City Council Meeting Agenda
February 9, 2026

The Standards were subsequently incorporated into Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 15164.5(b) as a gauge against which lead agencies complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) could measure project impacts to historical resources. As stated under the prior CEQA subsection, generally a project that complies with the Standards is considered to have mitigated its impacts to historical resources to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3); see also League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896. Although not prescriptive and as suggested by the term “generally” as used in the PRC, the appropriate application of the Standards, or a subset thereof, requires careful consideration by a lead agency of the specific significance, characteristics, and condition of the historical resource for which impacts are being evaluated.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 9 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified at PRC Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources. Under CEQA Section 21084.1, a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 recognizes that historical resources include: (1) resources listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any objects, buildings, structures, sites, areas, places, records, or manuscripts which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the CEQA Guidelines, then the site may be treated in accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 21083, if it meets the criteria of a unique archaeological resource. As defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), a unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important precontact or historic event or person.

If an archaeological site meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 21083.2, which states that if the lead agency determines that a project would have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place.
2 If preservation in place is not feasible, mitigation measures shall be required. The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique

2 California Public Resources Code Section 21083.1(a),
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21083.2. Accessed February 9, 2021.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 10 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment.3
A significant effect under CEQA would occur if a project results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Substantial adverse change is defined as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired”.
4 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2), the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that:

A. Convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
B. Account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k) or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C. Convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a Lead Agency for purposes of CEQA.

In general, a project that complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings is considered to have impacts that are less than significant. 5 California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”
6 The California Register was enacted in 1992, and its regulations became official on January 1, 1998. The California Register is administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP).

The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register of Historic Places (National Register) criteria.7 Certain resources are determined to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the

3 State CEQA Statute and Guidelines, Section 15064.5(c)(4). 4 State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(1).
5 State CEQA Guidelines, 15064.5(b)(3).
6 California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1[a].
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=5024.1. Accessed February 9, 2021.
7 California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1[b]
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=5024.1. Accessed February 9, 2021.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 11 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
National Register. To be eligible for the California Register, a precontact or historic-period property must be significant at the local, State, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.

Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed on the National Register and those formally determined eligible for the National Register;
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and, • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register.

Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include:
• Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and/or a local jurisdiction register);
• Individual historical resources;
• Historic districts; and,
• Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone (PRC Section 5024.1(d)-(e).) California Health and Safety Code
HSC Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable PRC Sections), and the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. These regulations protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including treatment of the remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 12 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
California Public Resources Code (PRC)
PRC Section 5097.98 provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, that the discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section 5097.98 further requires the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. Once the MLD has been granted access to the site by the landowner and inspected the discovery, the MLD then has 48 hours to provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods. In the event that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance.

California Government Code Sections 7927.000 and 7927.005 These sections of the California Public Records Act were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 7927.000 explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places.” Section 7927.005 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.” Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 13 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Local
City of Culver City General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2045 has one goal (Goal C-1) for cultural resources (including archaeological resources and historic architectural resources), which indicates that “cultural resources are protected and enhanced through proactive measures” (City of Culver City, 2024:248). Measures C-1.1 through C-1.22 provided below are focused on the protection of archaeological and historic architectural resources.

C-1.1: Cultural resource catalog. Maintain a catalog of cultural resources within the city.

C-1.2: Cultural and historic resource inventory. Continue to inventory at regular intervals cultural and historical resources, including buildings, structures, districts, objects, and sites.

C-1.3: Historic resources in databases. Continue to work with Building and Planning Divisions and with the County Recorder’s Office to ensure all historical resources are flagged in relevant databases.

C-1.4: Historic materials cataloging. Encourage that historic materials are cataloged and available for public access.

C-1.5: Building plaques. Continue to work with the Cultural Affairs Division to ensure plaques are positioned on newly-designated cultural resources.

C-1.6: Historic sign ordinance. Continue implementation of the historic sign ordinance.

C-1.7: Cultural resource funding. Identify and acquire funding to preserve cultural resources.

C-1.8: Incentives for developers. Promote the use of incentives for developers to maintain, restore, rebuild, or rehabilitate historic structures within commercial and residential areas.

C-1.9: Cultural resource preservation. Preserve the city’s cultural resources.

