching and drilling by numerousinvestigators. InHollywood, theactive fault is close to the SantaMonicaMountains range. Fartherwest,neartheintersectionofSunsetandLaCienegaBoulevardsinWestHollywood,theactivefaultliesnearthebaseofanalluvialfanalongthemountainfront.NoearthquakeshavebeenproducedalongthisfaultinthedocumentedhistoryoftheCity.However,subsurfaceevidenceforlateQuaternaryfaultinghasbeenfoundinHollywoodalongCahuengaBoulevard,LaBreaAvenue,andotherarearoadways. TheSantaMonica faultportion of the Santa Monica‐Hollywood fault system extends east from the coastline in Pacific PalisadesthroughSantaMonicaandWestLosAngelesandmergeswiththeHollywoodfaultinBeverlyHills,westoftheintersectionofSantaMonicaBoulevardandWilshireBoulevard.

TheonshoreportionoftheNewport‐Inglewoodfaultzoneextendsapproximately47milesfromCulverCityto Newport Beach and has been the source of several earthquakes, including the 1933 Long Beachearthquake(magnitude6.4)andsmallerearthquakesinInglewood(1920),Gardena(1941),andTorrance‐

Table 4.D‐2

Major Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California

Fault

Maximum Credible

Earthquake (magnitude) Slip Rate (mm/yr)

Distance from Project Site (miles) Direction of Fault

OverlandAvenue 6.0 0.1 4 SouthwestCharnock 6.5 0.1 6 SouthwestMacArthur 6.1 0.1 7 EastCoyotePass 6.7 0.1 8 EastSierraMadre–SantaSusanaSection 6.9 6.2 19 NorthwestLosAlamitos 6.2 0.1 20 SoutheastSierraMadre–DuarteSection 6.7 0.1 21 East/NortheastSanJose 6.7 0.5 28 EastElsinore–ChinoSection 7.0 1.0 35 SoutheastSanJacinto–SanBernardinoSection 6.4 n/d 56 East

Note: Distances are based on U.S. Geological Survey 2008 National Seismic Hazards Maps. Source: Shannon & Wilson, Geology and Soil Discipline Report, July 2014 and PCR Services Corporation, July 2014.



Gardena (1941). The fault zone isnota continuous surface fault,but ismarkedbya seriesofuplifts andanticlines,includingBaldwinHills.

TheElysianParkfault is locatedis locatedapproximately4.5mileseastoftheProjectSiteandisanactiveblind fault that extends approximately 12 miles between Silver Lake and Whittier Narrows. The 1987Whittier Narrows earthquake (magnitude 5.9) has been attributed to subsurface thrust faults, which arereflectedattheearth'ssurfacebyawest‐northwesttrendinganticlineknownastheElysianParkanticline.Thesubsurfacefaultsthatcreatethestructurearenotexposedatthesurface;however,asdemonstratedbythe 1987 earthquake and two smaller earthquakes on June 12, 1989, the faults are a source for futureseismic activity. Accordingly, the Elysian Park fold and thrust belt is considered active and capable ofgeneratingfutureearthquakesandseismicshaking.

The activeMissionWells segment of the San Fernando fault zone, one of the four segments of the SierraMadre fault zone, is located approximately 15miles north‐northeast of the Project Site. Surface ruptureoccurredalongtheTujunga,Sylmar,andMissionWellssegmentsoftheSanFernandofaultzoneduringtheFebruary 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The San Fernando fault zone comprises a number of leftlateral/reversefrontalfaultsboundingthesouthernmarginoftheSanGabrielandSantaSusanaMountains.ThisfaultslippedonFebruary9,1971,causingamagnitude6.4earthquake.

TheNorthridgethrustfaultisaninferredblindthrustfaultthatisconsideredthewesternextensionoftheOakRidgefault,andisbelievedtobethecausativefaultoftheJanuary17,1994Northridgeearthquake.TheNorthridgethrustunderliesalargeareaoftheSanFernandoValley,andwhileisnotexposedatthesurfaceanddoesnotpresentapotentialsurfacefaultrupturehazard,itisanactivefeaturethatcangeneratefutureearthquakes.Thefaultislocatedapproximately17milesnorthandnorthwestoftheProjectSite.

TheOakRidge fault is a blind thrust fault locatedbeneath the Santa SusanaMountains approximately31milesnortheastof theProjectSite. The faultassociatedwith the1994Northridgeearthquake isprobablypartoftheOakRidgefaultsystem,as itsharesmanyofthesamecharacteristics. Thisblindthrustfault isknownalternatelyasthePicothrustandtheNorthridgethrust.

Active faults zones nearest the Project Site are illustrated inFigure4.D‐1,Alquist‐PrioloFaultZonesandFigure 4.D‐2, Active Fault Map. No active or potentially active faults are known to be located in theimmediate vicinity (i.e., within onemile) of the Project Site. Regional earthquake fault systems are alsoillustratedinFigure8intheGeologyandSoilDisciplineReport(seeAppendixGofthisDraftEIR).

(c) Groundwater

TheProjectSiteislocatedwithintheCentralBasinoftheCoastalPlainoftheLosAngelesGroundwaterBasin(“CentralBasin”).Theprincipalfreshwater‐bearingsedimentsoftheCentralBasinincludetheHolocene‐agealluvialdeposits,andthePleistocene‐ageLakewoodandSanPedroFormationsatdepth.5 AccordingtotheSeismicHazardZoneReportfortheHollywood7.5‐MinuteQuadrangle,thehistoricallyshallowestdepthto


FIGUREAlquist-Priolo Fault ZonesAcademy Museum of Mo on Pictures Project 4.D-1

Source: Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2014.

0 4000 Feet

N

P C R

NOTEMap adapted from Fault Activity Map of California, 2010 by California Geological Survey.

