february 24, 2015 proposed mixed-use development

www.geoteq.com

February 24, 2015 File No. 20618 Sunset Studios Holdings, LLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Sixth Floor Los Angeles, California 90025

Subject: Geology and Soils Technical Report Proposed Mixed-Use Development 5901 West Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, California Ladies and Gentlemen: This report examines the soil and geologic conditions for the property located at 5901 West Sunset Boulevard (Project Site) in the Hollywood community of the City of Los Angeles (City). The report was prepared to determine the feasibility of a proposed mixed-use project (Project) in light of the geotechnical conditions present at the Project Site. This report provides technical evidence to inform the environmental review for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City’s CEQA Thresholds Guide. Subsurface explorations were performed to confirm geologic conditions. The subsurface investigation included six exploratory excavations, collection of soil samples, and laboratory testing. The results of the subsurface exploration and the laboratory testing are attached to this report. The report also reviewed published geologic data, maps, and geotechnical engineering information to confirm the feasibility of the Project. The report identifies the distribution of the earth materials underlying the Project Site. In addition, the report assesses geologic units, earthquake faults and fault zones, seismic hazards, ground failure, and soil types on the Project Site. Should you have any questions please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. STANLEY S. TANG R.C.E. 56178 SST:km

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Geotechnologies, Inc. 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675

www.geoteq.com

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................... 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND SETTING ................................................................................ 2 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ..................................................................................................... 2 5.0 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS ................................................................................................. 3 6.0 GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................................. 3 7.0 SEISMIC EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 4

a) Regional Geologic Settings................................................................................................. 4 b) Regional Faulting ................................................................................................................ 4 c) Active Faults and Blind Thrust Faults ................................................................................ 6

Hollywood Fault ................................................................................................................. 6 Santa Monica Fault............................................................................................................. 7 Newport-Inglewood Fault System ....................................................................................... 7 Raymond Fault .................................................................................................................... 8 Verdugo Fault ..................................................................................................................... 8 Blind Thrust Faults ............................................................................................................. 8

d) Seismic Shaking and Code Parameters ............................................................................... 9 8.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC EFFECTS ................................................................................. 10

a) Surface Ground Rupture ................................................................................................... 10 b) Liquefaction ...................................................................................................................... 11 c) Dynamic Dry Settlement................................................................................................... 12 d) Earthquake Induced Landsliding ...................................................................................... 12 e) Ground Failure .................................................................................................................. 13 f) Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding...................................................................................... 13

9.0 EXPANSIVE SOILS, EROSION, AND DRAINAGE ..................................................... 14 a) Expansive Soils ................................................................................................................. 14 b) Erosion .............................................................................................................................. 14 c) Drainage and Stormwater Infiltration ............................................................................... 15

10.0 METHANE, OIL WELLS, AND SEPTIC TANKS .......................................................... 15 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS, DESIGN REVIEW, AND MONITORING ............................ 15

a) Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 15 Grading Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE


www.geoteq.com

Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................... 16 Existing Fill Soils .............................................................................................................. 17 Infiltration ......................................................................................................................... 17

b) Mandatory Design Review ............................................................................................... 17 c) Construction Monitoring ................................................................................................... 18

12.0 REPORT CONCLUSION, CLOSURE, AND LIMITATIONS ........................................ 18 ENCLOSURES Exhibit A: Vicinity Map Exhibit B: Local Geologic Map Exhibit C: Earthquake Fault Zone Map Exhibit D: County of LA General Plan - Fault Rupture Hazards Map Exhibit E: Southern California Fault Map Table I: Seismic Source Summary Table Exhibit F: Notable Active Faults in the Site Vicinity Greater Than 10 km Exhibit G: California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Map Exhibit H: City of LA General Plan – Areas Susceptible to Liquefaction Map Exhibit I: Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map Exhibit J: City of LA General Plan – Landslide Inventory and Hillside Areas Map Exhibit K: City of LA General Plan – Inundation and Tsunami Hazard Areas Map Exhibit L: Methane Zone Risk Map Exhibit M: Oil Well Location Map Exhibit N: Plot Plan Exhibit O: Boring Logs and Geotechnical Testing Plates A-1 through A-6 Plate B Plates C-1 through C-2 Plate D Exhibit P: Liquefaction Analysis Exhibit Q: References

February 24, 2015 File No. 20618 Page 1


www.geoteq.com

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report assesses the potential soil and geological issues for the proposed mixed-used development located at 5901 West Sunset Boulevard (Project Site), in the Hollywood community of the City of Los Angeles (City). This report analyzes the project according to the issues raised in the thresholds of significance in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and in the City’s CEQA Thresholds Guide. This report includes the results from subsurface explorations performed at the Project Site. The on-site investigation included six exploratory excavations, collection of representative samples, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, review of published geologic data, and review of available geotechnical engineering information. The results of the exploration and the laboratory testing are attached to this report. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the distribution of the earth materials underlying the Project Site, and to provide sufficient geotechnical information for adequate environmental review of the Project. In addition, this report assesses geologic units, earthquake faults and fault zones, seismic hazards, ground failure, and soil types on the Project Site for purposes of environmental review. This report also incorporates the findings of a prior (2008) field exploration that determined the subsurface conditions at the Project Site. This report is prepared according to requirements established by Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS). The requirements are based on guidelines and specifications in the City of Los Angeles Building Code (LABC), the California Geological Survey (CGS), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and LADBS Information Bulletins (IB) that explain certain LADBS requirements and guidelines in greater detail than the LABC. Before construction of the Project, an additional site-specific exploration and testing program will be performed to provide further geotechnical parameters for design and construction. Final geotechnical engineering requirements will be prepared in accordance with the applicable sections of the LABC. The final design-level geotechnical report will be submitted for review and approval by LADBS before issuance of permits. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Project includes a new mixed-use building approximately 260 feet high with 274,000 square feet (sf) of office and 26,000 sf of ground-floor retail. The Project will replace the existing surface parking lot on the Project Site. The Project is designed with 1,118 parking spaces provided in two subterranean and seven above-grade levels of parking. For conservative analytical purposes, the environmental review also assessed three subterranean and six above-grade parking levels.



www.geoteq.com

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND SETTING The Project Site is located in an urbanized setting along Sunset Boulevard in the Hollywood community (See Exhibit A: Vicinity Map). The Project Site consists of an irregularly shaped lot bounded by existing two-story buildings to the north, Bronson Avenue to the east, Sunset Boulevard to the south, and a mixed-use residential tower to the west. The Project Site is currently occupied by an asphaltic parking lot. Vegetation on the Project Site is virtually non-existent. The Project Site slopes downward very gently to the south with approximately five feet of elevation change. The neighboring development consists primarily of low-to-midrise commercial, office, and residential structures. Vegetation in the vicinity consists of shrubs and trees in isolated planters, yards, and along the streets. Drainage in the area, and on the Project Site, is by sheetflow along the existing contours to the streets. Field explorations indicate that the Project Site is underlain by earth fill and alluvial deposits. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 51½ feet below the existing grade. The closest body of water to the Project Site is the Hollywood Reservoir located approximately 1½ miles north. 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION Per the established procedures, this report evaluates underlying geologic and soil conditions to determine the potential for hazardous conditions. The results of the field exploration determined whether it is feasible to construct the Project on the Project Site; and preliminarily inform the design and foundation requirements to ensure that construction on the Project Site is safe. Geotechnologies, Inc. previously performed a geotechnical investigation on the Project Site for a prior development proposed by the prior owners. In 2008, the development included a five-story mixed-use building with two levels of subterranean parking. The prior development was not constructed. The soil samples and subsurface testing results are valid because the Project Site was not disturbed and its geologic characteristics did not change. The applicable findings and recommendations of the 2008 report are incorporated herein by reference. The geotechnical explorations were conducted on March 15, 2008 by excavating six exploratory borings. The exploratory borings varied from 40 to 70 feet in depth below the existing grade. The borings were excavated with the aid of a truck-mounted drilling machine using 8-inch diameter hollowstem augers. The number of locations was selected to ensure coverage across the Project Site and determine soil conditions at all locations. The soil was continuously logged by a representative of Geotechnologies, Inc. and classified by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Undisturbed samples of soil were obtained in the exploratory borings at frequent intervals and transported to a laboratory. Unless noted on the excavation logs as an SPT sample, the samples acquired while utilizing a hollow-stem auger drill rig were obtained by driving a thin-walled, California Modified Sampler, with successive 30-inch drops of a 140-pound hammer. The soil was retained in brass rings of 2.50 inches outside



www.geoteq.com

diameter and 1.00 inch in height. Laboratory testing was performed in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards and identified soil type, dampness, and strength. The exploration locations on the Project Site are shown on Exhibit N (Plot Plan), and the geologic materials encountered are logged and shown on Exhibit O (Plates A-1 through A-6) for the boring log data. Laboratory testing methodology is also provided on Exhibit O (Plates B through D). 5.0 GEOLOGIC MATERIALS The results of field explorations indicate that the Project Site is underlain by earth fill and alluvial deposits. According to the Dibblee Geologic Map of the Hollywood Quadrangle (1991), the native soil underlying the Project Site is classified as Quaternary-age older alluvium (See Exhibit B - Local Geologic Map). The Project would not result in the loss of any unique geologic feature because the Project Site is underlain by Quaternary-age older alluvium Fill materials ranging from one to seven feet were encountered in the exploratory borings. The fill consists primarily of silty sands and sandy to silty clays, which are yellowish brown to grayish brown in color, moist, medium dense to stiff, fine to medium grained. The native soils underlying the Project Site consist of silty and clayey sands to sands, and silty to sandy clays. The native soils are light grayish brown to yellowish brown in color, moist to wet, medium dense to stiff, and fine to medium grained. The native earth materials consist predominantly of detrital sediments deposited by river and stream action typical to this area of Los Angeles County. Detailed descriptions of the earth materials recovered in the borings are presented in the Boring Logs. See Exhibit O. 6.0 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 51½ feet below the existing grade. Caving could not be directly observed during exploration due to the use of hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The hollow-stem drilling method uses a series of continuously flighted augers that are, as the name implies, hollow. The hollow-stem augers provide a continuous casing to stabilize the borehole so that undisturbed soil samples may be collected. The historic highest groundwater level was established by review of California Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Hazard Zone Report 026, Plate 1.2 entitled “Historically Highest Ground Water Contours” (see Exhibit I: Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map). Review of this plate indicates that the historically highest groundwater level is approximately 50 feet below the existing grade. Groundwater levels in the vicinity range from 50 to 80 feet below existing grade. The Project will be constructed over two or three subterranean levels depending on final design. Excavation could extend 25 to 35 feet below the existing grade. The groundwater level is at approximately 50 feet below the existing grade. Therefore, dewatering will not be required to achieve the excavation required for the Project.