C-1.10: Maintain and preserve historic structures and artifacts. Encourage maintenance and preservation of historic structures and artifacts and
C-1.11: Preservation in the planning and development review process. Coordinate with the Cultural Affairs Division to integrate preservation into the planning and development review process to ensure that cultural heritage concerns are identified at an early stage and addressed, as warranted, throughout the process. Encourage ordinances and policies that contribute to preservation goals and amend codes, where necessary, to reflect preservation goals.

C-1.12: Historic standards and building codes. Apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and/or the alternative building codes, such as the Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) and/or the State Historic Building Code, to qualified historic properties.

C-1.13: Demolition of historic structures. Expand existing laws and regulations as necessary to prevent demolition of historically significant structures by neglect.

C-1.14: Historic property protection in natural disasters. Comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5028 (Natural Disaster Damage to Historic Property).

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 14 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

C-1.15: Public knowledge promotion. Promote public knowledge and understanding of cultural resources (including archaeological, tribal cultural resources, historic resources, and paleontological resources) present within the city.

C-1.16: Tribal consultation. Continue to consult with Native American groups in accordance with Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 to identify Tribal Cultural Resources.

C-1.17: Educational institution cooperation. Cooperate with the educational institutions and other interested parties to build awareness of the legacy of the city’s past and the necessity of its retention.

C-1.18: Historical Preservation Program awareness. Continue to expand information on the Historic Preservation Program available via the City’s website.

C-1.19: Historic resource information for property owners. Provide technical information that will help property owners in planning new additions that are complementary to the existing historic structures and conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

C-1.20: Document and resource sharing. Solicit residents to share or donate historic documents relating to Culver City to the historical society archives or other appropriate institutional oral history program.

C-1.21: Protect Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Promote programs and policies to protect known archaeological and paleontological sites and Tribal Cultural Resources.

C-1.22: Preserve government agency historic properties. Encourage government agencies to maintain historic properties they own in the city.

The City’s General Plan also includes the following implementation actions for the preservation of archaeological and historic architectural resources.

IA.C-1: Historic landscape and feature identification. Identify and promote preservation of older historic landscapes and natural features that help to define the neighborhoods or maintain the context of historic districts and landmarks.

IA.C-2: Citywide cultural resources survey. Update a citywide cultural resources survey every five to ten years.

IA.C-3: Citywide context statement. Develop a citywide context statement that summarizes the city’s prehistory, history, and architecture, organized by themes and periods that provides registration standards and integrity thresholds considered necessary to qualify for listing the resource on the City’s cultural resources register.

IA.C-4: Resources for historic structures. Promote public awareness of available tax credits and incentives that assist in maintaining and rehabilitating historic structures and resources.

IA.C-5: Certified Local Government. Become a Certified Local Government (CLG) to qualify for State preservation grants.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 15 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

IA.C-6: Preservation incentive program. Establish preservation incentive programs, like the Mills Act Tax Credit, and encourage property owners to apply.

IA.C-7: Financing mechanisms for historic preservation. Investigate other financing mechanisms to promote historic preservation, such as Community Development Block Grants, Impact fees, Revolving Funds, and Facade Easements.

IA.C-8: Historic discretionary review. Require that projects subject to discretionary review are screened to Cultural Affairs to determine if further evaluation by cultural affairs is warranted and, if so, require that projects undergo historic, archaeological, and paleontological assessments and are documented in technical studies by qualified experts to identify the potential for resources to be negatively affected during project implementation and to ensure steps are taken, where warranted, to protect resources.

IA.C-9: Historic preservation ordinance revisions. Revise the City’s historic preservation ordinance to be consistent with current State and federal preservation standards.

IA.C-10: Standard conditions of development approval. Continue to implement standard conditions of approval that require and specify the steps to be taken to avoid damage and promote preservation if unknown archaeological or paleontological resources, or Tribal Cultural Resource are uncovered during construction.

Cultural Setting
Precontact Setting
The chronology of Southern California is typically divided into three general time periods: the Early Holocene (9,600 cal8 B.C. to 5,600 cal B.C.), the Middle Holocene (5,600 cal B.C. to 1,650 cal B.C.), and the Late Holocene (1,650 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1769). This chronology is manifested in the archaeological record by particular artifacts and burial practices that indicate specific technologies, economic systems, trade networks, and other aspects of culture.

