Hannon parking structure
April 16, 2012
Mr. Joseph Reichenberger, P.E.
1 LMU Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Subject:
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Hannon Parking Structure
Loyola Marymount University
Mr. Joseph Reichenberger, P.E.,
CMB Consultants has prepared a detailed report for the proposed underground parking
structure to be built on the Loyola Marymount University campus. The anticipated project in
the Hannon Lot parking area is laid out in our report.
Thank you for approaching our company for your project needs. Please contact us should you
have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
CMB Consultants
______________________________
Colin Griffith
______________________________
Michael Cubas
______________________________
Breanne Busby
1|Page
Hannon parking structure
2|Page
Hannon parking structure
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Design Criteria and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Project Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Recommended Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Parking Space Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Beam Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Slab Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Columns Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Sheet Pile Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7 Drainage and Slope Stability between Sheet Pile and Retaining Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.8 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.9 Drainage in Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10 Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.11 Elevator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.12 Stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.13 Landing on Top Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.14 Ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.15 Entrance and Exit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.16 Handrails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.17 Cable Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.18 Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3|Page
Hannon parking structure
5. Environmental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Endangered Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Endangered Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendices
Appendix A- Dead and Live Load Calculations
Appendix B- Slab Calculations
Appendix C- Beam Calculations
Appendix D- Column Calculations
Appendix E- Foundation Calculations
Appendix F- Retaining Wall Calculations
Appendix G- Sheet Pile Wall Calculations
Appendix H- Entrance and Exit Calculations
Appendix I- Ramp Slab Calculations
Appendix J- Bridge by Northeast Elevator Calculations
Appendix K- Column for Stair Calculations
Appendix L- Itemized Cost Estimate
Appendix M- Shear Wall Calculations
Appendix N- Project Timeline/Timesheet
4|Page
Hannon parking structure
1. Introduction
The following project, proposed by Dr. Joseph Reichenberger, P.E., requires the design
and construction of a parking lot that is to be built under the eastern half of the current Hannon
parking lot on Loyola Marymount University’s Campus, 1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
The design footprint dimensions shall be 475 ft by 225 ft. This parking structure will be able to
accommodate the parking spots that will be lost when the Seaver Science building is expanded,
as well as 100 extra parking spaces which were taken from Burns Recreation Center, the
Operations and Maintenance building and Children’s Center when the new library was built.
With these parking spaces there will be adequate handicap parking as well as stairs and
elevators to make exiting and entering the lower levels convenient for pedestrians.
For this project CMB has put together a well-equipped team of individuals headed by
Michael Cubas, Colin Griffith and Breanne Busby. Although they will be the main contacts they
will have the expertise of Dr. Michael Manoogian as well as the rest of the teaching staff at
Loyola Marymount University.
2. Project Design Alternatives
For this project, there were many ideas looked at in the first stages of the planning and design.
One idea that was looked at, was lining the ramps that went from floor to floor with parking
spaces to gain more parking spaces. When this proposition was further investigated it was
determined that this design would reduce the parking spaces that could be put on the floors of
the garage by a greater amount than would be added by the ones on the ramp. This was due to
the fact that the ramp had to be wider by approximately 36 feet to accommodate parking
spaces either angled or perpendicular to the wall. In addition to this design not being space
efficient, the grade of the ramp, 8%, is steeper than the allowed 5% if parking spaces are to be
placed on the ramp. In order to design a ramp that would fit this criteria, its length would be far
too long and not fit efficiently in the 225 feet given in the east to west structure length.
A major layout suggestion was to have the parking aisles and rows run from east to west
instead of north to south. This idea was terminated due to the cast that the width of the
parking structure from east to west is much shorter than the length. This would then cause cars
to make much more turns than necessary when looking for parking spots.
5|Page
Hannon parking structure
Another design idea that was proposed was having all of the water that would be in the
structure do to rain or the sprinklers being used would drain to the south side of the structure.
This idea was not chosen because it would be more efficient if the water drained to the north
side of the structure where the sump pump could pump the water up to ground level and then
be used to water Hannon Field as opposed to routing the water through pipes all the way from
the south side of the structure.
An alteration that was projected was putting an elevator in the southwest corner of the
structure. This idea was not put in place due to the fact that the direction of people’s travel is
towards the north side of the structure because all of the campus buildings are located to the
north. However there will be stairs located there in case of an emergency.