www.geoteq.com

7.0 SEISMIC EVALUATION a) Regional Geologic Settings

The Project Site is located in the Los Angeles Basin in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest-trending blocks of mountain ridges and sediment-floored valleys. The dominant geologic structural features are northwest trending fault zones that either die out to the northwest or terminate at east-trending reverse faults that form the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges. The Los Angeles Basin is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The basin is bounded by the east and southeast by the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills, and to the northwest by the Santa Monica Mountains. Over 22 million years ago the Los Angeles basin was a deep marine basin formed by tectonic forces between the North American and Pacific plates. Since that time, over 5 miles of marine and non-marine sedimentary rock as well as intrusive and extrusive igneous rocks have filled the basin. During the last 2 million years, defined by the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs, the Los Angeles basin and surrounding mountain ranges have been uplifted to form the present day landscape. Erosion of the surrounding mountains has resulted in deposition of unconsolidated sediments in low-lying areas by rivers such as the Los Angeles River. Areas that have experienced subtle uplift have been eroded with gullies.

b) Regional Faulting

Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), now called California Geologic Survey (CGS), faults may be categorized as active, potentially active, or inactive. Active faults are those which show evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years (Holocene-age). Potentially active faults are those that show evidence of most recent surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years (Quaternary-age). Faults showing no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive for most purposes, with the exception of design of some critical structures. A list of active and potentially active faults located within 100 kilometers from the Project Site has been provided in Table I: Seismic Source Summary Table. Buried thrust faults are faults without a surface expression, but are a significant source of seismic activity. They are typically broadly defined based on the analysis of seismic wave recordings of hundreds of small and large earthquakes in the Southern California area. Due to the buried nature of these thrust faults, their existence is usually not known until they produce an earthquake. According to the County of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element (1990), the risk for surface rupture potential of buried thrust faults is



www.geoteq.com

inferred to be low. However, since the seismic risk of these buried structures in terms of recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not well established, the potential for earthquakes with magnitude higher than 6.0 occurring on buried thrust faults cannot be precluded. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (now known as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act) defines “active” and “potentially active” faults utilizing the same aging criteria as that used by CGS. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act has been to zone only those faults which have direct evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years. It is this recency of fault movement that the CGS considers as a characteristic for faults that have a relatively high potential for ground rupture in the future. The Earthquake Fault Zone, under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, is delineated by a boundary from 200 to 500 feet wide on each side of the known fault trace based on the location precision, the complexity, or the regional significance of the fault. If a site lies within an Earthquake Fault Zone on an official CGS map, then a geologic fault rupture investigation must be performed before issuance of permits to demonstrate that the proposed development is not threatened by surface displacement from the fault. The State of California released the official Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map for the Hollywood Quadrangle on November 6, 2014 (Earthquake Fault Zones Map). This map is State of California’s CGS official earthquake fault zone map for the Hollywood area. It is the most current and accurate map available to delineate the boundaries of earthquake fault zones in the Hollywood area. The Project Site is not located within an earthquake fault zone according to the Earthquake Fault Zones Map. The Project Site is approximately 0.45 kilometers south of the closest fault zone as officially mapped by CGS (See Exhibit C: Earthquake Fault Zones Map). The County of Los Angeles General Plan Fault Rupture Hazards Map (Exhibit D) also demonstrates that the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This report also considered the City’s Safety Element. The Project Site appears to be located adjacent, or just beyond, the southern boundary of the earthquake zone on Exhibit A of the Safety Element. The Safety Element was approved in 1996 and is therefore nearly 20 years old. The Safety Element acknowledged that it was based on official maps available at the time, and that it would be revised following receipt of reliable new mapping information. The State of California released the official Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map for the Hollywood Quadrangle on November 6, 2014. This map is State of California’s official earthquake fault zone map for the Hollywood area. This map officially delineates the boundaries of earthquake fault zones in the Hollywood area. As noted above, the Project Site is located well to the south of the currently delineated earthquake fault zone.



www.geoteq.com

This report also reviewed the City’s databases for geotechnical information, including: Navigate LA (http://navigatela.lacity.org/index.cfm), ZIMAS (http://zimas.lacity.org/), and LADBS Parcel Profile Report (http://www.permitla.org/parcel/). These databases indicate that the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. These zoning and mapping databases use digitized data obtained from the CGS 2010 Fault Activity Map and other reliable sources. In addition, this report located the nearest faults to the Project Site using the EZ-FRISK (Version 7.62) program by Risk Engineering, Inc. It was used to determine the distance of active and potentially active faults within 100 kilometers from the Project Site. A summary of fault activity, distance to the Project Site, Magnitude of seismic event, and relative motion, of faults located within 100 kilometers from the Project Site is presented in Table I – Seismic Source Summary. The table was generated by EZ-FRISK and incorporates digitized data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), CGS, and the County of Los Angeles. This detailed information is supplemented by a Southern California Fault Map that illustrates faults in vicinity of the Project Site. See Exhibit E: Southern California Fault Map.

c) Active Faults and Blind Thrust Faults The following sections describe the active faults and buried thrust faults located within 10 kilometers of the Project Site. Other notable active faults within 100 kilometers of the Project Site are described in Exhibit F – Notable Active Faults in the Site Vicinity Greater Than 10 km.

Hollywood Fault Fault investigations on the Hollywood Fault indicate geomorphic evidence of recent activity exists in the form of groundwater barriers in the Hollywood area and faceted ridges. To the east, the Hollywood fault forms a tenuous junction with the Raymond fault. Based upon offset alluvial sediments and geomorphic evidence, the Malibu Coast-Hollywood-Raymond fault system is judged to have been active during very late Quaternary time. Dolan and others (1997) have performed a study along the eastern portion of the Hollywood Fault. Dolan maps the east portion of the Hollywood Fault and its splays in approximately the same location as Dibblee. Dolan’s work includes original subsurface exploration, review of subsurface work by others, seismic trenching, storm drain excavation logging and Metro Rail excavation logs by others. Based on charcoal samples from recent trenching, Dolan concludes that the most recent rupture along the Hollywood Fault occurred between a maximum of 20,000 years ago and as recently as 4,000 years ago. It is believed that the Hollywood fault is capable of producing a 6.7 magnitude earthquake. The CGS published the Earthquake Fault Zones Map of the Hollywood Quadrangle on November, 2014. This map is the official Earthquake Fault

http://navigatela.lacity.org/index.cfm

http://zimas.lacity.org/

http://www.permitla.org/parcel/



www.geoteq.com

Zones Map from CGS for the Hollywood area. According to this map, the Hollywood Fault is located approximately 0.45 kilometers to the north of the Project Site.

Santa Monica Fault The Santa Monica Fault Zone is part of the west trending Transverse Ranges Southern Boundary fault system. The Santa Monica fault forms the onshore concealed extension of the Malibu Coast fault. The Santa Monica Fault extends east from the coastline in Pacific Palisades through the City of Santa Monica and West Los Angeles and merges with the Hollywood Fault, along the southern foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains. The County of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element (1990) recognizes the Santa Monica Fault as potentially active. Based on geomorphic evidence and fault trenching studies, the Santa Monica Fault is considered active by CGS, but has not been assigned as an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. It is estimated that the Santa Monica Fault is capable of producing a maximum magnitude (Mw) 7.4 earthquake. According to CGS, the Santa Monica fault is located approximately 0.81 kilometers to the north of the Project Site. Newport-Inglewood Fault System The Newport-Inglewood fault zone is a broad zone of discontinuous north to northwest on echelon faults and northwest to west trending folds. The fault zone extends southeastward from West Los Angeles, across the Los Angeles Basin, to Newport Beach and possibly offshore beyond San Diego (Barrows, 1974; Weber, 1982; Ziony, 1985). The onshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone extends for about 37 miles from the Santa Ana River to the Santa Monica Mountains. Here it is overridden by, or merges with, the east-west trending Santa Monica zone of reverse faults. The surface expression of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is made up of a strikingly linear alignment of domal hills and mesas that rise on the order of 400 feet above the surrounding plains. From the northern end to its southernmost onshore expression, the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is made up of: Cheviot Hills, Baldwin Hills, Rosecrans Hills, Dominguez Hills, Signal Hill-Reservoir Hill, Alamitos Heights, Landing Hill, Bolsa Chica Mesa, Huntington Beach Mesa, and Newport Mesa. Several single and multiple fault strands, arranged in a roughly left stepping en echelon arrangement, make up the fault zone and account for the uplifted mesas. The most significant earthquake associated with the Newport-Inglewood fault system was the Long Beach earthquake of 1933 with a magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale. It is believed that the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is capable of producing a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. According to CGS, the Newport-Inglewood fault system is located 9.00 kilometers to the southwest of the Project Site.



www.geoteq.com

Raymond Fault The Raymond fault is an effective groundwater barrier which divides the San Gabriel Valley into groundwater sub-basins. Much of the geomorphic evidence for the Raymond fault has been obliterated by urbanization of the San Gabriel Valley. However, a discontinuous escarpment can be traced from Monrovia to the Arroyo Seco in South Pasadena. The very bold, “knife edge” escarpment in Monrovia parallel to Scenic Drive is believed to be a fault scarp of the Raymond fault. Trenching of the Raymond fault is reported to have revealed Holocene movement (Weaver and Dolan, 1997). The recurrence interval for the Raymond fault is probably slightly less than 3,000 years, with the most recent documented event occurring approximately 1,600 years ago (Crook, et al, 1978). However, historical accounts of an earthquake that occurred in July 1855 as reported by Toppozada and others, 1981, place the epicenter of a Richter Magnitude 6 earthquake within the Raymond fault. It is believed that the Raymond fault is capable of producing a 6.8 magnitude earthquake. The probability of an earthquake occurring on this fault during the expected lifetime of the Project is considered remote. According to CGS, the Raymond fault is located approximately 9.11 kilometers to the east of the Project Site.