While it is not certain when humans first came to California, their presence in Southern California by about 9,600 cal B.C. has been well documented. At Daisy Cave, on San Miguel Island, cultural remains have been radiocarbon dated to between 9,150 and 9,000 cal B.C. (Byrd and Raab 2007). During the Early Holocene (9,600 cal B.C. to 5,600 cal B.C.), the climate of Southern California became warmer and more arid and the human populations, who were represented by small hunter gathers until this point and resided mainly in coastal or inland desert areas, began exploiting a wider range of plant and animal resources (Byrd and Raab 2007).

During the Late Holocene (1,650 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1769), many aspects of Millingstone culture persisted, but a number of socioeconomic changes occurred (Erlandson 1994; Wallace 1955; Warren 1968). The native populations of Southern California were becoming less mobile and populations began to gather in small sedentary villages with satellite resource-gathering camps. Increasing population size necessitated the intensified use of existing terrestrial and marine resources (Erlandson 1994). Evidence

8 The word ‘cal’ is used to signify a calibrated date.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 16 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
indicates that the overexploitation of larger, high-ranked food resources may have led to a shift in subsistence, towards a focus on acquiring greater amounts of smaller resources, such as shellfish and small-seeded plants (Byrd and Raab 2007). Between about A.D. 800 and A.D. 1350, there was an episode of sustained drought, known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA) (Jones et al. 1999). While this climatic event did not appear to reduce the human population, it did lead to a change in subsistence strategies in order to deal with the substantial stress on resources.

Given the increasing sedentism and growing populations during the Late Holocene, territorial conscription and competition became acute. Primary settlements or village sites were typically established in areas with available freshwater, and where two or more ecological zones intersected (McCawley 1996).

This strategic placement of living space provided a degree of security in that when subsistence resources associated with one ecological zone failed, the resources of another could be exploited (McCawley 1996).

Villages typically claimed and carefully defended fixed territories that may have averaged 30-square miles in size encompassing a variety of ecological zones that could be exploited for subsistence resources (McCawley 1996).

The Late Holocene marks a period in which specialization in labor emerged, trading networks became an increasingly important means by which both utilitarian and non-utilitarian materials were acquired, and travel routes were extended. Trade during this period reached its zenith as asphaltum (tar), seashells, and steatite were traded from Catalina Island (Pimu or Pimugna) and coastal Southern California to the Great Basin. Major technological changes appeared as well, particularly with the advent of the bow and arrow sometime after cal A.D. 500, which largely replaced the use of the dart and atlatl (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Ethnographic Setting
The Project Site is located in a region traditionally occupied by the Gabrielino. The term “Gabrielino” is a general term that refers to those Native Americans who were administered by the Spanish at the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel. Prior to European colonization, the Gabrielino occupied a diverse area that included: the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers; the Los Angeles basin; and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina (Kroeber 1925). Their neighbors included the Chumash and Tataviam to the north, the Juañeno to the south, and the Serrano and Cahuilla to the east. The Gabrielino language was part of the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family.

The Gabrielino Indians were hunter-gatherers and lived in permanent communities located near the presence of a stable food supply. Subsistence consisted of hunting, fishing, and gathering. Small terrestrial game was hunted with deadfalls, rabbit drives, and by burning undergrowth, while larger game such as deer were hunted using bows and arrows. Fish were taken by hook and line, nets, traps, spears, and poison (Bean and Smith 1978). The primary plant resources were the acorn, gathered in the fall and processed in mortars and pestles, and various seeds that were harvested in late spring and summer and ground with manos and metates.

The seeds included chia and other sages, various grasses, and islay or holly-leafed cherry. Community populations generally ranged from 50 to 100 inhabitants, although larger settlements may have existed. The Gabrielino are estimated to have had a population numbering around 5,000 in the pre-contact period (Kroeber 1925).

The Late Precontact period, spanning from approximately 1,500 years B.P. to the mission era, is the period associated with the florescence of the Gabrielino (Wallace 1955). Coming ashore near Malibu Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 17 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Lagoon or Mugu Lagoon in October of 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo was the first European to make contact with the Gabrielino Indians. The Gabrielino are reported to have been second only to their Chumash neighbors in terms of population size, regional influence, and degree of sedentism (Bean and Smith 1978).

Maps produced by early explorers indicate that at least 26 Gabrielino villages were within proximity to known Los Angeles River courses, while an additional 18 villages were reasonably close to the river (Gumprecht 2001). The closest named settlements to the Project Site are Saa’anga and Waachnga. Review of a map titled Gabrielino Communities Located on the Los Angeles-Santa Ana Plain by William McCawley (1996) indicates that the settlement of Saa’anga was located approximately 1 mile north of the Project Site, while the settlement of Waachnga was situated approximately 1-mile south. Both of these settlements are depicted as located close to Ballona Creek.