The last design alternative that was suggested was the possibility of having all levels completely
enclosed as opposed to two sides being open on the top two levels. This however would have
been aesthetically boring and unpleasing to the eyes. Allowing two sides to be open allows for a
less congested feeling for the garage users. The proposed idea also allows for better ventilation
and lighting in the structure.
Once it was decided that short retaining walls were going to be used in order to allow a more
open feel for two sides of the structure, the design of what was going to be put in place behind
the retaining wall was debated. The first idea that was suggested was to have the soil sloped
stably until it reached the original ground level. This however would require a distance of over
50 feet which is not possible due to the fact that Loyola Boulevard is located less than that
distance on the eastern side of the structure.
The second suggestion that was proposed for the backfill behind the 15 foot retaining walls was
to terrace the soil to the top while stabilizing it every 8 feet with small sheet pile or retaining
walls. This design is demonstrated in Figure 1. This design would have required more materials
than the final design which requires a sloped surface that connects to a sheet pile wall.
Although the slop cannot make it all the way to the top of the sheet pile wall it is still more
logical than multiple sheet piles.
6|Page
Hannon parking structure
Figure 1- Terraced Slope with Retaining Walls
3. Design Criteria and Codes
Soil
Soil was collected from the site of the proposed Loyola Hall and analyzed by MACTEC
Engineering and Consulting. These results concluded that the given soil is a silty sand with
properties listed in Table 1. This data was needed in order to design retaining walls as well as
sheet pile walls.
Table 1. Soil Properties
Soil Load
Load
Code or Location information was found
Unit weight,δ
130 lb/ft2
Soil Report
Coefficient of Friction,φ
30 degrees
Soil Report
Moisture Content
7.7 %
Soil Report
Bearing Capacity
4 k/ft2
Design of Reinforced Concrete (Table12.1)
7|Page
Hannon parking structure
Two Story Building
When designing the parking structure there was a possibility that a two-story building could be
built on top of the ground level. Due to this fact the columns and slabs were design to hold a
hypothetical building. These loads are listed below in Table 2.
Table 2. Structural Loads for Potential Three Story Building
𝒍𝒃
STRUCTURAL LOADS
LOAD [𝒇𝒕𝟐 ]
CODE
Snow load
5
IBC Section 1608
Rain load
26
IBC Section 1611
Wind load
16
IBC Section 1609
Earthquake load
1.2*W/A
IBC Section 1613
Roof live load
12
Equation 16-24 under IBC 1607.11.2.1
Building top floor live load
80
IBC Table 1607.1
Building bottom floor live load
100
IBC Table 1607.1
W =dead weight of the structure
A =the tributary area
Parking Structure
When designing slabs, beams and columns, the potential load of the cars that would be using
the facility, as well as the amount of concrete that was needed to be suspended, was calculated
using information listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Parking Structure Loads
𝒍𝒃
STRUCTURAL LOADS
LOAD [𝒇𝒕𝟐 ]
CODE
Cars live load
40
IBC Table 1607.1
Concrete
150*t
ASCE 7-02: Table C3-2
t =the thickness of concrete
8|Page
Hannon parking structure
4. Recommended Project
4.1 Parking Space Layout
It was determined that having aisles and rows run from north to south was the best design
decision due to that fact that it would allow for the longest travel time before a car needed to
switch directions. The layout of the structure has two-way directions along the entire perimeter
in order to minimize unneeded circling if drivers simply need to exit. The middle two aisles are
designed to be one-way in order to maximize the amount of parking spaces and minimize the
amount of useless aisle space.
North
Figure 2- Parking Structure Layout
4.2 Beam Design
The live and dead loads were determined from the beam’s tributary areas. The live and
dead loads were then factored per the LRFD approach and applied to a moment equation,
Equation 1 (Table 5).Then the depth to tensile steel, d, was determined using Equation 2 (Table
5). The depth, d, was solved for by assuming b is 12 inches; then the weight of concrete was
calculated and added to the original dead load. This process was done for all three levels of
9|Page
Hannon parking structure
beams and in the end five different typical beams were determined. The height of the beams
determines the allowable car height into the parking structure. The allowable car height is
therefore 7’9”. Details of all calculations are provided in the Appendices. These calculations can
be seen in Appendix C.