Verdugo Fault The Verdugo Fault runs along the southwest edge of the Verdugo Mountains. The fault displays a reverse motion. According to Weber, et. al., (1980) 2 to 3 meter high scarps were identified in alluvial fan deposits in the Burbank and Glendale areas. Further to the northeast, in Sun Valley, faults were reportedly identified at a depth of 40 feet in a sand and gravel pit. Although considered active by the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works General Plan Safety Element (1990), and the USGS, the fault is not designated with an Earthquake Fault Zone by the CGS. According to the County of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element (1990), the Verdugo Fault is located approximately 10.08 kilometers to the northeast of the site. Blind Thrust Faults

Blind or buried thrust faults are faults without a surface expression but are a significant source of seismic activity. They are typically broadly defined based on the analysis of seismic wave recordings of hundreds of small and large earthquakes in the Southern California area. Due to the buried nature of these thrust faults, their existence is sometimes not known until they produce an earthquake. Two blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles metropolitan area are the Puente Hills blind thrust located just east of downtown and the Elysian Park blind thrust just north of downtown. Another blind thrust fault of note is the Northridge fault located in the northwestern portion of the San Fernando Valley.



www.geoteq.com

The Puente Hills blind thrust is reported to have produced at least four large earthquakes in the last 11,000 years (Dolan, 2003). The magnitude 5.9 Whittier Earthquake of 1987 has been attributed to the Puente Hills blind thrust in recent studies by many researchers. The Elysian Park anticline is thought to overlie the Elysian Park blind thrust. This fault has been estimated to cause an earthquake every 500 to 1,300 years in the magnitude range of 6.2 to 7.0. According to the USGS database, the Elysian Park Thrust Fault is located approximately 3.91 km northeast of the Project Site, and the Puente Hills Thrust Fault is located approximately 5.74 km south of the Project Site. Therefore, surface rupture from these blind thrust faults is considered less than significant. The 1994 Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake was caused by the sudden rupture of a previously unknown, blind thrust fault. This fault has since been named the Northridge Thrust; however, it is also known in some of the literature as the Pico Thrust. It has been assigned a maximum magnitude of 6.9 and a 1,500 to 1,800 year recurrence interval. According to the County of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element, the Northridge thrust is located 22.67 kilometers to the northwest of the Project Site. According to the County of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element (1990), the risk for surface rupture potential of buried thrust faults is inferred to be low. However, since the seismic risk of these buried structures in terms of recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not well established, the potential for earthquakes with magnitude higher than 6.0 occurring on buried thrust faults cannot be precluded.

d) Seismic Shaking and Code Parameters

Based on the subsurface investigation, the Project Site is classified as Site Class D, which corresponds to a “Stiff Soil” Profile per Table 1613.5.2 of the CBC. This profile information and the Project Site coordinates were input into the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps tool (Version 3.1.0) to calculate the seismic ground motion parameters. Ground motion parameters for the 2013 CBC (ASCE 7-10) are presented below.



www.geoteq.com

2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC PARAMETERS

Site Class D

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods (SS) 2.387g

Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.0

Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for Short Periods (SMS)

2.387g

Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDS)

1.592g

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at One-Second Period (S1) 0.875g

Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.5

Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for One-Second Period (SM1)

1.312g

Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration for One-Second Period (SD1)

0.875g

As with all of Southern California, the Project Site is subject to potential strong ground motion if a moderate to strong earthquake occurs on a local or regional fault. The relevant provisions of the CBC are intended to promote structural safety in the event of an earthquake. Compliance with CBC is mandatory. Design of the proposed structures on the Project Site in accordance with the applicable provisions of the CBC will adequately mitigate the potential effects of strong ground shaking. The Project Site is considered suitable for development and implementations of the CBC provisions are feasible on the Project Site to reduce seismic shaking risks.

8.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC EFFECTS

The primary geologic hazard at the Project Site is moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration) caused by an earthquake on any of the local or regional faults. As noted above, that risk is mitigated by mandatory compliance with CBC and other applicable regulatory measures. The potential for other earthquake-induced hazards was also evaluated including surface rupture, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, inundation and landsliding.

a) Surface Ground Rupture

Ground rupture is defined as surface displacement which occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. Based on research of available literature (See



www.geoteq.com

Exhibit Q – References), no known active or potentially active faults underlie the Project Site. The Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone corresponds to the Hollywood Fault. As discussed above, the State of California released the official Earthquake Fault Zones Map for the Hollywood Quadrangle on November 6, 2014. This map is State of California’s official earthquake fault zone map for the Hollywood area. The Project Site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. The projected Hollywood Fault trace is located approximately 0.45 kilometers to the north of the Project Site, and the southern boundary of the Hollywood Earthquake Fault Zone delineated by CGS is located approximately 0.29 kilometers to the north of the Project Site. The possibility of surface ground rupture from a fault this distance from the Project Site is remote. Therefore, the potential for surface ground rupture at the subject site is considered less than significant.

b) Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated silty to cohesionless soils below the groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore pressure during cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by an earthquake. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine to medium-grained soils in areas where the groundwater table is 50 feet or less below the ground surface. The Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan (1996) classifies the Project Site as part of an area that is susceptible to liquefaction (see Exhibit H: City of LA General Plan Areas Susceptible to Liquefaction Map). However, the Seismic Hazard Map for the Hollywood Quadrangle (1996) by the CGS does not classify the Project Site as part of a “Liquefiable” area (see Exhibit G: California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Map). This determination by CGS is based on groundwater depth records, soil type, and distance to a fault capable of producing a substantial earthquake. Similarly, the most current map from CGS (i.e., Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map for the Hollywood Quadrangle, November 6, 2014) clearly shows that the Project Site is not within an area subject to liquefaction. Groundwater was encountered during exploration at a depth of 51½ feet below the existing grade. The historic highest groundwater level was established by review of California Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Hazard Zone Report 026, Plate 1.2 entitled “Historically Highest Ground Water Contours”. Review of this plate indicates that the historically highest groundwater level is on the order of 50 feet below the existing grade. A copy of this map is presented in Exhibit I – Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map.



www.geoteq.com

Liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying the Project Site was performed using the spreadsheet template LIQ2_30.WQ1 developed by Thomas F. Blake (1996). This program utilizes the 1996 NCEER method of analysis. The liquefaction potential evaluation was performed by assuming a magnitude 7.1 earthquake and a peak horizontal acceleration of 0.66g. For conservative analysis, a historic high groundwater level of 50 feet below grade was assumed. This semi-empirical method is based on a correlation between measured values of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance and field performance data. The enclosed liquefaction analysis, presented on Exhibit P, indicates that site soils would not be prone to liquefaction during the ground motion expected during the design-based earthquake. Therefore due to the depth to the historical highest groundwater level, and the type of soils in the Project Site, and liquefaction mapping by CGS, the Project Site would not be capable of liquefaction during the design-based earthquake.

c) Dynamic Dry Settlement

Seismically-induced settlement or compaction of dry or moist, cohesionless soils can be an effect related to earthquake ground motion. Such settlements are typically most damaging when the settlements are differential in nature across the length of structures. Some seismically-induced settlement of the proposed structures should be expected as a result of strong ground-shaking. However, due to the uniform nature of the underlying older alluvial soils, differential settlement may be considered to be negligible. Compliance with the CBC will result in less than significant impact associated with settlement.

d) Earthquake Induced Landsliding

The Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Hollywood Quadrangle (see Exhibit G: CGS Seismic Hazard Zones Map), published by CGS, does not classify the Project Site as part of the “Earthquake Induced Landslides” area. The Project Site is not located within a hillside area (see Exhibit J: City of LA General Plan – Landslide Inventory and Hillside Areas Map). The topography surrounding the Project Site is relatively level. The probability of seismically-induced landslides occurring on the Project Site is considered to be less than significant due to the generally gentle slope gradient. All required excavations would be sloped, or properly shored, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable CBC. In addition, the proposed subterranean structure will be designed in accordance with the seismic provisions of the CBC. Therefore, the Project would not result in any on-site or off-site earthquake induced landslide.



www.geoteq.com

e) Ground Failure

The Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, a Liquefaction Zone, or a Seismically Induced Landslide Zone. The conditions identified in this report are typical of sites within the Hollywood area, and of a type that are routinely addressed through compliance with regulatory measures. The proposed shoring system and the proposed structure will be designed in accordance with the CBC and will fully mitigate the potential effects of ground failure. Therefore, the proposed construction will not cause, or increase the potential for any seismic-related ground failure on the Project Site or adjacent sites.

f) Tsunamis, Seiches, and Flooding

Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by sudden water displacement caused by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Review of the City of Los Angeles Inundation and Tsunami Hazard Areas Map, 1996 (Exhibit K), indicates the Project Site does not lie within the mapped tsunami inundation boundaries. A seiche is a standing wave oscillating in enclosed bodies of water, such as lakes, reservoirs, or bays, in response to ground shaking or strong winds. A standing wave is the sum of two propagating waves traveling in opposite directions. When harmonically in sync, waves rebound and oscillate within the enclosed body of water, creating larger waves which can topple over the edge of the enclosure. Based on review of the Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan (1996), the closest body of water to the Project Site is the Hollywood Reservoir, which is located approximately 1½ miles north of the Project Site. Therefore, the risk of flooding from a seismically-induced seiche is considered to be remote. According to the City of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a potential inundation area associated with the Hollywood Reservoir (see Exhibit K: City of LA General Plan – Inundation and Tsunami Hazard Areas Map). The Hollywood Reservoir is located in the Hollywood Hills, approximately 1½ miles north of the Project Site. The Hollywood Reservoir is created by the Mulholland Dam, which was built in 1924 and designed to hold 7,900 acre-ft (equivalent to 2.5 billion gallons) of water. The Hollywood Reservoir is maintained by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Dam safety regulations are the primary means of reducing damage or injury due to inundation occurring from dam failure. The California Division of Safety of Dams regulates the siting, design, construction, and periodic review of all dams in the State. Mitigation of potential seiche hazards has also been implemented by the LADWP through regulation of the level of water in its storage facilities and the provision of walls of extra height to contain seiches and prevent overflow or inundation.



www.geoteq.com

According to the City of Los Angeles General Plan, dams and reservoirs are monitored during storms, and measures are instituted in the event of potential overflow. These measures apply to facilities within the City’s borders and facilities owned and operated by the City within other jurisdictions. Appropriate measures to be implemented in the event of potential overflow are specific to each dam and are based on the risk level associated with the dam. The City determines the risk of each dam that would impact the City based on the age and design of the dam, the holding capacity, as well as the density of existing and planned development within the inundation area. In addition, the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was adopted in July 2011, provides a list of existing programs, proposed activities and specific projects that may assist the City of Los Angeles in reducing risk and preventing loss of life and property damage from natural and human-caused hazards, including dam failure. Subsequent to the St. Francis Dam failure in 1928, LADWP decided to permanently keep the water storage in the Hollywood Reservoir lowered, by keeping it to no more than 4,000 acre-ft, which is approximately half of the storage capacity of the original intended design. Therefore, the risk of flooding from inundation by a seiche or a dam failure is considered low. The Project would not expose people to substantial risk of injury due to inundation by a dam or a seiche and impacts would be less than significant.