Historic Setting
History and Early Development of Culver City
Harry H. Culver (1880 -1946), the founder of Culver City, was born in Milford, Nebraska on January 22, 1880. The middle child of five, Culver was raised on a farm along with three brothers and a sister. His father, Jacob Hazel Culver, was a brigadier general in the National Guard and a strict disciplinarian. Culver followed in his father’s footsteps, enlisting in the military during the Spanish-American War. He studied at Doane College before spending three years at the University of Nebraska. In 1901, Culver traveled to the Philippines where he began working in the mercantile business, worked as a reporter for the Manila Times, and served as a special agent for the customs department. After more than three years in the Philippines, Culver returned to the United States, performing his customs duties in Detroit and Saint Louis. He resigned from the customs department in 1910 when he moved to California and began working for real estate giant I.N. Van Nuys. “As the story goes, after Van Nuys offered to make him a manager because of his exemplary work, Culver decided to venture out on his own. After intense study, Harry Culver pinpointed the area between Los Angeles and Abbot Kinney’s resort of Venice for his city” (Cerra 2013).

At the California Club in 1913, Harry Culver announced his plans to develop a city west of downtown Los Angeles. Culver saw an opportunity to capitalize on the excitement generated by Abbot Kinney’s Venice of America development along the California coast south of Santa Monica. Between Venice and Los Angeles sat open land, originally part of Rancho La Ballona, and as the relationship between Los Angeles and Venice took shape, Culver saw a spot in between that was ideal for a new town site. “If you draw a line from the Story Building to the Ocean Front at Venice, at the halfway mark you will find three intersection electric lines— the logical center for what we propose to develop a town-site.” Soon after Culver’s speech, the city of Culver City was established. Culver promoted his new community by holding special events like “prettiest baby contests” and an annual marathon race. Newspaper advertisements exclaimed “All Roads Lead to Culver City!”.

Culver City continued to grow and finally incorporated in 1917 (Cerra 2013). The city grew outward from the downtown commercial area and adjacent film studios. This area saw commercial development along Culver Boulevard in the 1920s and 1930s, and spread to Washington Boulevard in the 1940s and 1950s, and was surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Downtown Culver City was centered on a main street (Washington Boulevard) anchored by a six-story hotel, Fire and Police Departments, a city hall, banks, Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 18 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
restaurants, and stores. The early economics of Culver City were supported by movie studios. Industry came in the form of Western Stove in 1922, then the Helms Bakeries in 1930, and then the Hayden Industrial Tract was established in the 1940s. During the 1950s Washington Boulevard would be improved with a number of car dealerships. Over the years, more than forty annexations increased the size of the city from 1.2 square miles to about five square miles (Cerra 2004).

At the heart of Screenland, the economic health of the city has always been strongly tied to the movie industry. Following the closure of MGM Studios, the city was looking for ways to spur economic development. To spur development and create a new flow of money, the city created the Redevelopment Agency. One of the first projects undertaken by the newly formed agency was the Fox Hills redevelopment. This development would open up more than 300 acres of land just southwest of the city to residential, commercial, and industrial growth (Culver City Historical Society, n.d).

Archival Research
SCCIC Records Search
A records search for the Project Site was conducted on January 17, 2024, at the CHRIS-SCCIC housed at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources and previous studies within the Project Site and a 0.50-mile radius.

Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
The records search results indicate that 16 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 0.50- mile radius of the Project Site. Approximately 15 percent of the 0.50-mile records search radius has been included in previous cultural resources assessments. Of the 16 previous studies, none overlap the Project Site.

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The records search results indicate that no cultural resources have been recorded within the Project Site.

However, two precontact archaeological resources (CA-LAN-67 and -216) have been recorded within the

0.50-mile radius (Table 1). Additionally, four precontact archaeological resources (CA-LAN-59, -60, - 213, -2768) have been recorded in the immediate vicinity, albeit outside, of the 0.50-mile radius.