Figure 3– Typical Beam 1
Figure 5–Typical Beam 2
Figure 4–Typical Beam 2
Figure 6–Typical Beam 3
10 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Table 4. Beam Dimensions
Typical Beam Height (inches)
Base (inches)
1
62
22
2
42
20
3
45
20
4
62
30
4.3 Slab Design
Considering there are no rain or snow loads that would be applied to the slabs, the
worst-case load combination was Equation 3 (Table 5), D being the dead load and L being the
live load. The moment calculated from these loads was determined and a slab configuration
was selected to sustain these moments. The top slab is 8 inches thick, and its moment capacity
is around 45 ft-k/ft, almost 5 times the required ultimate moment. The 1st and 2nd floor slabs
was determined to be 7 inches thick with a design moment capacity of around 36 ft-k/ft, almost
7 times the required ultimate moment. Since the drainage system runs along the base of all the
ramps and stairs, the water load from the sprinklers is decided not to cause a problem with the
slabs. These calculations can be seen in Appendix B.
4.4 Column Design
All columns were designed around the Bresler equation, Equation 4 (Table 5). This
equation is used due to the moments placed on the columns through their moment
connections with the beams. The required gross area, Ag of these beams was determined with
Equation 5 (Table 5). Once the minimum area was found, a square column cross-section was
chosen and then checked with the Bresler equation to make sure it was able to handle the
moment created. If it was unsatisfactory a bigger area was chosen. There were 3 different
typical columns, one for the corners, once for the exteriors and one for the interiors. The corner
column with the largest beams connecting to it and the largest area was chosen to serve as the
column to design for the typical. The exterior and interior columns with the largest beams and
11 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
biggest tributary areas were also chosen to be designed for their respective typical. These
calculations can be seen in Appendix D.
Table 5. Equations and Codes
Number
1
2
Equation
𝑀𝑢 =
𝑊𝐿2
8
Code
.
𝑀𝑢 = 𝜙𝜌𝑓𝑦 𝑏𝑑 2 (1 −
𝜌𝑓𝑦
1.7𝑓𝑐
).
McCormac Equation
3-2
3
1.2D + 1.6L
ACI Equation 9-2
4
1
1
1
1
=
+
−
𝑃𝑛𝑖 𝑃𝑛𝑥 𝑃𝑛𝑦 𝑃0
ACI commentary
Section R10.3.6
5
𝜙𝑃𝑛 = 𝜙(0.80)[0.85𝑓𝑐 (𝐴𝑔
− 0.015𝐴𝑔 )
+ 60(0.015𝐴𝑔 )
ACI Equation 10-2
4.5 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls were designed to support the backfill that will be applying a load against the
parking structure. In order to maximize natural light as well as allowing better ventilation, some
of the retaining walls only cover 15 feet of the bottom floor but allow the remaining top two
floors to be open. These shorter retaining walls are shown in Figure 13 and are colored in red
where the blue lines demonstrate retaining walls with a height of 41 feet.
12 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 13- Retaining Walls for Parking Structure
The shorter retaining walls were designed to support a sloped backfill behind them. The larger,
41-foot walls were designed to support level backfill. Both the surcharge of the Hannon
Apartments as well as the surcharge of Loyola Boulevard, running along the eastern side of the
structure, was calculated to design for the retaining wall dimensions. All retaining wall
calculations are found in Appendix F the results are listed below in Table 6:
Table 6. Retaining Wall Calculations
Color in Fig 8
Height (ft) Length (ft)
Stem Width (ft)
Steel Used
Spacing (in)
Blue
41
1
#9
8
1240
13 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Red
15
499
Figure 14–Steel Placement in Retaining Wall (Side View)
1
#9
8
Figure 15–Steel Placement in Retaining Wall (Front View)
4.6 Sheet Pile Walls
An example of a sheet pile wall including anchor tiebacks in place is shown below in Figure 16.
14 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 16: Picture of a Sheet Pile Wall
A sheet pile wall was designed to run the length of the eastern side of the structure plus an
additional 35 feet, then continue 100 feet along the northeastern side of the parking structure
then travel back south for 70 feet until it touched the structure again. This sheet pile wall will
be set in place 35 feet away from the 15-foot tall retaining wall. This will create an open side for
the structure in order to let light in as well as fresh air. Due to the fact that the structure is not
open on at least three sides the structure will still require HVAC fans to move the polluted air
out of the structure and keep the air clean and safe for people to use the structure. The
structure will look like Drollinger Parking Structure as seen below in Figure 17.