FIGUREAc ve Fault MapAcademy Museum of Mo on Pictures Project 4.D-2

Source: Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2014.

N

P C R

See Detail Map below

DETAIL MAP



groundwaterintheProjectareaisapproximately10feetbelowexistinggrade.6Historichighgroundwatercontours for the Project area are illustrated in Figure 6 of the Geology and Soil Discipline Report (seeAppendixGofthisDraftEIR).

The State Water Resources Control Board’s (“SWRCB’s”) GeoTracker Groundwater Monitoring andAssessmentProgramwebsiteindicatesthatthedepthtogroundwaterisvariableintheProjectvicinitybuttypically ranges between 10 and 15 feet below grade. Groundwater monitoring wells installed inconjunctionwithconstructionoftheBroadContemporaryArtMuseumontheLACMACampusindicatedthatgroundwaterwasatadepthofapproximately10 feetbelowgradebetweenAugustandOctoberof2004.7Readings taken in June 2011 from monitoring wells installed for the MetroWestside Subway ExtensionwithinWilshireBoulevard,approximately300feetwestandslightlysouthoftheProjectSite,encounteredgroundwateratdepthsof approximately13.5 feetand17.5 feet, respectively.8 Thevariations in reportedestimates andmonitoreddepth to groundwatermaybe attributed to seasonal fluctuations, rainfall levels,andboringwelldistancefromtheProjectSite.Adesigngroundwaterdepthofapproximately10feetbelowgrade (approximately 157 feet above mean sea level) was conservatively assumed by the Projectgeotechnical engineers at the Project Site, to reflect the historically shallowest groundwater depthencounteredattheProjectSiteduringpriormonitoringandreportedfortheProjectareabytheCaliforniaGeologicalSurveyandtheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard.9

(d) Liquefaction

Liquefaction,thelossofstrengththatoccursinsaturated,loosesoilsthataresubjecttostresssuchasgroundshaking,hasthegreatestpotentialtooccurinareasofshallowgroundwaterandwhereloosesandsorsiltsoccurwithin50feetorlessofthesurface.Ingeneral,liquefactionpotentialdecreasesasgrainsizeandclayandgravel content increase. Geologicmaterialsunderlying theProjectSitegenerally consistof a surficialdepositofstiffcohesivesoilsunderlainbydensetoverydenseasphaltsands.Becauseofthestiffanddensenatureof thesoil, the riskof liquefactionoccurringbeneath thegroundwater tableunderlying theProjectSiteduringasevereearthquake isconsideredtobe low. AsshownontheCaliforniaSeismicHazardZoneMap for the Project area and the Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within a designatedliquefaction hazard area or an area characterized by local geologic or groundwater conditions with thepotential forpermanentgrounddisplacement.10 TheclosestareastotheProjectSitethatareknowntobesusceptible to liquefaction are north of Sixth Street and along the east and west sides of La CienegaBoulevard.11

6 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,page9,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.7 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,page9,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.8 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,pages9and10,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.9 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,page10,July2014,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.10 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,page15,provided inAppendixGofthisDraftEIRandSafetyElement,op.cit.,ExhibitB,Areas

SusceptibletoLiquefaction.11 SafetyElement,op.cit.,ExhibitB,AreasSusceptibletoLiquefaction.



(e) Expansive and Compressible Soils

Theclaysoilswithinthealluviumandsomeofthefillaresubjecttoexpansionandshrinkageresultingfromchangesinthemoisturecontent.Testspreviouslyperformedonsamplesoftheseclaysindicatefine‐grainedalluvialdeposits,whichhaveamediumexpansionpotential.12

Prior soils studies performed on and adjacent to the Project Site, in connectionwith construction of theBroadContemporaryArtMuseumontheLACMACampus, indicatethepresenceofnon‐engineeredfillandnear‐surfacealluvialdeposits.13 Areaswithalluvialornon‐engineered fillmaybeweakandcompressible,particularlywhensaturatedwithwater. Wherepresent, thesematerialsmaybesubject tosettlementandare not considered suitable to support of foundations, slabs on grade, paving or new compacted fills. Asshown in the representative geologic cross‐sections of the Project Site shown inFigures4.D‐3,GeologicCrossSectionA‐A’,and4.D‐4,GeologicCrossSectionB‐B’,fillandnear‐surfacealluvialdepositsontheProjectSite are relatively thin (i.e., less than 10 feet).14 The stiff and dense nature of the near‐surface alluvialdepositsunderneaththenon‐engineeredfillislikelynotsignificantlycompressible.

(f) Oil Fields and Tar Sands

IncertainlocationsthroughouttheCityfaultingandfoldingofthebedrockbeneaththeBasinovermillionsofyearshaveformedstructuraltrapswherepetroleumdepositshaveaccumulatedinanticlinalfoldsandalongfaultblocks.SeveraloilandgasfieldshavedevelopedintheProjectarea,includingtheSaltLakeandSouthSaltLakefields,atdepthsof1,000feetormorebelowgrade.TheProjectSiteislocatedwithinthelimitsoftheSaltLakefield,asshowninFigure4.D‐5,OilFieldandOilWellLocations.Associatedwiththeoilfieldsishistoricoilproduction.AsalsodepictedonFigure4.D‐5,thetwooilwellslocatedclosesttotheProjectSiteareChevronSaltLake10(approximately200feettothewest)andChevronSaltLake27(approximately500feet to thenorth). Bothwellsare identifiedasburiedand idle.15 No idle,abandonedoractivewellswereidentifiedontheProjectSite.However,welllocations,whichwerederivedfromDivisionofOilandGasandGeothermalResources(“DOGGR”)records,areapproximateandlocationerrorsarepossible.16

Overtime,crudeoilandmethanegasescapingfromtheaccumulatedpetroleumdepositswithinthebedrockbeneath the LaBrea Plain havemigrated toward the surface through fractures and faults in the bedrock.Uponreachingalluviumatrelativelyshallowdepths,thelighterpetroleumcomponentsundergoalterationastheresultofevaporationandvariousbiologicalprocesses,resultinginthecreationofviscoustardepositssuch as those exposed in the La Brea Tar Pits east of the Project Site. The tar‐bearing sandswithin thealluvialdepositsaresaturatedwithhydrocarbons.