TABLE 1

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES
P-Number
(P-19-)
Permanent
Trinomial
(CA-LAN-) Other Designation Description
Recording
Events
59 59 Malcom Farmer’s
Playa del Rey Site
No. 1
Precontact archaeological site: village
or camp site, including artifacts
(steatite bowl, quartz crystal point,
“arrowpoints”, mortar and steatite
fragments, manos, pestles, shell,
hammerstones, scrapers, etc. Site
reportedly destroyed.
1950
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 19 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
P-Number
(P-19-)
Permanent
Trinomial
(CA-LAN-) Other Designation Description
Recording
Events
60 60 Malcom Farmer’s
Playa del Rey Site
No. 1
Precontact archaeological site: shell
midden, “chips”, mortar fragments,
hammerstones, “chopper”, and steatite
pieces. Human remains (cranium
pieces) and pieces of burned deer
bone. Site reportedly destroyed.
1950
67 67 Malcom Farmer’s
Baldwin Hills Site
No. 1
Precontact archaeological site:
described as a possible temporary
dwelling on a small wash. Small
amount of shell reported.
1950
213 213 LA-31 Precontact archaeological site:
metates
1953
216 216 LA-34 Precontact archaeological site: mortars 1953 2768 2768 SR 20 Precontact archaeological site:
subsurface midden deposits
2000

Other Research
Additional archaeological resources (the report for which has not yet been archived at the CHRIS-SCCIC, as it is still in progress) were identified several miles northwest from the Project Site during ground disturbing activities in connection with a development project in Downtown Culver City (ESA 2022).

These include two isolated precontact metates that were recovered in the upper six feet of disturbed fill sediments in an area of the property that had been previously developed with a large warehouse building.

Sacred Lands File Search
The NAHC maintains a confidential SLF which contains sites of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community. The NAHC was contacted on December 4, 2024, to request a search of the SLF. The NAHC responded to the request in a letter dated January 16, 2025, indicating that the results were negative. However, the NAHC noted that the absence of site information does not mean the absence of cultural resources in a project area (Appendix B).

Land Use History of the Project Site
Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined to provide historical information about land uses of the Project Site and to contribute to an assessment of the Project Site’s archaeological sensitivity.

Available topographic maps include the 1896 Redondo 15-minute quadrangle, the 1924 and 1930 Inglewood 7.5-minute quadrangles, the 1944 Redondo 15-minute quadrangle, the 1948 and 1950 Inglewood 7.5-minute quadrangle (TopoView, 2025). Aerial photographs include those from the following years: 1952, 1963, 1972, and 1980 (historicaerials.com, 2025).

The 1896 historic map shows that the Project Site was undeveloped and that Centinela Creek was located approximately 0.50 miles south of the Project Site, Ballona Creek approximately 1.65 miles to the west, and an unnamed drainage approximately 1.25 miles to the east (Figure 4). The 1924 historic map continues showing the Project Site as undeveloped. The 1930 and 1944 historic maps show that the Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 20 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Project Site was located within the Fox Hills Country Club. By 1948, the country club is renamed as Fox Hills and Baldwin Hills Golf Course. No changes to the Project Site are observed in the 1950 historic map. The 1952 and 1963 historic aerial photographs show sand traps and putting greens from the golf course at the Project Site. By 1972, housing development is observed immediately adjacent to the Project Site. By 1980, the Project Site is developed with the existing uses.

100 Pointe Project / D202300668.00
SOURCE: TopoView, 2025
Figure 4
Overview of Project Site (in red) on the
1896 topographic map.

Geologic Map Review
Review of the Dibblee and Minch (2007) geologic map of the Venice and Inglewood quadrangles indicates that the Project Site is underlain by older alluvium (Qoa) along the northwest portion and Paleosol in Baldwin Hills (Qop) in the northeastern, central, and southern portions of the Project Site. Qoa is described as “Older alluvium of gray to light brown pebble-gravel, sand, and silt-clay, elevated and dissected; in Baldwin Hills designated as Baldwin Hills sandy gravel by Weber et al., 1982.” (Dibblee and Minch, 2007). Qop overlies the Qoa and is described as “Paleosol in Baldwin Hills… [and consisting of a] “gray to rusty brown, sandy, locally pebbly, moderately indurated ‘hard pan’ on Qoa” (Dibblee and Minch, 2007).