15 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 17- Slope of Soil Between Retaining Wall and Sheet Pile Wall
Figure 18 below shows the placement of the sheet pile wall, as shown by the red line.
Figure 18- Location of Sheet Pile Walls
16 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
The sheet pile wall will be 42 feet deep with an anchor at 12 feet below the top of the wall. The
tieback anchors will be placed every 8 feet along the entire wall. The tiebacks that were chosen
were Williams 1 3/8" 150 ksi threaded bars. The sheet pile wall that was chosen was an AZ 13-700R
sheet pile with A328 steel. The dimensions of the wall are seen below in Figure 19.
Figure 19- Dimensions of Sheet Pile Wall
4.7 Drainage & Slope Stability between Sheet Pile and Retaining Wall
The soil that will be located between the sheet pile wall and retaining wall will have a slope of
4:7, H:V with a degree of 29.75. This slope will begin at the top of the 15-foot retaining wall and
will stretch across the gap formed, to 8 feet below the top of the sheet pile wall. In order to
stabilize the slope, San Diego marsh elder, also known as Iva hayesiana, will cover the entire
surface of the slope which totals 23,100 square feet. This plant is a very fast-growing native
plant and is widely used for slope coverage as well erosion control. It only grows one to two
feet tall as well as four to six feet across which is ideal because it will not block the open sides
of the structure and still let in ample natural lighting.
Drains will be put in place behind the 15 foot retaining wall so as not to allow the runoff from
the slope to flood the lower parking level. These drains will be sloped in order to drain from the
south part of the structure to the north side where the sump pump is located and will pump the
water up to Hannon field. Drain design is demonstrated in Figure 20.
17 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 20- Drains Located Behind Retaining Wall
4.8 Foundation
The foundation was found using the calculated dead load, 3098 kips, and live load, 448 kips, for
an individual interior column. Corner columns were also calculated, but the interior columns
would require a much thicker foundation and so therefore will be used instead of corner
columns. Using the interior columns with a dimension of 45 inches, the dimensions of the
footing would be 23 feet wide by 40 feet long by 7 feet tall. These are the minimum
requirements which prove that a continuous foundation covering the entire footprint of 475
feet by 225 feet will be satisfactory. This foundation will cover the entire footprint plus an
additional 20 feet on both sides running from north to south, and an additional 12 feet running
from east to west. Number 11 reinforcing steel is also required to run from east to west. Each
bar will be spaced 4 inches apart from each other. Additional number 11 bars are required to
wrap up from the foundation into the column for 45 inches in order to transfer loads.
4.9 Drainage in Structure
Due to the fact that the top ramps, as well as the open sides of the parking structure are
subject to the elements, water will be able to come inside the parking structure. For these
reasons drains will be installed at the bottom of all three ramps and connect to the northern
wall which will also have drains running along them. These will carry the water down to the
bottom level which will then be carried out of the structure by a pump. Further details about
18 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
the pump are located in the following section. These drains will consist of a cut out of concrete,
covered with a slip lining and enclosed with a grate above. This is depicted in Figure 21 below.
Figure 21- Top View of Drain
4.10 Pump
The pump that was selected was a 36Mn-40 pump. The reason that this pump was selected was
because at least 32,000 gpm must be pumped if the sprinkler system were to be set off. For
safety measures, the pump was designed to be most efficient for pumping 35,000 gpm with a
head of 40 feet. The reason the head is 40 feet is in order to pump the water from the bottom
of the structure up to the field to the north for watering during the event that the sprinklers
were to be set off. The pump that was selected has an overall efficiency of 88.9% with a max
power of 398 hp with the max head of the pump being 62.85 feet. If the need for more head is
required there is the additional 20 feet between the designed head and the max head. The BEP
(Best Efficiency Point) is at 33,000.4 gpm.
4.11 Elevator
19 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
There will be 2 elevators located in the parking structure. The elevators will be placed in the
northeast and northwest corners. The two elevators will have a 2500 lb weight capacity as well
as have a speed of 400 feet per minute to allow a reasonable time, 8.9 seconds, to get from
bottom floor to top floor if there are no stops. The elevators will be designed to stop on all
floors. For the northeast elevator, people will enter the elevator on floors P1, P2, and P3 from
the south side of the elevator and exit on the ground level out the east side of the elevator. An
example of this can be seen below in Figure 22.