For additionaldiscussionof theoil fields, oilwells, and tar sands in theProject area, refer to Section4.E,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,ofthisDraftEIR.

12 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,page16,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.13 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,pages5and17,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.14 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,page17,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.15 California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Online Mapping System,

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/WellFinder.aspxandGeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,pages17and18, providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.


FIGUREGeologic Cross Sec on A-A'Academy Museum of Mo on Pictures Project 4.D-3

Source: Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Geology and Soil Discipline Report, 2014.P C R

LIMITS OF MAY COMPANY BUILDING

FIGUREGeologic Cross Sec on B-B'Academy Museum of Mo on Pictures Project 4.D-4

Source: Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Geology and Soil Discipline Report, 2014.P C R

LIMITS OF MAY COMPANY BUILDING

FIGUREOil Field and Oil Well Loca ons Academy Museum of Mo on Pictures Project 4.D-5

Source: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Geology and Soil Disipline Report, 2014.

0 2000 Feet

N

P C R

Chevron Salt Lake 10

Alluvium (Elevated)

Alluvium

Chevron Salt Lake 27



Thispageisintentionallyblank.



(g) Subsidence

Subsidenceofthegroundsurfacecanbecausedbytheremovalofgroundwaterand/orpetroleumfromthesubsurface sources. If in sufficient volumes, the extraction can cause permanent collapse due to theconsolidationof theextractedpore spaceandpotentially result in structuraldamage. There isnoknowndocumentationofsubsidencefromoilorgroundwaterextractioninthevicinityoftheProjectSite.

b. Regulatory Framework Summary

TheregulatoryframeworksummarizedbelowisdescribedindetailinAppendixB,RegulatoryFramework,Section 4.D, of this Draft EIR. Geological and soil conditions and risk factors for new development aregoverned by regulations set forth in State law and City codes and adopted plans. At the State level, theAlquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (“Alquist‐Priolo Act”) was enacted by the State ofCaliforniatoaddressthehazardofsurfacefaultingtostructuresforhumanoccupancy,asadirectresultofthe1971SanFernandoEarthquakeandassociatedsurfacefaultrupturesthatdamagedhomes,commercialbuildings, and infrastructure. The Alquist‐Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatoryzones, knownas “earthquake fault zones”, around the surface tracesof active faults and to issuemaps toassistjurisdictionswithregulatingplanning,zoning,anddevelopment.TheSeismicHazardsMappingActof1990 requires the State Geologist to delineate “seismic hazard zones” based on the potential for stronggroundshaking,liquefaction,landslides,andothergroundfailuresduetoseismicevents.Jurisdictionsmustregulatedevelopmentwithinthesezones,includingrequiringinvestigationintosite‐specificconditionsandmitigationforpotentialprojectimpacts.Finally,theCaliforniaBuildingCode,Title24oftheCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,isacompilationofbuildingstandardstobeimplementedStatewide,includingseismicsafetystandardsfornewdevelopment.

Atthelocallevel,theCityregulatesseismicsafetythroughitsGeneralPlanSafetyElement,whichmapsareasof designated earthquake‐related hazards, and regulates earthwork activities and newbuilding standardsthrough theMunicipal Code, specifically theLosAngelesBuildingCode,which incorporates theCaliforniaBuildingCode.TheDepartmentofBuildingandSafetyisresponsibleforimplementingtheprovisionsoftheLosAngelesBuildingCode.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

a. Methodology

TheGeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR,waspreparedfortheProjectto evaluate existing geologic and soils conditions and to assess the potential effects of the Project withrespect these conditions. The Report provides the basis for the evaluation of geologic and soils‐relatedimpacts in this Draft EIR section. The geotechnical investigation included Project Site reconnaissance,records review, hazards analyses, groundwater review, and recommended measures to address anypotential geologic or soils hazards. The Report also evaluated explorations (borings) performed by VanBeveren&Butelo, Inc. in2005 inconnectionwithconstructionof theBroadContemporaryArtMuseum.17ThisSectionalsoincorporatesinformationfromtheMethaneReport,providedinAppendixH‐1ofthisDraftEIR,andinformationregardingsoilerosioncontainedintheWaterResourcesTechnicalReport,providedin

17 GeologyandSoilDisciplineReport,pages4and5andAppendixA,providedinAppendixGofthisDraftEIR.



Appendix I. Information provided in this section is additionally based on the Safety Element, applicablepolicies of the California Building Code and Municipal Code, American Society for Testing and Materialsstandards,andSouthernCaliforniaEarthquakeCenterearthquakezonereports.

b. Thresholds of Significance

AppendixG of the StateCEQAGuidelines provides a set of screening questions that address impactswithregardtogeologyandsoils.Thesequestionsareasfollows:

Wouldtheproject:

Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolving:

– Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐PrioloEarthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on othersubstantialevidenceofaknownfault;

– Strongseismicgroundshaking;

– Seismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includingliquefaction;or

– Landslides?

Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil?

Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable,orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultoftheproject,andpotentiallyresult inon‐oroff‐sitelandslide, lateralspreading,subsidence, liquefactionorcollapse?

Be located on expansive soils, as defined by Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste waterdisposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?

(1) Geologic Hazards

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide incorporates the screening questions contained in Appendix G. InaccordancewiththeCity’sthresholds,theProjectwouldnormallyhaveasignificantgeologyandsoilsimpactifit:

Causesor accelerates geologichazards,whichwould result in substantial damage to structuresorinfrastructure,orexposepeopletosubstantialriskofinjury.