9.0 EXPANSIVE SOILS, EROSION, AND DRAINAGE

a) Expansive Soils

The older alluvium underlying the Project Site consists of interlayered mixtures of silty sand, sand, silt and clay. Geotechnologies, Inc. tested representative bulk samples of the on-site soils. The soils were in the low-to-moderate expansion range. The Expansion Index was between 20 and 60 for bulk samples remolded to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Reinforcing beyond the minimum required by the LADBS is not required. Design of the proposed structures in accordance with the provisions of the applicable CBC with appropriate concrete sections and reinforcements will mitigate the potential effects of moderately expansive soils.

b) Erosion The Project would not result in substantial off site soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Project Site is paved. The surrounding sites are also paved and there is minimal elevation difference or slope geometry across or adjacent to the Project Site. Earthwork activities associated with the grading and export of soil would occur in accordance with City requirements specified in the LABC. The Project would also be subject to the City’s grading plan review and approval process. Accordingly, grading and erosion control measures would be implemented during site grading to reduce erosion impacts as part of the regulatory compliance requirements.



www.geoteq.com

c) Drainage and Stormwater Infiltration

Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the Project. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designed engineering properties. Proper Site drainage should be maintained at all times. All site drainage should be collected and transferred to the street in non-erosive drainage devices. The proposed structure should be provided with roof drainage. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers should not be permitted on unprotected soils within five feet of the building perimeter. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the Project Site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. Planters which are located within retaining wall backfill should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the backfill.

10.0 METHANE, OIL WELLS, AND SEPTIC TANKS

The Project Site is not located within a Methane Zone or Methane Buffer Zone (City of Los Angeles, 2003). See Exhibit L – Methane Zone Risk Map. According to the Regional Wildcat Map (Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, June 2, 2001) the Project Site is not located within the limits of an oil field, and no oil wells were drilled on the Project Site. See Exhibit M – Oil Well Location Map. Sewers are available for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative disposal systems are necessary, nor are any proposed.

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS, DESIGN REVIEW, AND MONITORING

a) Recommendations

Grading Guidelines All vegetation, existing fill, and soft or disturbed earth materials shall be removed from the areas to receive controlled fill. The excavated areas shall be carefully observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing compacted fill. Any vegetation or associated root system located within the footprint of the proposed structures shall be removed during grading. Any existing or abandoned utilities located within the footprint of the proposed structures shall be removed or relocated as appropriate. All existing fill materials and any disturbed earth materials resulting from grading operations shall be removed and properly recompacted prior to foundation excavation.



www.geoteq.com

Subsequent to the indicated removals, the exposed grade shall be scarified to a depth of six inches, moistened to optimum moisture content, and recompacted in excess of the minimum required comparative density. The LADBS requires a minimum comparative compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density where the soils to be utilized in the fill have less than 15 percent finer than 0.005 millimeters. The soils tested by Geotechnologies, Inc. would require the 95 percent compaction requirement. All fill shall be mechanically compacted in layers not more than 8 inches thick. All fill shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density for the materials used. The maximum density shall be determined by the laboratory operated by Geotechnologies, Inc. using the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557. Field observation and testing shall be performed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer during grading to assist the contractor in obtaining the required degree of compaction and the proper moisture content. Where compaction is less than required, additional compactive effort shall be made with adjustment of the moisture content, as necessary, until a minimum of 95 percent compaction is obtained. The excavated onsite materials are considered satisfactory for reuse in the controlled fills as long as any debris and/or organic matter is removed. Any imported materials shall be observed and tested by the representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to use in fill areas. Imported materials shall contain sufficient fines so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. Any required import materials shall consist of relatively non-expansive soils with an expansion index of less than 20. The water-soluble sulfate content of the import materials should be less than 0.1% percentage by weight.

Imported materials shall be free from chemical or organic substances which could affect the proposed development. A competent professional should be retained in order to test imported materials and address environmental issues and organic substances which might affect the proposed development.

Temporary Excavations

All required excavations shall be sloped, or properly shored, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable CBC and LABC. The shoring system shall include soldier piles with rakers and/or tiebacks. If tiebacks are utilized as part of the shoring system, tiebacks will extend below adjacent properties and public right of ways. Appropriate notifications and agreements with neighboring property owners will need to be obtained by the development team prior to tieback installations. As an alternative, rakers and footings may be utilized as part of the shoring system in lieu of tiebacks.



www.geoteq.com

Existing Fill Soils The maximum depth of fill encountered on the Project Site was seven feet. This material and any fill generated during demolition shall be removed during the excavation of the subterranean levels and wasted from the Project Site.

Infiltration

According to the CGS Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the Hollywood Quadrangle (SHZR 026), the historically highest groundwater level is on the order of 50 feet below the existing grade. The Project will be constructed over two or three subterranean parking levels, extending on the order of 25 to 35 feet below the existing grade. The soils underlying the Project Site consists of stratified layers of sands, silts, and clays. The silt and clay layers are relatively impermeable and could potentially create perched water zones. The LADBS does not allow infiltration of stormwater which could potentially create perched water zones. Therefore, infiltration of stormwater is not advisable for the Project Site.

b) Mandatory Design Review

This preliminary geology and soils report is not a final site-specific, design-level geotechnical study. Rather, it determined that the Project is feasible in light of the geotechnical conditions identified on the Project Site. Site specific investigations shall be used for final design of the foundation system for the structures and will take into considerations the engineering properties beneath the proposed structures and the projected loads. Site specific investigations shall specify exact design coefficients that are needed by structural engineers to determine the type and sizing of structural building materials. A comprehensive geotechnical report with final design-level recommendations and parameters shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the local governing agency prior to the issuance of permits or construction. Design changes and the geotechnical recommendations contained in this report may result during the agency review process. The relevant provisions of the CBC and LABC shall be applied to, and incorporated in, the final geotechnical report to ensure structural safety in the event of an earthquake. The final geotechnical report shall provide final evaluation of the foundation conditions of the Project Site and the potential geologic/seismic hazards affecting the Project Site. The final geotechnical report shall include site-specific evaluations of design criteria related to the nature and extend of foundation materials, groundwater conditions, liquefaction and settlement potential, faulting, and soil stability. The final geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist and include appropriate measures and specific performance criteria required by the applicable



www.geoteq.com

building codes to minimize seismic hazards. The proposed building shall be designed in accordance with all applicable provisions of the applicable CBC and LABC. It is recommended that the geotechnical aspects of the Project be further reviewed by Geotechnologies, Inc. during the design process.

c) Construction Monitoring Geotechnical observations and testing during construction are considered to be a continuation of the geotechnical investigation. It is critical that Geotechnologies, Inc. review the geotechnical aspects of the Project during the construction process. Compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, approved in the final design-level geotechnical report approved by LADBS, and used for construction, requires review by this firm during the course of construction. All foundations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to placing concrete or steel. Any fill which is placed should be observed, tested, and verified if used for engineered purposes.

12.0 REPORT CONCLUSION, CLOSURE, AND LIMITATIONS

The Project Site is not located within an officially mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No known active or potentially active faults underlie the Project Site. The Project Site is not located within a liquefiable or earthquake-induced landslide zone on the most current CGS maps. Historic groundwater data and site exploration confirm that the Project Site is not potentially liquefiable. Based upon the research, exploration, and laboratory testing, construction of the Project is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The Project may be constructed using standard, feasible, and effective engineering methods. As noted in the recommendations section of this report, the proposed building will be designed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable CBC and LABC; and a final comprehensive geotechnical report with design recommendations and parameters will be submitted to LADBS for approval before issuance of building permits or construction. Compliance with the State of California and City of Los Angeles regulatory scheme will ensure seismic safety of the Project. The purpose of this report is to aid in the design and completion of the described project. Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce certain risks associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are sought because of special skill in engineering and geology and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. Geotechnologies, Inc. has a duty to exercise the ordinary skill and competence of members of the engineering profession. Those who hire Geotechnologies, Inc. are not justified in expecting infallibility, but can expect reasonable professional care and competence.



www.geoteq.com

The scope of the geotechnical services provided did not include any environmental site assessment for the presence or absence of organic substances, hazardous/toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. The conditions identified in this report are typical of suitable development sites within this area of Hollywood, and of a type that are routinely addressed through compliance with regulatory measures. A comprehensive geotechnical report with design recommendations and parameters will be prepared and submitted to the local governing agency for approval prior to construction. Geotechnologies, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide our services on this project. Should you have any questions please contact this office.

REFERENCE:

VICINITY MAP

FILE NO. 20618

HOLLYWOOD, CA QUADRANGLEU.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES,

Geotechnologies, Inc.Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

SUNSET STUDIOS HOLDING, LLC

N

PROJECT SITELAT: 34.0985 / LONG: 118.3184

EXHIBIT A

LEGEND

Qae:Ttus:

Alluvium: clay, sand and gravel, slightly elevated and dissectedUpper Topanga Formation-sandstone


Ttusi: Upper Topanga Formation-clay stoneTvb: Middle Topanga Formation-basaltic volcanic rocks

0 500 1000 2000

SCALE IN FEET

DIBBLEE, T.W., (1991), MAP #DF-30, GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE HOLLWOOD AND BURBANK (SOUTH 1/2) QUADRANGLESREFERNCE:

LOCAL GEOLOGIC MAP

SUBJECT SITE

N

? Fault - dashed where indefinite or inferred, dotted where concealed, queried where existence is doubtful

SANTA MONICA FAULT

FILE NO. 20618

SUNSET STUDIOS HOLDING, LLCEXHIBIT B

SUNSET STUDIOS HOLDINGSGeotechnologies, Inc.Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO. 20618

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE MAPREFERENCE: CGS, NOVEMBER 6, 2014, HOLLYWOOD QUADRANGLE, EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE MAP (OFFICIAL MAP)

EXHIBIT C

LEGEND

Fault Location?Zone Boundary

SUBJECT SITE


COUNTY OF LA GENERAL PLAN - FAULT RUPTURE HAZARDS MAP

LEGEND

REFERENCE: COUNTY OF LA SAFETY ELEMENT: FAULT RUPTURE HAZARDS AND HISTORIC SEISMICITY, PREPARED BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1990.

EXHIBIT D

SUBJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE

2 Arrowhead fault3 Bailey fault4 Big Mountain fault5 Big Pine fault6 Blake Ranch fault7 Cabrillo fault8 Chatsworth fault9 Chino fault

10 Clamshell-Sawpit fault11 Clearwater fault12 Cleghorn fault13 Crafton Hills fault zone14 Cucamonga fault zone15 Dry Creek fault16 Eagle Rock fault17 El Modeno fault18 Frazier Mountain thrust19 Garlock fault zone20 Grass Valley fault

21 Helendale fault22 Hollywood fault23 Holser fault24 Lion Canyon fault25 Llano fault26 Los Alamitos fault27 Malibu Coast fault28 Mint Canyon fault29 Mirage Valley fault zone30 Mission Hills fault31 Newport Inglewood fault zone32 North Frontal fault zone33 Northridge Hills fault34 Oak Ridge fault35 Palos Verdes fault zone36 Pelona fault37 Peralta Hills fault38 Pine Mountain fault39 Raymond fault40 Red Hill (Etiwanda Ave) fault

41 Redondo Canyon fault42 San Andreas Fault43 San Antonio fault44 San Cayetano fault45 San Fernando fault zone46 San Gabriel fault zone47 San Jacinto fault48 San Jose fault49 Santa Cruz-Santa Catalina Ridge f.z.50 Santa Monica fault51 Santa Ynez fault52 Santa Susana fault zone53 Sierra Madre fault zone54 Simi fault55 Soledad Canyon fault56 Stoddard Canyon fault57 Tunnel Ridge fault58 Verdugo fault59 Waterman Canyon fault60 Whittier fault

1 Alamo thrust

http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/info/images/LA%20Faults.pdf

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP

FILE No. 20618

REFERENCE:



EXHIBIT E

Geotechnologies, Inc.