Figure 22-Dimensions of Northeastern Elevator
The northwest elevator will only open on the southern side of the elevator for all floors as
shown in Figure 23.
20 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 23-Dimensions of Northwestern Elevator
4.12 Stairs
There are four sets of stairs in the designated parking structure, their locations being in the
north-east corner, north-west corner, south-west corner and halfway along the eastern side.
Each set of stairs will have dimensions displayed in Figure 24 with a width of 3 feet 6 inches.
There will be two sets of stairs per floor with 11 stairs in each and a landing in between the two
sets. This landing will have a width of 7 feet and a length of 3 feet 6 inches.
21 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Nosing Projection=0”
Unit Rise=7.25”
Unit
Run
=10”
Rise=6.65’
Run=16.2’
Figure 24-Stair Dimensions
The set of stairs located on the northeastern side will be located outside the rectangular
footprint of the structure and will be surrounded by 15-foot tall retaining walls. These sets of
stairs will continue to the top floor where it will be attached to a slab that connects the top
parking level with Hannon Field. An example of what the stairs will look like can be seen below
in Figure 25.
22 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 25-Stairs
4.13 Landing on Top Floor
Due to the fact that the top 2 floors of the parking structure are open and have a 35 ft gap
between the structure and Hannon Field, a landing was constructed to span the length of the
opening. This landing will connect to the top of the stairs as well as next to the elevators
eastern side as to make it easiest for individuals when they exit to get to the western part of
campus. This landing is 35 feet in length, 17 feet wide and 8 inches thick. It has 15 #14 bars of
steel running the 35 feet length that are spaced 12 inches apart. This slab will contain two
railings on each side for safety precautions. These hand railings are specified in the hand railing
section below.
4.14 Ramps
Although many designs for the layout of the ramps were proposed, the final design will have all
three ramps located alongside the north wall of the structure with every ramp below each
other. This design is portrayed below in Figure 26.
23 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 26-Ramp Configuration
The properties for each ramp are listed below in Table 7:
Table 7. Properties of the Ramp
Slope= 10.8˚
Length= 121 ft
Width= 26 ft
Each ramp will allow 2-way traffic and will not have parking along the sides due to the fact that
the slope is larger than 8˚ and therefore too steep for parking spaces. Also, in an effort to
reduce the abrupt change in direction and cars scrapping their undercarriages, there will be a
vertical curve transition. The cut out will begin at 5 feet in either direction of the point where
the two slabs change direction as shown in Figure 27.
24 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 27- Vertical Curve Transition
Using the procedures demonstrated in Jack C. McCormac’s “Design of Reinforced Concrete”
found in Appendix I there will be 46 #11 bars spaced 6 inches apart spanning along the length,
121ft, for the ramps.
4.15 Entrances and Exits
There shall be two locations in which cars can enter and exit the structure located in their
preconstruction locations. The first slab continuing along the northern wall 35 feet across the
ditch that is made until it touches Loyola Boulevard. The second is located along the eastern
wall, 275 feet south of the north wall, and spanning 35 feet over the gap until it also touches
Loyola Boulevard. This slab is designed for 2-way traffic and is therefore required to be 26 feet
wide. Standard concrete will be used in construction and will have a weight of 150 lb/ft3 with a
strength of 6,000 psi. The steel will have a 40,000 psi strength. Along with the weight of the
concrete there will be a live load of 40 lb/ft2 accounting for the cars that will use the slab. Using
the procedures performed in Jack C. McCormac’s “Design of Reinforced Concrete” found in
Appendix H there will be 33 #11 bars spaced 8 inches apart spanning along the length, 35 feet.
4.16 Handrails
Handrails will be put in place along all of the stairs as well as along each of the two entrances
and exits specified below as well as the landing above the northeastern stairs.
25 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Handrails will be installed on both sides of the stairs from the bottom foundation to the top
slab. There will be breaks when each set of stairs reaches the next parking level in order to
allow pedestrian traffic to enter. This will result in 208 feet of hand railing for one set of stairs
(832 feet total for all four stairs). Handrails will also span the 35-foot length of the bridge that
connects the northeast stairs with Hannon field.