Basedonthesefactors,theProjectwouldhaveasignificantimpactongeologyandsoilsifitwould:

GS‐1 Causesoracceleratesgeologichazards,whichwouldresultinsubstantialdamagetostructuresorinfrastructure,orexposepeopletosubstantialriskofinjury.



(2) Erosion and Sedimentation

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide incorporates the screening questions contained in Appendix G. InaccordancewiththeCity’sthresholds,theProjectwouldnormallyhaveasignificantgeologyandsoilsimpactifit:

Constitutesageologichazardtootherpropertiesbycausingoracceleratinginstabilityfromerosion;or

Acceleratesnaturalprocessesofwindandwatererosionandsedimentation, resulting in sedimentrunoffordepositionwhichwouldnotbecontainedorcontrolledontheProjectSite.

Basedonthesefactors,theProjectwouldhaveasignificantimpactongeologyandsoilsifitwould:

GS‐2 Constitutes a geologic hazard to other properties by causing or accelerating instability fromerosion;or

GS‐3 Accelerates natural processes of wind and water erosion and sedimentation, resulting insedimentrunoffordepositionwhichwouldnotbecontainedorcontrolledontheProjectSite.

c. Project Characteristics

TheOriginalBuildingand1946Additionarebothsupportedby2.5‐foot‐thickconcretematslabfoundationsthat lie between one and four feet below four‐inch‐thick concrete basement topping slabs, or basementfloors;thespacesbetweentheconcretetoppingslabsandconcretematslabfoundationsarebackfilledwithsoil.TheexistingconcretematslabfoundationbeneaththeOriginalBuildingwouldremain,andmicropiles,therecommendeddeepfoundationsupportforseismicretrofitoftheOriginalBuilding,wouldbeinstalledtosupportnewshearwallsandelevatorpits.Theconstructionofshearwallsandelevatorpits,theinstallationof micropiles, and the installation of the new Gas Mitigation and Monitoring System would requiredemolition of the existing concrete topping slab in the Original Building basement and, in some cases,penetrationthroughtheunderlyingconcretematslabfoundation.Theestimatedmaximumdepthforeachmicropileisapproximately40feetbelowtheconcretebasementtoppingslaboftheOriginalBuilding.

The 1946 Addition, including the concrete basement topping slab, would be demolished to allowconstructionoftheSphere;theexistingbasementwallsandunderlyingconcretematslabfoundationwouldremain.NewbuildingcolumnsandaGasMitigationandMonitoringSystemwouldbeinstalledinthe1946Addition basement. The Sphere is proposed to be supported by a new concrete mat slab foundation.Augercastpiles,whichcanbeusedinavarietyofsoilandbedrockmaterials,arecurrentlytherecommendeddeep foundation support for the Sphere. The estimated maximum depth of each augercast pile isapproximately100feetbelowtheconcretematslabfoundation.

Additionally, a proposed utility corridor between the Original Building and NewWingwould necessitateexcavation.Thedepthoftheutilitycorridorwouldbeapproximately10to15feetbelowgroundsurfaceandthewidthwouldbeapproximately10feet.

ProjectconstructionwouldnotrequiremassgradingormodificationofexistinggradeontheProjectSiteandminimal import of soils is anticipated. Approximately 5,862 cubic yards of excess soil generated byexcavationwouldrequireexportfromtheProjectSite.



The depth of excavation for the newmat slab foundation supporting the Spherewould be approximatelyseven feetbelowgrade,which isapproximately threeto four feetabovetheanticipatedhighgroundwaterlevel. However,thebasementconcreteslabsoftheOriginalBuildingand1946Additionlieapproximately15 feet below existing grade, and therefore five feet below the anticipated high groundwater level.Therefore,excavation fortheelevatorpits,micropiles,augercastpiles,shearwalls,andGasMitigationandMonitoring System is expected to encounter shallow groundwater and therefore require temporarydewatering. Excavation for the utility corridor between the Original Building and Sphere could alsointerceptshallowgroundwater.

DuringProjectconstruction,theuseoftemporaryshoringsystemsmaybenecessarywhereexcavationtakesplaceadjacent toexistingsubsurfaceandat‐gradestructures (i.e.,ontheLACMACampus)andadjacent topublicrights‐of‐way.Temporaryshoringsystemoptionsmayincludesoldierpileandtimberlagging,soldierpileandsteelsheets,asoldierpilesystemwithtie‐backs,orsecantwalls.

In accordance with Municipal Code requirements, a final geology/geotechnical report with final designrecommendationswouldbepreparedbyaCalifornia‐registeredgeotechnicalengineerandsubmittedtotheCityDepartmentofBuildingandSafety forreviewprior to issuanceofagradingpermit. Final foundationdesign recommendations would be developed during final Project design, and other deep foundationsystemsthatmaybesuitablewouldalsobeevaluatedatthattimeandaddressedinthisfinalgeotechnicalreport.

d. Project Impacts

(1) Geologic Hazards

ThresholdGS‐1: TheProjectwouldresultinasignificantgeologyandsoilsimpactifitcausesoracceleratesgeologichazards,whichwouldresultinsubstantialdamagetostructuresorinfrastructure,orexposepeopletosubstantialriskofinjury.

Impact Statement GS‐1: The Projectwould not cause or accelerate geologic hazards (i.e., fault rupture,seismic ground shaking, groundwater, liquefaction, expansive and compressible soils, and tar sands)thatcouldresultindamagetostructuresorinfrastructureorexposepeopletosubstantialriskofinjury,with compliancewith regulatory requirementsapplicable toProject constructionandoperation thataddressthesepotentialhazards. Therefore, impactsassociatedwiththesegeologichazardswouldbeless than significant. Whileconsideredunlikely,excavationhas thepotential toencounterpreviouslyknownorundiscoveredoilwellsontheProjectSite,resultinginapotentiallysignificantimpact.