Sunset Studios Holding, LLC

File No.: 20618

Fault Name

Closest

Distance*

(km) Site Lies*

Deterministic

Magnitude*

Relative

Motion* Activity Reference

Hollywood 0.45 South 6.7 Strike Slip A 2

Santa Monica, Connected alt 2 0.81 South 7.4 Reverse PA 2

Elysian Park 3.91 Southwest 6.7 Reverse - 1

Puente Hills 5.74 North 7.0 Reverse - 1

Newport-Inglewood 9.00 Northeast 7.5 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

Raymond 9.11 West 6.8 Reverse A (EFZ) 2

Verdugo 10.08 Southwest 6.9 Reverse A 1, 3

Sierra Madre 17.19 Southwest 7.3 Reverse A 3

Malibu Coast 20.40 East 7.0 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

Northridge 22.67 Southeast 6.9 Reverse A 3

Anacapa-Dume 23.27 East 7.2 Reverse PA 3

San Gabriel 24.62 South 7.3 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

Palos Verdes 26.17 Northeast 7.7 Strike Slip A 2

Elsinore 27.39 Northwest 7.8 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

Santa Susana 29.73 Southeast 6.9 Reverse A 3

Clamshell-Sawpit 30.03 Southwest 6.7 Reverse PA 3

Holser 39.10 Southeast 6.8 Reverse - 1

San Jose 40.28 West 6.7 Strike Slip - 1

Simi-Santa Rosa 41.58 Southeast 6.9 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

Oak Ridge 46.72 Southeast 7.4 Reverse - 1

Chino 47.91 West 6.7 Strike Slip PA 2

Cucamonga 52.74 West 6.7 Reverse A (EFZ) 2

San Andreas 53.46 Southwest 8.2 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

San Cayetano 55.41 Southeast 7.2 Reverse A (EFZ) 2

San Joaquin Hills 57.24 Northwest 7.1 Reverse - 1

Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 67.58 Northwest 7.0 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

San Jacinto 72.53 West 7.9 Reverse - 1

Santa Ynez 73.38 Southeast 7.4 Strike Slip A 2

Elsinore 73.49 Northwest 7.7 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

Ventura-Pitas Point 80.39 East 7.0 Reverse A (EFZ) 2

Pitas Point 80.39 East 7.3 Reverse A (EFZ) 2

Cleghorn 81.94 West 6.8 Strike Slip - 1

Oak Ridge (Offshore) 84.62 East 7.0 Reverse PA 2

Mission Ridge-Arroyo Parida-Santa Ana 86.06 Southeast 6.9 Reverse - 1

Channel Islands Thrust 87.52 East 7.3 Reverse - 1

Santa Cruz Island 87.70 East 7.2 Strike Slip A 2

Red Mountain 94.46 East 7.4 Reverse A (EFZ) 2

Garlock 95.40 Southeast 7.7 Strike Slip A (EFZ) 2

Pleito 97.14 Southeast 7.1 Reverse A (EFZ) 2

Coronado Bank 98.25 North 7.4 Strike Slip A 2

Notes: *Based on USGS California 2008 database Fault Distances Calculated using EZ-Frisk (Version 7.62)

1 = United States Geological Survey

2 = California Geological Survey

TABLE I - SEISMIC SOURCE SUMMARY TABLE

3 = County of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, 1990

A (EFZ) = Active (Earthquake Fault Zone)

A = Active

PA = Potentially Active

EXHIBIT F: NOTABLE ACTIVE FAULTS IN THE SITE VICINITY GREATER THAN 10KM

Sierra Madre Fault Zone The Sierra Madre fault zone forms the southern tectonic boundary of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern San Fernando Valley. It consists of a system of faults approximately 75 miles in length. The individual segments of the Sierra Madre fault system range up to 16 miles in length and display a reverse sense of displacement and dip to the north. The most recently active portions of the zone include the Mission Hills, Sylmar and Lakeview segments, which produced an earthquake in 1971 of magnitude 6.4. Tectonic rupture along the Lakeview Segment during the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971 produced displacements of approximately 2½ to 4 feet upward and southwestward. It is believed that the Sierra Madre fault zone is capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.3 with a recurrence interval of 200 years. According to the County of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element (1990), the closest trace of the fault is approximately 17.19 kilometers northeast of the Project Site. San Gabriel Fault System According to CGS, the San Gabriel fault system is located approximately 24.62 kilometers north of the Project Site. The San Gabriel fault system comprises a series of subparallel, steeply north-dipping faults trending approximately north 40 degrees west with a right-lateral sense of displacement. There is also a small component of vertical dip-slip separation. The fault system exhibits a strong topographic expression and extends approximately 90 miles from San Antonio Canyon on the southeast to Frazier Mountain on the northwest. The estimated right lateral displacement on the fault varies from 34 miles (Crowell, 1982) to 40 miles (Ehlig, 1986), to 10 miles (Weber, 1982). Most scholars accept the larger displacement values and place the majority of activity between the Late Miocene Epoch (i.e. 20.0 to 5.3 million years ago) and Late Pliocene Epoch (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago). The San Gabriel fault system is considered potentially active by the CGS. However, recent seismic exploration in the Valencia area (Cotton and others, 1983; Cotton, 1985) has established Holocene offset. Radiocarbon data acquired by Cotton (1985) indicate that faulting in the Valencia area occurred between 3,500 and 1,500 years before the present. It is hypothesized by Ehlig (1986) and Stitt (1986) that the Holocene offset on the San Gabriel fault system is due to sympathetic (passive) movement as a result of north-south compression of the upper Santa Susana thrust sheet. Seismic evidence indicates that the San Gabriel fault system is truncated at depth by the younger, north-dipping Santa Susana-Sierra Madre faults (Oakeshott, 1975; Namson and Davis, 1988). It is generally accepted that the San Gabriel fault system is not capable of producing large earthquakes. However, ground rupture may be produced in response to sympathetic (passive) movement.

Whittier-Elsinore Fault System According to CGS, the Whittier fault is located approximately 27.39 kilometers to the southeast of the Project Site. The Whittier fault together with the Chino fault comprises the northernmost extension of the northwest trending Elsinore fault system. The mapped surface of the Whittier fault extends in a west-northwest direction for a distance of 20 miles from the Santa Ana River to the terminus of the Puente Hills. The Whittier fault is essentially a strike-slip, northeast dipping fault zone which also exhibits evidence of reverse movement along with en echelon fault segments, en echelon folds and anatomizing (braided) fault segments. Right lateral offsets of stream drainages of up to 8800 feet (Durham and Yerkes, 1964) and vertical separation of the basement complex of 6,000 to 12,000 feet (Yerkes, 1972), have been documented. It is believed that the Whittier fault is capable of producing a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. The Whittier Narrows earthquakes of October 1, 1987, and October 4, 1987, occurred in the area between the westernmost terminus of the mapped trace of the Whittier fault and the frontal fault system. The main 5.9 magnitude shock of October 1, 1987 was not caused by slip on the Whittier fault. The quake ruptured a gently dipping thrust fault with an east-west strike (Haukson, Jones, Davis and others, 1988). In contrast, the earthquake of October 4, 1987, is assumed to have occurred on the Whittier fault as focal mechanisms show mostly strike-slip movement with a small reverse component on a steeply dipping northwest striking plane (Haukson, Jones, Davis and others, 1988). San Andreas Fault System The San Andreas Fault system forms a major plate tectonic boundary along the western portion of North America. The system is predominantly a series of northwest trending faults characterized by a predominant right lateral sense of movement. According to CGS, the San Andreas Fault system, at its closest point, is located approximately 53.46 kilometers to the northeast of the Project Site. The San Andreas and associated faults have had a long history of inferred and historic earthquakes. Cumulative displacement along the system exceeds 150 miles in the past 25 million years (Jahns, 1973). Large historic earthquakes have occurred at Fort Tejon in 1857, at Point Reyes in 1906, and at Loma Prieta in 1989. Based on single-event rupture length, the maximum Richter magnitude earthquake is expected to be approximately 8.25 (Allen, 1968). The recurrence interval for large earthquakes on the southern portion of the fault system is on the order of 100 to 200 years. It is believed that the Southern Segment of the San Andreas Fault is capable of producing an 8.2 magnitude earthquake.

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP

FILE NO. 20618

REFERENCE:

SUNSET STUDIOS HOLDING, LLCGeotechnologies, Inc.Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

PROJECT SITE

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES, HOLLYWOOD QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP (CDMG, 1999)

N

EXHIBIT G

LIQUEFACTION AREA EARTHQUAKE INDUCEDLANDSLIDES AREA


CITY OF LA GENERAL PLAN - AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION

LEGEND

REFERENCE: CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL PLAN SAFETEY ELEMENT EXHIBIT B: AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION, PREPARED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1993

EXHIBIT H

SUBJECT SITE

WML

HISTORICALLY HIGHEST GROUNDWATER LEVELS

FILE No. 20618Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers


REFERENCE: CDMG, SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE REPORT, 026HOLLYWOOD 7.5 - MINUTE QUADRANGLE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (1998, REVISED 2006)

20 Depth to groundwater in feet

PROJECT SITE

EXHIBIT I


CITY OF LA GENERAL PLAN - LANDSLIDE INVENTORY AND HILLSIDE AREAS MAP

LEGEND

REFERENCE: CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL PLAN SAFETEY ELEMENT EXHIBIT C: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY AND HILLSIDE AREAS, PREPARED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1993

EXHIBIT J

SUBJECT SITE


CITY OF LA GENERAL PLAN - INUNDATION AND TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS MAP

LEGEND

EXHIBIT K

REFERENCE: CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL PLAN SAFETEY ELEMENT EXHIBIT G: INUNDATION AND TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS, PREPARED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1993

SUBJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE

METHANE ZONE RISK MAPSUNSET STUDIOS HOLDING, LLCGeotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

REFERENCE: GIS Mapping, Bureau of Engineering, Department fo Public Works - 09/24/03

NLEGEND

SCALE

FILE NO. 20618 EXHIBIT L

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS FILE NO. 20618

OIL WELL LOCATION MAPSUNSET STUDIOS HOLDING, LLC

REFERENCE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCESONLINE MAPPING SYSTEM

N

PLUGGED OIL ANDGAS WELL DRILLED

BY CHEVRON

SUBJECT SITE

EXHIBIT M

LEGENDB6

LOCATION & NUMBER OF BORING

PLOT PLAN

Geotechnologies, Inc.SUNSET STUDIOS HOLDING, LLC

A.L.T.A./A.C.S.M. LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED BY O.K.O. ENGINEERING, INC.REFERENCE:DATED: 12/21/07

FILE No. 20618

DATE: September '13

SCALE IN FEET

40 80200

B1

B3

B5

B6

B2

B4

(Previous Investigation by Geotechnologies, Inc. Dated April 1, 2008, File No. 19633)

EXHIBIT NConsulting Geotechnical Engineers

EXHIBIT O

BORING LOGS AND

GEOTECHNICAL

TESTING


www.geoteq.com

EXHIBIT O – BORING LOGS AND GEOTECHNICAL TESTING

Classification and Sampling

The soil is continuously logged by a representative of this firm and classified by visual examination

in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system. The field classification is verified in

the laboratory, also in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Laboratory

classification may include visual examination, Atterberg Limit Tests and grain size distribution.