The handrails will be made of metal and are depicted in Figure 28:
Figure 28- Handrailing
4.17 Cable Barriers
Safety measures have to be implemented for the ramps as well as the two sides of the parking
structure that are open, so that cars do not drive off the ramp into the trench that has been
designed. For these safety reasons cable barriers will be implemented. The cable barriers will
run along the east side of the structure on the ground level as well as P1. On the north side of
the structure, the barriers will be placed alongside the ramps inside the parking structure that
lead cars from one level to the next. This will happen on all levels. An example of what the
barriers are going to look like can be seen in Figure 29.
26 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Figure 29-Cable Barrier Design
4.18 Shear Walls
There will be shear walls on the western side as well as the southern side and part of the
northern side. The shear walls on the western side of our structure will be on all three floors as
well as between every column. The walls will be 20 inches thick, 13 feet tall, and 26 feet wide.
The wall will use #7 horizontal stirrups 8” o.c. vertically, #7 vertical stirrups 8” o.c. horizontally,
as well as 20 #11 vertical flexural bars at each end. For the East-West sheer walls, the bars that
will be used are #8 horizontal stirrups 5” o.c. vertically, #8 vertical stirrups 5” o.c. horizontally as
well as 18 #18 vertical flexural bars at each end. The shear that had to be accounted for is
41836 k or 20918 k per side. All of the calculations for these can be found in Appendix M.
5. Environmental Evaluation
5.1 Environmental Impact
[Pages 1 and 2 are only needed when preparing a “checklist” IS. If checklist will be
appended to the CEQA environmental document, proceed directly to Page 3 and use
that as the beginning of the checklist.]
CEQA Environmental Checklist
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
27 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Project Title:
Hannon Parking Lot
Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
Project Location:
Project sponsor’s name and address:
General plan description:
Breanne Busby (530)333-3333
1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045
Professor Reichenberger
To design a parking garage that would
be located under the eastern part of
the existing Hannon lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the
checklist beginning on page 3 for additional information.
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use/Planning
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Noise
28 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required
Signature:
Date:
Printed Name:
For:
29 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
CEQA Environmental Checklist
Dist.-Co.-Rte.
P.M/P.M.
E.A.
This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected by
the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the
projects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination.
Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either following the
applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental document itself. The
words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to
CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful
assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
30 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
31 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
32 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change is included in the body of
environmental document. While Caltrans has
included this good faith effort in order to provide the
public and decision-makers as much information as
possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination
that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific
information related to GHG emissions and CEQA
significance, it is too speculative to make a
significance determination regarding the project’s
direct and indirect impact with respect to climate
change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to
implementing measures to help reduce the potential
effects of the project. These measures are outlined in
the body of the environmental document.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
33 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
34 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
35 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
36 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
37 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
38 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Detailed Environmental Report
Listed below is a detailed description of each impact that was marked more than “no impact”.
1. Aesthetics:
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Due to the fact that the first and second floors would be open along the north and east walls, it
will produce some light pollution at night. These lights however will be only for safety reasons
and therefore will not overwhelm the area with excess light. The lights will also have covers
causing the light to only shoot down at the parking area and not into the sky.
6. Geology and Soils:
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
On the northern and eastern sides of the building there will be a 15’ retaining wall that serves
as the wall of the parking lot, then 35’ back from that there is a sheet pile wall put in place to
support the backfill. The 35’ gap will be filled with soil with a slope of 4:7, H:V. This soil will be
subject to weathering and therefore there will be loss of topsoil. This soil however will be
covered in plants, which will allow stability due to the soil being held together by the plants
roots.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
site?
39 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
For the sloped soil in between the retaining wall and sheet pile wall there will be a different
draining pattern than if the project was not built. With the drainage on top of the retaining wall
to control the sloped soil as well as drainage in the structure for when it rains and if the
sprinklers are set off, no flooding will occur.
12. Noise:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
For the construction of the parking garage there will be large machinery used in order to
excavate unwanted soil as well as used to pour concrete. These machines will generate a large
amount of noise. They however will only be run during the days at hours that would not bother
the surrounding neighborhood and will be run as little as often.
Once the garage is in use there will be noise generated by cars entering and exiting the facility.