(a) Fault Rupture

NoknownactiveorpotentiallyactivefaultsunderlietheProjectSiteandtheProjectSiteisnotlocatedwithina designated earthquake fault zone. Thus, the potential for surface ground rupture at the Project Site isconsidered low. Basedoncurrent information,developmentof theProjectwouldnotresult insubstantialdamagetostructuresorcauseoraccelerategeologichazards,whichwouldresult insubstantialdamagetostructures or infrastructure, or expose people to substantial risk of injury. Therefore, impacts regardingfaultrupturewouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationmeasureswouldbenecessary.



(b) Seismic Ground Shaking

Aspreviouslystated,theProjectSiteislocatedwithinaseismicallyactiveregionofSouthernCalifornia,andthemostlikelysourcesforgroundmotionareknownfaults(e.g.,Newport‐InglewoodFault,HollywoodFault,andSantaMonicaFault) thatare locatedwithin fourmilesof theProjectSite. Moderate tostronggroundmotion (acceleration) at theProject Site couldbe causedbyanearthquakeat theseoranyof the localorregionalfaults.

During the Project design phase, a final geology/geotechnical report would be prepared by a California‐registered geotechnical engineer and submitted to theDepartment of Building and Safety for review andapproval.Thereportwouldevaluateknownandpotentiallyactivefaultsandground‐motionparametersincompliance with Chapter IX, Div. 16 of the Municipal Code (including applicable sections of CaliforniaBuildingCode,Chapter16),andChapter IX,Div.88,whichapplies to thereductionofearthquakehazardsthrough seismic reinforcement of the Original Building. The estimated peak ground acceleration at theProjectSitewouldbebasedonprobabilisticseismichazardanalysistoolsavailablefromtheU.S.GeologicalSurvey,thatestimategroundmotionswhiletakingintoaccountuncertaintiesandrandomnessinpotentialearthquakesource,size, location,recurrence,andsource‐to‐ProjectSiteattenuation. GroundmotionsmaybeamplifiedorattenuatedinthesofteralluvialdepositsattheProjectSitedependingonthelevelofgroundshakingoftheunderlyingbedrock,soiltype,depthtobedrock,andotherfactors.

The final geology/geotechnical reportwould also contain complete evaluations of Project Site foundationconditions and recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including but not limited tobearingcapacityofnaturalsoilorcompacted fillmaterials,provisions toremoveormitigate theeffectsofexpansivesoils,differentialsettlementandvaryingsoilsstrength,andtheeffectsofadjacentloads.AswithanynewconstructionintheCity,thefoundationandstructuraldesignoftheProjectwouldconformtotheMunicipalCode’s current seismicdesignprovisions, includingChapter IX,Div.16,Section91.1613. TheseregulationsincorporateseismicsafetyprovisionsoftheCaliforniaBuildingCode(andtheAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers)byreference,andMunicipalCodeDiv.88,Section91.8807,whichrequirethatallexistingstructures,includinghistoricalbuildingssuchastheOriginalBuilding,beanalyzedandconstructedtoresistminimumtotallateralseismicforces.Finally,ProjectdesignandconstructionwouldcomplywithMunicipalCodeDiv.17,Section91.1707,whichrequiresstructuralinspectionsforseismicresistance.Compliancewiththese regulatory requirements would ensure that final design would incorporate adequate foundationsupport during seismic events andwould ensure that structural design of the Sphere, aswell as seismicreinforcementoftheOriginalBuilding,wouldbeconsistentwithseismicloadingandotherstructuraldesignstandards set forth in theMunicipal Codeand theCaliforniaBuildingCode. Therefore, in the eventof anearthquake,theProjectisnotanticipatedtoresultinsubstantialdamagetostructuresorcauseoraccelerategeologic hazards that would expose people to substantial risk of injury. Impacts from seismic groundshakingwouldbelessthansignificant.

(c) Groundwater

Aspreviouslydiscussed,forpurposesofpreliminaryProjectdesign,groundwaterisassumedtobepresentapproximately10feetbelowgrade.Excavationinlimitedareas,forconstructionofelevatorpits,installationofmicropiles,constructionofshearwalls,elevatorpits,inthebasementoftheOriginalBuilding,installationofdeepaugercastpilestosupporttheSphere,installationoftheGasMitigationandMonitoringSystem,andtheundergroundutilitycorridorbetweentheOriginalBuildingandSphere,isanticipatedtobesufficientlydeepto interceptgroundwaterandtemporarydewatering isexpectedtobenecessary. Dewateringwould



involvetheconstructionoftemporarydewateringwells,theloweringofwellpointstolowergroundwaterduring construction, and installation of sumps and/or trenches in limited areas; dewatering wells areexpectedtoextendatleast20feetintothetarsandsorapproximately40feetbelowtheconcretebasementtoppingslabsintheOriginalBuilding.Becausethegroundwaterencounteredwouldmostlikelybeimpactedwithhydrocarbons,dissolvedmethaneandhydrogensulfidegases,andotherurbanpollutantstestingandtreatment of contaminated dewatering effluent would be required prior to disposal of groundwaterdischarge.Permanentdewateringforthesetemporaryexcavationsisnotanticipated.

AsstatedinSection4.F,HydrologyandWaterQuality,ofthisDraftEIR,theApplicantisrequiredtoprepareafinal construction dewatering plan and water treatment system prior to the commencement of Projectconstruction, in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulations. Withcompliance with this regulatory requirement, the potential for substantial damage to structure orinfrastructure related to the presence of shallow groundwater during construction would be less thansignificant.