The final classification is shown on the boring logs.

Samples of the earth materials encountered in the exploratory excavations were collected and

transported to the laboratory. Undisturbed samples of soil are obtained at frequent intervals.

Unless noted on the boring logs as an SPT sample, samples acquired while utilizing a hollow-stem

auger drill rig are obtained by driving a thin-walled, California Modified Sampler with successive

30-inch drops of a 140-pound hammer. The soil is retained in brass rings of 2.50 inches inside

diameter and 1.00 inches in height. The central portion of the samples are stored in close fitting,

waterproof containers for transportation to the laboratory. Samples noted on the boring logs as

SPT samples are obtained in accordance with ASTM D 1586-99. Samples are retained for 30 days

after the date of the geotechnical report.

Moisture and Density Relationships

The field moisture content and dry unit weight are determined for each of the undisturbed soil

samples, and the moisture content is determined for SPT samples by ASTM D 4959-00 or ASTM

D 4643-00. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency between

exploration locations and any local variations. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per

cubic foot and shown on the “Boring Logs”, A-Plates. The field moisture content is determined

as a percentage of the dry unit weight.

Direct Shear Testing

Shear tests are performed by ASTM D 3080-04 with a strain controlled, direct shear machine

manufactured by Soil Test, Inc. or a Direct Shear Apparatus manufactured by GeoMatic, Inc. The

rate of deformation is approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample is sheared under

varying confining pressures in order to determine the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters of

the cohesion intercept and the angle of internal friction. Samples are generally tested in an

artificially saturated condition. Depending upon the sample location and future site conditions,

samples may be tested at field moisture content. The results are plotted on the "Shear Test

Diagram," B-Plates.


www.geoteq.com

Consolidation Testing

Settlement predictions of the soil's behavior under load are made on the basis of the consolidation

tests ASTM D 2435-04. The consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a single one-inch high

ring. Loads are applied in several increments in a geometric progression, and the resulting

deformations are recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are placed in contact with the

top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore fluid. Samples are

generally tested at increased moisture content to determine the effects of water on the bearing soil.

The normal pressure at which the water is added is noted on the drawing. Results are plotted on

the "Consolidation Test," C-Plates.

Expansion Index Testing

The expansion tests performed on the remolded samples are in accordance with the Expansion

Index testing procedures, as described in the ASTM D4829-03. The soil sample is compacted into

a metal ring at a saturation degree of 50 percent. The ring sample is then placed in a

consolidometer, under a vertical confining pressure of 1 lbf/square inch and inundated with

distilled water. The deformation of the specimen is recorded for a period of 24 hour or until the

rate of deformation becomes less than 0.0002 inches/hour, whichever occurs first. The expansion

index, EI, is determined by dividing the difference between final and initial height of the ring

sample by the initial height, and multiplied by 1,000.

Laboratory Compaction Characteristics

The maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content of a soil are determined by use of

ASTM D 1557-02. A soil at a selected moisture content is placed in five layers into as mold of

given dimensions, with each layer compacted by 25 blows of a 10 pound hammer dropped from a

distance of 18 inches subjecting the soil to a total compactive effort of about 56,000 pounds per

cubic foot. The resulting dry unit weight is determined. The procedure is repeated for a sufficient

number of moisture contents to establish a relationship between the dry unit weight and the water

content of the soil. The data when plotted represent a curvilinear relationship known as the

compaction curve. The values of optimum moisture content and modified maximum dry unit

weight are determined from the compaction curve.

Grain Size Distribution

These tests cover the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle sizes in soils. Sieve

analysis is used to determine the grain size distribution of the soil larger than the Number 200

sieve. ASTM D 422-63(Reapproved 2002) is used to determine particle sizes smaller than the

Number 200 sieve. A hydrometer is used to determine the distribution of particle sizes by a

sedimentation process. The grain size distributions are plotted on the E-Plates presented in the

Appendix of this report.

Drilling Date: 03/15/08

Project: File No. 20618 Sunset Studios Holdings, LLCkm

Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description

Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: 3-inch Asphalt over 5-inch Base

0 -- FILL: Sandy Clay, grayish-brown, moist, firm

-

1 20 22.1 101.9 1 --

- CL Sandy Clay, grayish-brown, moist, firm

2 --

-

3 16 20.9 98.5 3 --

- light grayish-brown, moist

4 --

-

5 37 25.9 94.6 5 --

- moist

6 --

-

7 21 20.9 101.5 7 --

- Clayey Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine

8 -- grained, firm

-

9 --

-

10 20 15.6 111.3 10 --

- SM Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium

11 -- grained

-

12 --

-

13 --

-

14 --

-

15 24 17.1 107.7 15 --

- CL Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, firm

16 --

-

17 --

-

18 --

-

19 --

-

20 29 14.8 110.6 20 --

- SM Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, slightly porous, slight caliche, moist,

21 -- medium dense, fine to medium grained

-

22 --

-

23 --

-

24 --

-

25 32 16.3 107.9 25 -- Clayey Sand to Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, medium- SC/CL dense, fine grained, firm

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1a

BORING LOG NUMBER 1



Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.

-

26 --

-

27 --

-

28 --

-

29 --

-

30 52 8.7 105.4 30 --

- SP/SM Sand to Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine

31 -- to medium grained

-

32 --

-

33 --

-

34 --

-

35 57 16.9 113.3 35 --

- CL Sandy Clay, medium brown to yellowish-brown, moist, firm

36 --

-

37 --

-

38 --

-

39 --

-

40 53 20.2 105.0 40 -- yellowish-brown with gray mottling, moist

-

41 -- Total depth: 40 feet

- No Water

42 -- Fill to 1 foot

-

43 --

- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate

44 -- boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual

-

45 -- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger

- 140-lb. Slide Hammer, 30-inch drop

46 -- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted

-

47 -- SPT=Standard Penetration Test

-

48 --

-

49 --

-

50 --

-

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1b

BORING LOG NUMBER 1





0 -- FILL: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained

-

1 --

-

2 13 13.3 109.4 2 --

-

3 --

-

4 29 20.2 99.2 4 --

- SM Silty Sand, dark to medium brown, moist, medium dense, fine

5 -- grained

-

6 --

-

7 39 15.9 106.4 7 --

- ML Sandy to Clayey Silt, dark to medium brown, moist, firm, minor

8 -- porous

-

9 --

-

10 27 15.7 110.5 10 --

- ML/CL Clayey Silt to Silty Clay, medium brown, moist, firm

11 --

-

12 --

-

13 --

-

14 --

-

15 36 20.8 101.2 15 --

- CL Silty Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, stiff, minor caliche

16 --

-

17 --

-

18 --

-

19 --

-

20 20 16.7 103.8 20 --

-

21 --

-

22 --

-

23 --

-

24 --

-

25 24 16.3 111.2 25 -- Sandy Silt to Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense,- ML/SM fine grained, stiff


BORING LOG NUMBER 2




-

26 --

-

27 --

-

28 --

-

29 --

-

30 21 17.2 107.6 30 --

- SC/SM Clayey to Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine

31 -- grained

-

32 --

-

33 --

-

34 --

-

35 57 17.1 113.9 35 --

50/5" - CL Silty Clay, dark brown, moist, very stiff

36 --

-

37 --

-

38 --

-

39 --

-

40 86 15.6 119.0 40 --

- Total depth: 40 feet

41 -- No Water

- Fill to 4 feet

42 --

-

43 --

-

44 --

-

45 --

-

46 --

-

47 --

-

48 --

-

49 --

-

50 --

-


BORING LOG NUMBER 2




Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: 3-inch Asphalt over 10-inch Base over 4-inch Concrete

0 -- FILL: Sandy Clay, dark brown, moist, firm

-

1 --

-

2 26 16.9 101.8 2 -- Sand with Gravel to Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown to grayish-brown,

- moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained, firm

3 --

- CL Sandy Clay, grayish-brown, moist, firm

4 11 17.2 94.2 4 --

- SM/SC Silty to Clayey Sand, light grayish-brown, moist, medium dense,

5 -- fine grained, firm

-

6 --

-

7 24 16.4 108.2 7 --

- SC Clayey Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained,

8 -- firm

-

9 --

-

10 23 12.3 106.9 10 --

- SM Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained,

11 -- slight gravel

-

12 --

-

13 --

-

14 --

-

15 21 17.7 104.8 15 --

- SM/SC Silty to Clayey Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine

16 -- to medium grained, firm

-

17 --

-

18 --

-

19 --

-

20 18 21.3 96.1 20 --

- SC/SM Clayey to Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine

21 -- grained, firm

-

22 --

-

23 --

-

24 --

-

25 22 15.0 107.6 25 -- Silty to Clayey Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine- SM/SC to medium grained, firm


BORING LOG NUMBER 3




-

26 --

-

27 --

-

28 --

-

29 --

-

30 47 6.6 107.4 30 --

- SP Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium

31 -- grained, slight gravel

-

32 --

-

33 --

-

34 --

-

35 40 4.4 97.2 35 --

- moist

36 --

-

37 --

-

38 --

-

39 --

-

40 28 19.1 107.8 40 --

50/6" - Total depth: 40 feet

41 -- No Water

- Fill to 3 feet

42 --

-

43 --

-

44 --

-

45 --

-

46 --

-

47 --

-

48 --

-

49 --

-

50 --

-


BORING LOG NUMBER 3





0 -- FILL: Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine

- grained

1 --

-

2 42 12.4 122.4 2 --

- SC/SM Clayey to Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine

3 -- grained

-

4 --

-

5 12 16.7 SPT 5 --

- SC/CL Clayey Sand to Sandy Clay, dark brown, moist, medium dense,

6 -- fine grained, stiff

-

7 --

7.5 31 17.5 110.0 -

8 --

-

9 --

-

10 10 18.2 SPT 10 --

- ML/CL Clayey Silt to Silty Clay, medium brown, firm

11 --

-

12 --

12.5 31 19.0 103.1 -

13 -- SM/CL Silty Sand to Sandy Clay, medium to yellowish-brown, moist,

- medium dense, fine grained, firm

14 --

-

15 16 20.1 SPT 15 --

- CL Silty Clay, medium brown, moist, firm

16 --

-

17 --

17.5 30 18.3 109.2 -

18 -- SC/SM Clayey to Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense,

- fine grained

19 --

-

20 13 9.5 SPT 20 --

- SM/CL Silty Sand to Silty Clay, yellow to medium brown, moist, medium

21 -- dense, fine grained, firm

-

22 --

22.5 33 13.3 119.8 -

23 -- Silty Clay to Silty Sand, medium to yellowish-brown, moist,

- medium dense, fine grained, firm

24 --

-

25 10 20.4 SPT 25 --- SP Sand, yellowish-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine grained