This however should not be more than usual because the same amount of traffic would have
been directed to Seaver previously. Also, excess amount of parking spaces will reduce the
amount of cars circling to find parking spaces.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
In the construction phase the movement of soil with drills and other machinery will create quite
a bit of groundbourne vibration. This will only be performed during the day when there is little
disturbance to the surrounding neighborhood.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
40 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Throughout the construction phase there will be an increase in ambient noise but once the
project is completed there should be little increase.
17. Utilities and Service Systems:
c) Require or results in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effect?
There will be a need to expand the drainage facilities in order to sustain the increase in water
when it rains. This however should not require significant environmental effects.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste needs?
There will be a slight increase in trash that will accumulate due to the addition of three more
levels. This however should not create a large problem. Trash is also taken care of by the LMU
community so therefore should not cause a major problem.
5.2 Endangered Animal Species
There are only four endangered animal species in the Los Angeles area, the Unarmored
Threespine Stickleback, the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, the El Segundo Blue Butterfly and the
Gray Whale:
Table 8. Endangered Animal Species
Name
Description
Location
Number Today
Unarmored Threespine
Sticklebacks
A freshwater, scale
less fish that is 2
inches in length.
When mating with
females the male
become bright red
Resides in the
drainage water that
comes from the
Santa Clarita River
and merges with
the Los Angeles
River
Unknown
41 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Palos Verdes Blue
Butterfly
A subspecies of the
silvery blue butterfly.
Likes habitats that are
in the coastal hill,
foggy and cool
It originated in Palos
Verdes but after
1980 many believed
them to be extinct
before they were
rediscovered just
south in San Pedro,
California
As of 1944 there are only a
few hundred
El Segundo Blue
Butterflies
Comes from the
Lycaenidae family.
Size is less than 2.5
centimeters across.
Both male and
females are blue,
although the male is a
lighter blue
Located on the
beaches of El
Segundo and on a 2
acre piece of land
located on the
western end of Los
Angeles
International
Airport
Estimated to be 72,000
Gray Whale
It can reach up to 45
feet in length. Females
tending to be larger
than the males. Gray
with white patches of
barnacles and whale
lice that can add up to
400 pounds in added
weight
North Pacific and
migrates down the
coast to Northern
Mexico in the
winter
Has been taken off the
endangered list after its
numbers had risen, it is still
being monitored
The construction of a parking structure that is located on the campus of Loyola
Marymount in Westchester would in no way effect any of these endangered species or their
habitats. The only possible interaction that could occur with these species would be if the
trucks hauling the excavated soil were to pass close enough to El Segundo to endanger the Blue
Butterflies that reside there. The direction in which the soil is being hauled is north, so there
will be no contact with the butterflies’ habitat.
5.3 Endangered Plants Species
42 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
There are five endangered plants that are located in Los Angeles County. The Arenaria
paludicola, Berberis nevinii, Caulanthus californicus, Chorizanthe parryi var. Fernandina and
Dodecahema leptoceras.
Table 9. Endangered Plant Species
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Description
Location
Arenaria
paludicola
Marsh
sandwort
Are found in small freshwater
marshes associated with beach
dunes. It is a perennial herb that
sprouts small white flowers
from May to August.
The only location of this species was found in
San Bernardino in 1899 on private property
Berberis
nevinii
Nevin’s
barberry
It is an evergreen rhizomatous
shrub that has problems with
regenerating due to its sporadic
seed production in the months
of March and April. Although it
does not reproduce well is can
live to be 50 years old and
grows between 3-12 feet. Tends
to live along the foothills of the
San Gabriel Mountains to the
foothills of the Santa Ana
Mountains
There have been many sighting over the past
30 years:
1987- Side canyon of San Timoteo
1990s- Near mouth of Scott Canyon
1932, 1937, 1904, 1999- San Fernando Valley
1961, 1927- South Pasadena
1965, 1988- San Francisquito Canyon
1976, 1999- Arroyo Seco
1986, 2000- Santa Monica Mountains
1980s, 1997- San Antonio Wash
2000- Lopez Canyon
1936- Occidental College Campus
1998,1999- Claremont
Was once found in the Los Padres National
Forest put when last surveyed there was
none to be found. Still believed not to be
extinct but cannot be found.