AsdescribedinSection4.E,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,adrainagesystemwouldberequiredaspartoftheGasMitigationandMonitoringSystemproposedfortheProject,unlessawaiverisgrantedbytheLosAngelesDepartmentofBuildingandSafety. Thedrainage system is intended to address thepotential forgroundwaterinfiltration.IntheeventgroundwaterweretoinfiltrateintotheGasMitigationandMonitoringSystem,onlylimitedquantitiesareexpected,andtheywouldbecollectedinthesumpoftheGasMitigationandMonitoring System. Thewater collectedmay be treated prior to discharge into the sewer system inaccordance with Bureau of Sanitation, Industrial Waste Management Division, Industrial Waste WaterDischargePermitrequirements. Compliancewithregulatoryrequirementswouldensurethat impactsduetothetreatmentanddisposalofgroundwaterduringoperationwouldbelessthansignificant.

For further discussion of this issue, please refer to Section 4.F concerning construction dewatering andSection4.EconcerningthepotentialneedfordrainageofgroundwaterduringoperationoftheGasMitigationandMonitoringSystem.

(d) Liquefaction

As previously discussed, the Project Site is not within a State‐ or City‐designated liquefaction zone, anddespitetheshallowdepthofgroundwater,isnotconsideredsusceptibletoliquefaction,giventhetypesandthicknesses of the underlying soils. Therefore, the potential for substantial damage to structures orinfrastructureasaresultofliquefactionisconsideredlessthansignificant.

(e) Expansive and Compressible Soils

Potentialconstruction‐relatedimpactsonexistingstructuresandinfrastructureincludedamagetoexistingadjacent buildings (the Original Building itself as well as the Broad Contemporary Art Museum, ResnickExhibitionPavilion,andPritzkerGarageonthewesternportionoftheLACMACampus),roadways,servicedriveways,walkwaysandundergroundutilities.RenovationoftheOriginalBuildingmayrequiretemporarycutsincludingslopesand/orshoringtofacilitateconstruction.Potentialimpactsoftemporarycutsincludedamage to existing buildings, roadways, service driveways, sidewalks and underground utilities fromtemporary slope failures or settlement associated with deflection by temporary shoring. However, withisolated exceptions, most excavations are anticipated to extend to less than 10 feet below grade on theProjectSite,andthedistancetothenearestoff‐sitebuildingsandsubterraneanstructuresisaminimumof



50 feet (see Figure 2 in theGeologyand SoilDisciplineReport provided in Appendix G of this Draft EIR).Moreover, the safety and protection of existing abutting buildings is also regulated under Chapter IX,Division18(SoilsandFoundations),Sections1804(AllowableLoad‐BearingValues)and1807(FoundationWalls,RetainingWalls),oftheMunicipalCode,andasstatedtherein,requiredpracticestoprotectabuttingstructures include including proper slope cut and shoring standards. For these reasons, and throughcompliance with Municipal Code requirements, the potential for construction activities to substantiallydamageoff‐sitebuildingsandinfrastructureisconsideredlessthansignificant.

Someareasof theProjectSite containalluvialornon‐engineered fill thatmaybeweakandcompressible,particularlywhensaturated. Thesematerialsmayalsobesubjecttosettlementandwouldnotbesuitableforsupportoffoundations,slabsongrade,pavingornewcompactedfills.Theproposedconcretematslabfoundation supporting the Sphere would remove up to seven feet of the existing 10 feet of fill, whichconstitutes themajority of the existing fill. Theunderlyingdense, stiff natureof the near‐surface alluvialdepositsislikelynottobecompressible.Withproposeddeepfoundationsindense,stiffsoilsthatunderlietheexistingfill(whichwouldberemoved),thepotentialforbuildingsettlementfromcompressibleexistingfillmaterialsisunlikely.

Existingmoderately expansive soils also present a potential impact to lightly loaded foundation elementsandflatwork(e.g.,sidewalks,servicedriveways).Excavationandreplacementofmoderatelyexpansivesoilwith soils of low or non‐expansive potential, in accordance with Municipal Code requirements, wouldaddressthiscondition.Alternately,thedesignofflatworkandotherlightlyloadedstructuresinaccordancewithChapterIX,Division18requirementsoftheMunicipalCodewouldalsoaddressthiscondition.

On‐siteclaysoilswithin thealluviumandsomeof the fillarealsosubject toexpansionandshrinkageandcouldaffectthestructuralintegrityofpilingsorotherfoundationstructures.TheGeologyandSoilDisciplineReport prepared for the Project indicates that development would be feasible through compliance withapplicable regulations andwith construction and design performed to address the Project Site’s geologiccharacteristicsandsoils. Preliminarydesignrecommendationsincludespreadfootingsormatfoundationsfounded in stiff or dense alluvial deposits. With implementation of recommendations in the finalgeology/geotechnical report to be prepared in accordance with Municipal Code requirements, such asChapter IX, Division 18, Soils and Foundations (which incorporates California Building Code Chapter 18),Section91.1802,(standardsforfoundationandsoilsinvestigation),Section91.1803,(requiredgeotechnicalinvestigation),Section91.1804(allowablebearingvaluesofsoils),andSection91.1807(pierandfoundationpilings), subject to City review and approval, the Project would not cause or accelerate geologic hazardsrelatingtoexpansiveandcompressiblesoils.Therefore,theProjectwouldnotresultinsubstantialdamagetostructuresor infrastructureorexposepeopletosubstantialriskof injury. Impactswithrespecttosoilswouldbelessthansignificant.