BORING LOG NUMBER 4




-

26 -- CL Silty Clay, medium brown, moist, firm

-

27 --

27.5 32 9.7 109.6 -

28 -- SM Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained

-

29 --

-

30 11 16.5 SPT 30 --

- SC/ML Clayey Sand to Clayey Silt, dark to medium brown, moist, medium


-

32 --

32.5 55 15.7 113.5 -

33 -- CL Silty Clay, dark and medium brown mottling, moist, stiff

-

34 --

-

35 27 14.9 SPT 35 --

-

36 --

-

37 --

37.5 95 17.9 113.1 -

38 -- Silty Clay, dark brown, moist, very stiff

-

39 --

-

40 37 17.9 SPT 40 --

- SC/ML Clayey Sand to Clayey Silt, yellow to dark brown, moist, medium

41 -- dense, fine grained, stiff

-

42 --

42.5 61 22.2 106.9 -

43 -- SM/CL Silty Sand to Silty Clay, yellow to medium brown, moist, dense,

- fine grained, stiff

44 --

-

45 22 17.0 SPT 45 --

- SC/CL Clayey Sand to Clayey Silt, yellow to medium brown, moist,

46 -- medium dense, fine grained, stiff

-

47 --

47.5 82 17.5 110.4 -

48 -- SM/SC Silty Sand to Clayey Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, very dense,

- fine grained

49 --

-

50 46 16.5 SPT 50 --

- CL Silty Clay, dark brown, moist, stiff


BORING LOG NUMBER 4




-

51 --

-

52 --

52.5 90 14.6 119.7 -

53 -- SC/SM Clayey to Silty Sand, yellow to medium brown, moist, dense, fine

- grained

54 --

-

55 43 14.2 SPT 55 --

-

56 --

-

57 --

57.5 65 19.8 112.0 -

58 -- SM Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, dense, fine grained

-

59 --

-

60 45 29.3 SPT 60 --

- SP Sand, medium brown, wet, medium dense, fine grained

61 --

-

62 --

62.5 72 15.7 112.9 -

63 -- SM Sandy to Clayey Silt, yellow to medium brown, very moist, firm

-

64 --

-

65 57 8.8 SPT 65 --

- SP Sand, medium brown, wet, dense, fine to medium grained

66 --

-

67 --

67.5 32 14.0 116.5 -

68 --

-

69 --

-

70 56 8.4 SPT 70 -- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, medium to yellowish-brown, very moist, dense,

- fine grained

71 --

- Total depth: 70 feet

72 -- Water at 51½ feet

- Fill to 2 feet

73 --

-

74 --

-

75 --

-

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-4c

BORING LOG NUMBER 4




Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: 4½-inch Asphalt over 2-inch Base

0 -- FILL: Sandy Clay, grayish-brown, moist, firm

-

1 11 21.2 76.0 1 --

- moist

2 --

-

3 30 24.4 89.7 3 --

- CL Sandy Clay, light grayish-brown, moist, firm

4 --

-

5 30 28.9 93.5 5 --

- Sandy to Silty Clay, light grayish-brown to yellowish-brown,

6 -- moist, firm

-

7 28 20.4 107.1 7 --

- Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown, moist

8 --

-

9 --

-

10 25 22.1 98.7 10 --

- SC/CL Clayey Sand to Silty Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense,

11 -- fine grained, firm

-

12 --

-

13 --

-

14 --

-

15 29 20.5 99.9 15 --

- SM/CL Silty Sand to Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense,

16 -- fine to medium grained, firm

-

17 --

-

18 --

-

19 --

-

20 42 22.4 99.0 20 --

- SC/CL Clayey Sand to Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, medium


-

22 --

-

23 --

-

24 --

-

25 30 11.9 105.0 25 -- Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, slightly porous, moist, medium - SM dense, fine to medium grained


BORING LOG NUMBER 5




-

26 --

-

27 --

-

28 --

-

29 --

-

30 34 10.8 106.1 30 --

- moist

31 --

-

32 --

-

33 --

-

34 --

-

35 86 13.5 121.0 35 --

- SC Clayey Sand, yellowish-brown with gray mottling, moist, very

36 -- dense, fine to medium grained, very stiff

-

37 --

-

38 --

-

39 --

-

40 100/9" 17.6 115.2 40 -- CL Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, very stiff

-


- No Water

42 -- Fill to 3 feet

-

43 --

-

44 --

-

45 --

-

46 --

-

47 --

-

48 --

-

49 --

-

50 --

-


BORING LOG NUMBER 5





0 -- FILL: Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine

- grained

1 --

-

2 53 16.1 114.7 2 --

- Sandy Clay, light grayish-brown, moist, firm, minor asphalt

3 -- fragments, slight gravel

-

4 75 17.7 110.0 4 --

- moist, stiff

5 --

-

6 --

-

7 48 18.1 111.1 7 --

- SC/CL Clayey Sand to Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown to medium brown,

8 -- moist, medium dense, fine grained, stiff

-

9 --

-

10 53 19.9 101.9 10 --

- CL Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown, moist, firm

11 --

-

12 --

12.5 60 19.7 98.3 -

13 -- moist, stiff

-

14 --

-

15 36 18.4 108.4 15 --

- slight caliche, moist

16 --

-

17 --

-

18 --

-

19 --

-

20 34 17.7 105.4 20 --

- SC/SM Clayey to Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, slightly porous, moist,

21 -- medium dense, fine to medium grained, firm

-

22 --

-

23 --

-

24 --

-

25 37 13.0 113.1 25 -- Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, slightly porous, moist, medium- SM dense, fine grained


BORING LOG NUMBER 6




-

26 --

-

27 --

-

28 --

-

29 --

-

30 42 20.0 108.3 30 --

- SC Clayey Sand, yellowish-brown, slightly porous, moist, medium


-

32 --

-

33 --

-

34 --

-

35 37 9.4 106.0 35 --

- SM Silty Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained

36 --

- SP Sand, yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium

37 -- grained

-

38 --

-

39 --

-

40 25 18.5 109.8 40 -- CL Sandy Clay, yellowish-brown to medium brown, moist, stiff

50/6" -


- No Water

42 -- Fill to 7 feet

-

43 --

-

44 --

-

45 --

-

46 --

-

47 --

-

48 --

-

49 --

-

50 --

-


BORING LOG NUMBER 6

Direct Shear, Saturated

C = 186 PSF

PHI = 27 DEGREES

3.5

3.0

Normal Pressure (KSF)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(KS

F)

0.5

03.02.52.01.51.00.50

B1 @ 5 CL 94.6 25.9 30.0B2 @ 10' SM/CL 110.5 15.7 22.3B3 @ 15' SC 104.8 17.7 21.1B5 @ 20' SM/CL 99.0 22.4 29.8B1 @ 25' CL/SC 107.9 16.3 25.1

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

B3 @ 30' SM 107.4 6.6 18.4B6 @ 35' SM/SC 106.0 9.4 17.3


FILE NO. 20618 PLATE: B

SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM


SAMPLE SOIL TYPEDRY

DENSITY (PCF)INITIAL

MOISTURE(%)FINAL

MOISTURE(%)

B2 @ 40' CL/SC 119.0 15.6 20.5

B1 @ 5', B1 @ 25'

B1 @ 5'

B1 @ 5', B3 @ 15'

B2 @ 10'

B2 @ 10'

B2 @ 10'

B3 @ 15'

B3 @ 15'

B5 @ 20'

B5 @ 20'

B5 @ 20'

B1 @ 25'

B1 @ 25'

B3 @ 30'

B3 @ 30'

B3 @ 30'

B6 @ 35'

B6 @ 35'

B6 @ 35'

B2 @ 40'

B2 @ 40'

B2 @ 40'

.1 .7 .8 .9 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.2 .3 .4 .5 .6

Perc

ent C

onso

lidat

ion

FILE NO. 20618 PLATE: C-1

Consolidation Pressure (KSF)

CONSOLIDATION TEST

Water Added At 2 KSF

0

2



B6 @ 20'

0

2

B2 @ 25'

4

0

2

B5 @ 30'

0

2

B1 @ 35'

4

.1 .7 .8 .9 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.2 .3 .4 .5 .6

Perc

ent C

onso

lidat

ion

FILE NO. 20618 PLATE: C-2

Consolidation Pressure (KSF)

CONSOLIDATION TEST

Water Added At 2 KSF



0

2

B3 @ 40'

0

2

B4 @ 42.5'

0

2

B4 @ 47.5'

0

2

B4 @ 52.5'

0

2

B4 @ 57.5'

4

SOIL TYPE:

EXPANSION INDEX

EXPANSION CHARACTER

SOIL TYPE:

SAMPLE

SAMPLE

UBC STANDARD 18-2

MAXIMUM DENSITY pcf.

OPTIMUM MOISTURE %

B5 @ 1-5'B1 @ 1- 5'

MODERATE

SM/CL

116.5

14.0

116.0

14.5

20 60

B6 @ 1-5'

131.0

8.5

LOW

20

LOW

ASTM D 1557-02

SM/CL SM+GRAVEL

ASTM D 4829-03


FILE NO. 20618 PLATE: D

COMPACTION/EXPANSION DATA SHEETGeotechnologies, Inc.Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

B5 @ 1-5'B1 @ 1- 5'

SM/CL

B6 @ 1-5'

SM/CL SM+GRAVEL

Geotechnologies, Inc.Project: Sunset Studios Holdings, LLCFile No.: 20618Description: Liquefaction AnalysisBoring Number: 4

EMPIRICAL ESTIMATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIALNCEER (1996) METHOD By Thomas F. Blake (1994-1996) LIQ2_30.WQ1EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: ENERGY & ROD CORRECTIONS:Earthquake Magnitude: 7.1 Energy Correction (CE) for N60: 1.00Peak Horiz. Acceleration (g): 0.66 Rod Len.Corr.(CR)(0-no or 1-yes): 1.0Calculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 0.873 Bore Dia. Corr. (CB): 1.00GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: Sampler Corr. (CS): 1.20Current Groundwater Level (ft): 51.5 Use Ksigma (0 or 1): 1.0Historic Highest Groundwater Level* (ft): 50.0Unit Wt. Water (pcf): 62.4* Based on California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report

LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS:Depth to Total Unit Current Water FIELD Depth of Liq.Sus. -200 Est. Dr CN Corrected Resist. rd Induced Liquefac.Base (ft) Wt. (pcf) Level (0 or 1) SPT (N) SPT (ft) (0 or 1) (%) (%) Factor (N1)60 CRR Factor CSR Safe.Fact.