Caulanthus
californicus
California
jewelflower
It is an herb that blooms
between the months of
February and May. It is a part of
the mustard family. Likes
residing on gravelly or sandy
soils. The jewelflower can be
found in woodlands as well as,
chenopod scrubs and
grasslands.
Chorizanthe
parryi var.
Fernandina
San
Fernando
Valley
spineflower
It is part of the buckwheat
family. Have coarse hairs that
cover the stems. Flowers will
bloom during the months of
April and June.
Due to urbanization the only two known
locations are in Ventura County and the
southwestern Los Angeles County.
It is a low-growing taproot that
is annually producing.
Reproduces during the months
of April and June.
Found along the San Gabriel, San Bernardino
and San Jacinto Mountains as well as the
peninsular ranges in Los Angeles, Riverside
and San Bernardino counties.
Dodecahema Slenderleptoceras
horned
spineflower
43 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
There are no endangered species in the designated construction zone; therefore no
endangered species will be harmed in this project. There is a possibility of coming in contact
with Nevin’s barberry when the trucks hauling the excavated soil are driving to the Scholl
Canyon Landfill due to the fact that it is located in close proximity South Pasadena and the
Arroyo Seco Avenue. The designated course for the trucks are south on Lincoln to the 105 west,
110 north, 5 north, 2 north, 134 west and the landfill is located at the next exit. South Pasadena
is located 4.4 miles off course of the designate so therefore the trucks will not affect the wildlife
in that location. However, the Arroyo Seco Avenue location is only 2 miles away and if there
was a closure of the 5 or 2 freeways, there might be a possible detour. If this was to happen the
drivers would be instructed to take a longer alternative route in order to avoid possible contact
with the barberry. This might cause an increase in price and time but would be very minimal.
6. Cost Estimate
ITEM
Cost
Raw Construction Cost
$30,613,000
Division 1 General Requirements
$3,061,000
Contingencies
$5,051,000
Sales Tax
$1,162,000
General Contractor O & P
$5,983,000
Engineering, Inspection, Survey, Permits, etc.
$13,761,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$59,632,000
7. References
Dead load of parking lot
http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/cie429/ASCE-7-02-Live%20loads%20-s04.pdf
44 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
http://www.informationdestination.cengage.com/ReferenceContent/General%20Construction/
Dead%20Loads.pdf
Weaver, Joel. "Asphalt Paving." WEAVER CONSTRUCTION. 21 Nov. 1999. Web. 16
Apr. 2012. <http://www.weaver-construction.com/we03000.htm>.
http://www.abe.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/h/H20.pdf
Endangered Animals
"El Segundo Blue Butterfly." — Butterfly Conservation Initiative. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.butterflyrecovery.org/species_profiles/el_segundo_blue/>.
Francis, Daniel. "Endangered Species in Los Angeles County." EHow. Demand Media, 27 Mar.
2011. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <http://www.ehow.com/info_8120698_endangered-specieslos-angeles-county.html>.
"Gray Whale." The Marine Mammal Center :. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/education/marine-mammalinformation/cetaceans/gray-whale.html>.
"Listed Endangered Animals." Los Angeles Almanac. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.laalmanac.com/environment/ev14a.htm>.
Endangered Plants
"Region 5 - Home." 302 Found. United States Department of Agriculture. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.fs.usda.gov/r5>.
"Welcome to the PLANTS Database | USDA PLANTS." 301 Moved Permanently. 16 Apr. 2012.
45 | P a g e
Hannon parking structure
Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <http://plants.usda.gov/java/>.
Sump Pump
"Flowserve Corporation." Home. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
<http://flowserve.com/portal/site/fls/template.LOGIN/>.
"NFPA." Object Moved. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.nfpa.org/index.asp?cookie%5Ftest=1>.
Cost Analysis
http://www.meanscostworks.com/mycostbook/mycostbookhome.aspx
http://www.cnpssd.org/horticulture/plantlistlinked.html
HVAC
http://www.inteccontrols.com/pdfs/IMC_2012_Changes_for_Parking_Garages.pdf
http://www.comagir.com/download/Ventilation%20for%20enclosed%20parking%20garages.pdf
Slope Stability
"Don't Plant a Pest." Cal-IPC: Southern California. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <http://www.calipc.org/landscaping/dpp/plantpage.php?region=socal>.
"Plant Selection Guide." Slope Stabilization. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/table3.html>.
46 | P a g e