(f) Tar Sands and Oil Wells

Soil excavated above existing groundwater is primarily fill and alluvium that are not expected to containnatural tar or oil and could be disposed of as clean soil, absent other conditions. However, spoils fromexcavationthatextendsbelowthegroundwaterlevelcouldcontainnaturaltarthatwouldrequirechemicalanalysispriortooff‐sitedisposal.ExcavationactivitiesassociatedwiththeOriginalBuildingcouldpenetratetarsandsduringinstallationofmicropilestosupportnewshearwallsforseismicupgrades,theconstructionof elevator pits, and the installation of theGasMitigation andMonitoring System. In addition, excavation



couldpenetratetarsandsduringinstallationofaugercastpilestosupporttheSphere.ExcavationforutilitytrenchesandtheutilitycorridorproposedbetweentheOriginalBuildingandSpherecouldalsopenetratetarsands.ThenewconcretematfoundationfortheSpherewouldrequireexcavationtoadepthofonlyaboutseven feet and is therefore not expected to penetrate tar sands, and excavation for the Piazza and otherrelatedsurfaceimprovementswouldalsobesufficientlyshallowtoavoidtarsands.AsdiscussedinSection4.E,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,excavatedandstockpiledsoilswouldbetested,treated,anddisposedof in accordance with Project Design Feature PDF‐HAZ‐2, Soil Management Plan, which would ensurecompliance with regulatory requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with excavation, removal, anddisposaloftarsandswouldbelessthansignificant.

As previously discussed, the nearest oil wells are located approximately 200 feet and 500 feet from theProject Site and are buried and idle. While it is unlikely that oil wells would be discovered duringconstructionoftheProject,excavationactivitiesontheProjectSitehavethepotentialtoencounterknownorpreviously undiscovered oil wells, since DOGGR’s well locations are approximate and location errors arepossible. While it is unlikely that oil wells would be discovered during construction of the Project, it isconservatively concluded that a significant impact associated with encountering known or previouslyundiscoveredoilwellscouldoccur.

(g) Subsidence

Although there is a potential for subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal for temporary constructiondewatering, the volume of extracted groundwaterwould be limited to small exaction areas to produce alocalizeddrawdownaroundthedeepfoundations,elevatorpits,deeputilitytrenches,andGasMitigationandMonitoringSystem.Furthermore,therelativelystiffanddensesoilbelowtheexistingbasementisunlikelyto settle from temporary dewatering. Therefore, impacts related to subsidence from constructiondewateringactivitieswouldbelessthansignificant.

The drainage system proposed as part of the Gas Mitigation and Monitoring System is not expected toinvolve regular dewatering and in the event groundwater is encountered, the volume is expected to belimitedsuchthatimpactsrelatedtosubsidencefromoperationwouldbelessthansignificant.

(2) Erosion and Sedimentation

ThresholdGS‐2: TheProjectwouldhaveasignificantgeologyandsoils impact if itconstitutesageologichazardtootherpropertiesbycausingoracceleratinginstabilityfromerosion.

ImpactStatementGS‐2:TheProjectwouldnotcausegeologichazardsrelatedtoinstabilityfromerosion,dueto compliance with regulatory requirements that address these potential hazards during Projectconstructionandoperationandrequiredevelopmentand implementationofaStormWaterPollutionPrevention Plan (“SWPPP”) and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (“SUSMP”), andcompliancewith regulations that require preparation of a final geology/geotechnical reportwhichdefinesProjectSite‐specificdesigncriteriarelatedtothenatureoffoundationmaterialsandgeologicalconditions.Impactswouldbelessthansignificant.



(a) Construction

Constructionactivitiesmayrequiretemporarycutsandshoringofexcavations.Potentialimpactsassociatedwith temporary cuts include structural damage to theOriginal Building from temporary slope failures orsettlementassociatedwithdeflectionoftemporaryshoringorothergeologichazardsrelatedtoinstabilityofthe temporary cuts through erosion. No other land features thatmight be subject to erosion are locatedbetweentheProjectSiteandadjoiningoff‐siteproperties;theLACMACampusiseitherpavedorlandscapedwithturforornamentalplantings,andtheProjectSiteisotherwiseborderedbysidewalksandroadways.Asstated in Section 4.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Applicant is required to prepare a site‐specificSWPPP that identifies appropriateBestManagementPractices (“BMPs”) for erosion control,winderosioncontrol,andtrackingcontrol.TheApplicantisalsorequiredtocomplywithMunicipalCodeChapterIX,Div.70,Section91.7013regardingerosioncontrolanddrainageandSection91.7005.2pertainingtoshoringandother retaining structures. Therefore, Project construction activities would have a less than significantimpact with respect to instability from erosion. The SWPPP and implementation of associated BMPs isdiscussedindetailinSection4.F,HydrologyandWaterQuality,ofthisDraftEIR.

(b) Operation

With respect to Project operation, as stated in Section4.F,Hydrology andWaterQuality, theApplicant isrequired to prepare and implement a SUSMP that would ensure post‐development runoff rates do notincrease the potential for downstream erosion. Additionally, the Applicant is required to comply withrecommendationsofthefinalapprovedgeology/geotechnicalreportwithrespecttobuildingandfoundationdesign,including,butnotlimitedto,bearingcapacityofnaturalorcompactedsoil,provisionstomitigatetheeffectsofexpansivesoils,differentialsettlementandvaryingsoilsstrength,andtheeffectsofadjacentloads.With regulatory compliance, Project operation would have a less than significant impact with respect toinstabilityfromerosion.

ThresholdGS‐3: The Project would have a significant geology and soils impact if it accelerates naturalprocessesofwindandwatererosionandsedimentation, resulting insedimentrunoffordepositionwhichwouldnotbecontainedorcontrolledontheProjectSite.

ImpactStatementGS‐3:TheProjectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactrelatedtothecontainmentoferosion or sedimentation on‐site, due to compliancewith applicable State and City regulations thatrequirepreparationandimplementationofaSWPPPandSUSMP,andthe incorporationofBMPsthatmeettheCity’sLowImpactDevelopment(“LID”)standards.