1.0 137.6 0 NA 1.0 0 0.0 2.000 0.0 ~ 0.998 0.374 ~2.0 137.6 0 NA 1.0 0 0.0 ####### #VALUE! ~ 0.993 0.372 ~3.0 137.6 0 NA 1.0 0 0.0 ####### #VALUE! ~ 0.989 0.370 ~4.0 137.6 0 NA 1.0 0 0.0 ####### #VALUE! ~ 0.984 0.369 ~5.0 137.6 0 NA 1.0 0 0.0 ####### #VALUE! ~ 0.979 0.367 ~6.0 129.3 0 12.0 5.0 0 0.0 1.849 20.0 ~ 0.975 0.365 ~7.0 129.3 0 12.0 5.0 0 0.0 1.849 20.0 ~ 0.970 0.364 ~8.0 129.3 0 12.0 5.0 0 0.0 1.849 20.0 ~ 0.966 0.362 ~9.0 129.3 0 12.0 5.0 0 0.0 1.849 20.0 ~ 0.961 0.360 ~

10.0 129.3 0 12.0 5.0 0 0.0 1.849 20.0 ~ 0.957 0.358 ~11.0 129.3 0 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 1.291 11.6 ~ 0.952 0.357 ~12.0 129.3 0 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 1.291 11.6 ~ 0.947 0.355 ~13.0 122.7 0 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 1.291 11.6 ~ 0.943 0.353 ~14.0 122.7 0 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 1.291 11.6 ~ 0.938 0.352 ~15.0 122.7 0 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 1.291 11.6 ~ 0.934 0.350 ~16.0 122.7 0 16.0 15.0 0 0.0 1.055 16.3 ~ 0.929 0.348 ~17.0 122.7 0 16.0 15.0 0 0.0 1.055 16.3 ~ 0.925 0.346 ~18.0 129.2 0 16.0 15.0 0 0.0 1.055 16.3 ~ 0.920 0.345 ~19.0 129.2 0 16.0 15.0 0 0.0 1.055 16.3 ~ 0.915 0.343 ~20.0 129.2 0 16.0 15.0 0 0.0 1.055 16.3 ~ 0.911 0.341 ~21.0 135.8 0 13.0 20.0 0 0.0 0.915 12.8 ~ 0.906 0.340 ~22.0 135.8 0 13.0 20.0 0 0.0 0.915 12.8 ~ 0.902 0.338 ~23.0 135.8 0 13.0 20.0 0 0.0 0.915 12.8 ~ 0.897 0.336 ~24.0 135.8 0 13.0 20.0 0 0.0 0.915 12.8 ~ 0.893 0.334 ~25.0 135.8 0 13.0 20.0 0 0.0 0.915 12.8 ~ 0.888 0.333 ~26.0 135.8 0 10.0 25.0 0 0.0 0.813 9.3 ~ 0.883 0.331 ~27.0 135.8 0 10.0 25.0 0 0.0 0.813 9.3 ~ 0.879 0.329 ~28.0 120.2 0 10.0 25.0 0 0.0 0.813 9.3 ~ 0.874 0.328 ~29.0 120.2 0 10.0 25.0 0 0.0 0.813 9.3 ~ 0.870 0.326 ~30.0 120.2 0 10.0 25.0 0 0.0 0.813 9.3 ~ 0.865 0.324 ~31.0 120.2 0 11.0 30.0 0 0.0 0.742 9.8 ~ 0.861 0.322 ~32.0 120.2 0 11.0 30.0 0 0.0 0.742 9.8 ~ 0.856 0.321 ~33.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.851 0.319 ~34.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.847 0.317 ~35.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.842 0.316 ~36.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.838 0.314 ~37.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.833 0.312 ~38.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.829 0.310 ~39.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.824 0.309 ~40.0 131.3 0 27.0 35.0 0 0.0 0.688 22.3 ~ 0.819 0.307 ~41.0 131.3 0 37.0 40.0 0 0.0 0.642 28.5 ~ 0.815 0.305 ~42.0 131.3 0 37.0 40.0 0 0.0 0.642 28.5 ~ 0.810 0.304 ~43.0 130.7 0 37.0 40.0 0 0.0 0.642 28.5 ~ 0.806 0.302 ~44.0 130.7 0 37.0 40.0 0 0.0 0.642 28.5 ~ 0.801 0.300 ~45.0 130.7 0 37.0 40.0 0 0.0 0.642 28.5 ~ 0.797 0.298 ~46.0 130.7 0 21.0 45.0 0 0.0 0.605 15.2 ~ 0.792 0.297 ~47.0 130.7 0 21.0 45.0 0 0.0 0.605 15.2 ~ 0.787 0.295 ~48.0 129.8 0 21.0 45.0 0 0.0 0.605 15.2 ~ 0.783 0.293 ~49.0 129.8 0 21.0 45.0 0 0.0 0.605 15.2 ~ 0.778 0.292 ~50.0 129.8 0 21.0 45.0 0 0.0 0.605 15.2 ~ 0.774 0.290 ~51.0 129.8 0 46.0 50.0 1 0.0 73 0.600 33.1 Infin. 0.769 0.288 Non-Liq.52.0 129.8 1 46.0 50.0 1 0.0 73 0.600 33.1 Infin. 0.765 0.288 Non-Liq.53.0 137.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.760 0.289 Non-Liq.54.0 137.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.755 0.290 Non-Liq.55.0 137.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.751 0.290 Non-Liq.56.0 137.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.746 0.291 Non-Liq.57.0 137.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.742 0.291 Non-Liq.58.0 134.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.737 0.292 Non-Liq.59.0 134.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.733 0.292 Non-Liq.60.0 134.2 1 43.0 55.0 1 0.0 68 0.600 31.0 Infin. 0.728 0.293 Non-Liq.61.0 134.2 1 45.0 60.0 1 0.0 69 0.600 32.4 Infin. 0.723 0.293 Non-Liq.62.0 134.2 1 45.0 60.0 1 0.0 69 0.600 32.4 Infin. 0.719 0.293 Non-Liq.63.0 130.6 1 45.0 60.0 1 0.0 69 0.600 32.4 Infin. 0.714 0.293 Non-Liq.64.0 130.6 1 45.0 60.0 1 0.0 69 0.600 32.4 Infin. 0.710 0.293 Non-Liq.65.0 130.6 1 45.0 60.0 1 0.0 69 0.600 32.4 Infin. 0.705 0.293 Non-Liq.66.0 132.8 1 57.0 65.0 1 0.0 76 0.600 41.0 Infin. 0.701 0.293 Non-Liq.67.0 132.8 1 57.0 65.0 1 0.0 76 0.600 41.0 Infin. 0.696 0.293 Non-Liq.68.0 132.8 1 57.0 65.0 1 0.0 76 0.600 41.0 Infin. 0.691 0.293 Non-Liq.69.0 132.8 1 57.0 65.0 1 0.0 76 0.600 41.0 Infin. 0.687 0.293 Non-Liq.70.0 132.8 1 57.0 65.0 1 0.0 76 0.600 41.0 Infin. 0.682 0.293 Non-Liq.

stang

Text Box

Exhibit P: Liquefaction Analysis


www.geoteq.com

EXHIBIT Q - REFERENCES

Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., 1992, “Empirical Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement

Generated by Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads,” Technical Report NCEER-92-0021,

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., 1995, “Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced lateral

Spread,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard

Zone Report of the Hollywood 7½-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California,

C.D.M.G. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 026, map scale 1:24,000.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard

Zones Map, Hollywood 7½-minute Quadrangle.

California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic

Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.

California Geological Survey, November 6, 2014, Earthquake Fault Zones Map, Official Map,

Hollywood 7½-minute Quadrangle.

City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, 1996, Safety Element of the Los Angeles

City General Plan.

City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, 2003, Methane and Methane Buffer Zones

Map, Map Number A-20960.

City of Los Angeles Navigate LA website (http://navigatela.lacity.org/index.cfm).

City of Los Angeles Parcel Profile Report (http://www.permitla.org/parcel/).

City of Los Angeles Zimas website (http://zimas.lacity.org/).

Crook, R., Jr., Proctor, R.J., 1992, The Hollywood and Santa Monica Fault and the Southern

Boundary of the Transverse Ranges Province: in Pipkin, B., and Proctor, R.J. (eds.) Engineering

Geology Practice in Southern California, Star Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

Dibblee, T.W., 1991 Geologic Map of the Hollywood and Burbank (South ½) Quadrangles, Los

Angeles County, California, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-30, Map scale 1:24,000.

Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), 2001, Regional Wildcat Map,

Northern Los Angeles Basin, map W1-5, map scale 1:48,000.


www.geoteq.com

EXHIBIT Q – REFERENCES CONTINUED

Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T.K., Guptill, P., and Miller, G., 1997, Active Tectonics,

Paleoseismology, and Seismic Hazards of the Hollywood Fault, Northern Los Angeles Basin,

California, GSA Bulletin, v. 109: no 12, p1595-1616.

Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2003, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological

Survey, Special Publication 42.

Hauksson, E. (1992), Seismicity, Faults, and Earthquake Potential in Los Angeles, Southern

California: Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, Special Publication No. 4,

Association of Engineering Geologists.

Jennings, Charles W. (1994), Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California

Division of Mines and Geology.

Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1990), Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los

Angeles County General Plan: Hazard Reduction in Los Angeles County.

Risk Engineering Software, 2010, EZ-FRISK, Software for Earthquake Ground Motion

Estimation, Version 7.62.

Seed, H.B. , Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field

Performance Data, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil

Engineers, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 458-482.

Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of

DMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in

California,” March.

Tinsley, J.C., Youd, T.L, Perkins, D.M., and Chen, A.T.F., 1985, Evaluating Liquefaction

Potential: in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An earth Science

Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, edited by J.I. Ziony, U.S.

Government Printing Office, pp. 263-315.

Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y., 1983, Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT

N-Value and Fines Content, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 56-74.

Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H. B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake

Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, August.


www.geoteq.com

EXHIBIT Q – REFERENCES CONTINUED

United States Geological Survey, 2008, U.S.G.S. Interactive Deaggregation Program.

(http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php).

United States Geological Survey, 2011, U.S.G.S. Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version

5.1.0). (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/).

Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, “Revised Multilinear Regression Equations

for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 128,

No. 12, December.

february 24, 2015 proposed mixed-use development

Documents