(a) Construction

Construction activities have the potential to result in soil erosion during demolition, clearing of theconstructionarea,excavation,grading,andanysoilsstockpiling.Exposedsoilscanbetransportedoff‐siteaswind‐bornedustorassedimentinsheetflowduringrainevents.TheProjectSiteconsistsofapproximately2.2 acres,more than half ofwhichwould be disturbed by construction, including demolition of the 1946Addition and construction of the Sphere andhardscape and landscape features. As discussed in detail inSection4.F,HydrologyandWaterQuality,of thisDraftEIR,disturbanceofmore thanoneacre is coveredundertheStateGeneralConstructionActivitiesStormwaterPermit,whichrequiresfilingaNoticeofIntentwiththeSWRCBanddevelopmentandimplementationofaSWPPPthatspecifiesBMPsintendedtoprevent



construction pollutants from discharging off‐site. This is enforced by the Department of Public Works,BureauofSanitation,WatershedProtectionDivision. Additional construction‐related fugitivedust controlregulatoryrequirementsof theSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict (“SCAQMD”)arediscussed inSection4.B.1,AirQuality. Withregulatorycompliance,ProjectconstructionisnotanticipatedtoaccelerateerosionorsedimentationorresultinsedimentrunoffordepositionthatcannotbecontainedorcontrolledontheProjectSite,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

(b) Operation

As discussed in Section 4.F, Hydrology andWater Quality, of this Draft EIR, the Applicant is required todevelop and implement a SUSMP to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, withinstormwater generated following new construction or redevelopment. The Applicant is also required tocomplywiththeCity’sLIDOrdinance(OrdinanceNo.181,899),whichisintendedtoreducethequantityandintensityofstormwaterflowsandminimizetheoff‐sitetransportofpollutantsinstormwater.LIDstandardspromote the use of natural infiltration systems (biofiltration is proposed for the Project Site),evapotranspiration, and the reuse of stormwater. With regulatory compliance, Project operation is notanticipatedtoaccelerateerosionorsedimentationorresultinsedimentrunoffordepositionthatcannotbecontainedorcontrolledontheProjectSite,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

e. Cumulative Impacts

Geological and geotechnical impacts are defined by site‐specific conditions for the Project and relatedprojects, and are therefore typically confined to contiguous properties or a localized area in whichconcurrent construction projects in close proximity could be subject to the same fault rupture system orother geologic hazard, or exacerbate erosion impacts. The Project Site is not underlain by an activeearthquake fault, and regulations in theCity aswell asother local citybuilding codesalready require theconsideration of seismic loads in structural design. For these reasons, Project implementation is notexpectedtoresultinacumulativelyconsiderablecontributiontocumulativelysignificantimpactsrelatedtosubstantial damage from fault rupture or seismic ground shaking to structures, infrastructure, or humansafety,when considered togetherwith the related projects defined in Chapter 3.0, General Description ofEnvironmentalSetting,ofthisDraftEIR.

AslistedinTable3‐1andshownonFigure3‐1,thenearestrelatedprojectsthatcouldbeunderconstructionconcurrently with the Project and have the potential to result to contribute to cumulative soil erosionimpactsincludethefollowing:

RelatedProjectNo.1:WilshireSkyline

RelatedProjectNo.12:WilshireandCrescentHeightsMixedUse

RelatedProjectNo.2:DesmondTower

RelatedProjectNo.27:MuseumSquare

RelatedProjectNo.16:WilshireLaBreaHighRiseMixedUse

RelatedProjectNo.28:LACMARedevelopmentPlans



RelatedProjectNo.30:ShalhevetSchoolandAllianceResidentialProject

Theconcurrentdevelopmentofanyoftheseprojectscouldcontributetocumulativegeologichazardsrelatedtosoilerosion,shoring,andothersoilandfoundationissues.AswiththeProject,MunicipalCodestandardsforshoring,SCAQMD’srequirementsfordustcontrol,andRegionalWaterQualityControlBoardregulationspertainingtosurfacewaterrunoffandwaterquality(whichwouldrequireBMPsforconstructionprojectsgreaterandsmallerthanoneacreofdisturbance),wouldpreventsignificantcumulativeimpactsrelatedtoerosion and other geological impacts. In addition to the projects referenced above, cumulative geologichazards could also result from the construction of the Metro Westside Subway Extension and stationentrance.TheDraftEIS/EIRfortheMetroWestsideSubwayExtensionconcludedthatwithimplementationofrecommendedmitigationmeasures, impactsrelatedtogeologichazardsandhazardousmaterialswouldbe less than significant.18 The Draft EIR for theMuseum Square Office Building similarly concluded thatimpacts related to geologic hazards would be less than significant with mitigation and compliance withregulatory requirements.19 Therefore, the Project would have a less than considerable contribution tocumulativelysignificantimpactsrelatedtoerosionandsedimentation.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES

WithimplementationofProjectDesignFeaturesprovidedinSections4.E,HazardsandHazardousMaterialsand4.FHydrologyandWaterQuality, theProjectwouldhave lessthansignificant impactswithrespecttomostgeologyandsoilsandnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

However,toaddresspotentialProjectimpactsrelatedtoabandonedoilwells,MitigationMeasureMM‐HAZ‐1,presentedinSection4.E,HazardsandHazardousMaterialswouldberequired.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

With implementation ofMitigationMeasureMM‐HAZ‐1, impacts related to abandoned oilwellswould belessthansignificant.

18 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Westside Subway Extension Draft Environmental Impact

Statement/EnvironmentalImpactReport,September2010.19 City ofLosAngeles,Department ofCityPlanning,Museum SquareOfficeBuildingDraftEnvironmental ImpactReport,February

2014.



Thispageisintentionallyblank.

Documents

4.D. Geology and Soils...4.D Geology and Soils August 2014 City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.D‐2 underlain by Tertiary‐age sedimentary