Bandy and Marinkovich (1973) documented marine deposits in the Baldwin Hills dated at 36,200 ±2,750 radiocarbon years and 28,450 ±2,600 radiocarbon years. Thus, uplift of the Baldwin Hills postdates those dates and it is probable that the Qoa and Qop units postdate the 28,000-year date.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 21 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Review of Geotechnical Report
ESA reviewed the geotechnical report prepared for the Project by Geotechnologies, Inc. (2024). Review of the geotechnical report indicates that a total of seven borings were drilled at the Project Site to depths ranging between 40 and 80 feet bgs. Fill soils were encountered in all borings starting from surface and ranging in depth between 2 and 5 feet bgs. Native soils were found beneath the fill soils. The native soils are characterized as the following:
…interlayered granular (sandy) soil layers, and fine soil layers. The granular soil layers are composed of sand, silty sand and clayey sand, while the fine layers are composed of sandy to silty clay and sandy to clayey silt. The observed native soils are slightly moist to moist, range from yellowish brown to orange brown to dark brown to gray in color, and are medium dense to very dense, stiff to very stiff, and fine to coarse grained, with occasional gravel” (Geotechnologies, Inc., 2024:4).

Pedestrian Survey
A cultural resources pedestrian survey of the Project Site was conducted on February 12, 2025, by ESA Cultural Resources Specialist Vincent Gentile, B.A. The survey aimed at identifying archaeological resources within the Project Site. Approximately 10 percent of the Project Site was subject to an systematic survey, which targeted sections of land with exposed ground surface (e.g., green belts and landscape areas). The transect intervals were spaced at no more than 15 meters between each transect.

The remaining 90 percent of the Project Site was not surveyed, as it is paved and developed with buildings, parking lots, walkways, and exhibits no ground surface visibility. The areas surveyed exhibited less than 5 percent ground surface visibility as they were covered with grass/sod or other ornamental vegetation. No archaeological resources were observed during the survey. Figures 5-7 depict the existing conditions of the Project Site at the time of the pedestrian survey.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 22 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

5757 Uplander Project / D202300668.00
SOURCE: ESA, 2025
Figure 5
Overview of Project Site entrance on Uplander
Way, view northeast.

5757 Uplander Project / D202300668.00
SOURCE: ESA, 2025
Figure 6
Landscaped area of exposed ground surface in
Project Site parking lot, view east.

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 23 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

5757 Uplander Project / D202300668.00
SOURCE: ESA, 2025
Figure 7
Overview near center portion of Project Site showing limited areas of exposed ground surface, view southwest.

Subsurface Sensitivity Assessment
Precontact Archaeological Analysis
Results of the SCCIC records search have indicated that two precontact archaeological resources have been recorded within the 0.50-mile radius of the Project Site and four additional precontact archaeological resources have been recorded in the immediate vicinity, albeit outside, of the 0.50-mile radius. Additionally, two Native American villages (Saa’anga and Waachnga) were formerly situated in the general vicinity of the Project Site. These findings confirm that precontact inhabitants have occupied areas in the vicinity of the Project Site. Moreover, review of historic maps indicate that Centinela Creek, Ballona Creek, and an unnamed drainage are located in the general vicinity between 0.85 and 1.65 miles from the Project Site, which would have attracted precontact inhabitants to the area since they would have provided them with fresh water, along with floral and faunal resources. Review of the Dibblee and Minch (2007) geologic map of the Venice and Inglewood quadrangles indicates that the Project Site is underlain by older alluvium (Qoa) and Paleosol soils (Qop) and it is likely that both units are younger than 28,000 years in age, with the Paleosol (Qop) being of an even younger age since it overlies the older alluvium (Qoa). Review of the geotechnical report indicates that fill materials were encountered starting from the surface and ranging in depth between 2 and 5 feet bgs. Native materials (of unknown age) were reportedly found beneath the fill materials that likely represent both Qoa or Qop. The older alluvium (Qoa) that is mapped at the surface in several portions of the Project Site is likely too old to be conducive to retaining precontact archaeological resources. However, the Paleosol soils (Qop) that are also mapped at the surface in other areas of the Project

Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 24 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Site (and also overlies the Qoa) currently have an unknown age and could date to the Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene. In addition, precontact archaeological resources can become intermixed within fill materials such as in the case with the two precontact metate artifacts that were encountered during monitoring in connection with a development project in Downtown Culver City located several miles from the Project Site. Given these findings stated above and since the Project would include excavations that would reach depths of 25 feet bgs, the potential to encounter buried precontact archaeological resources within the Project Site is considered moderate to high.

Historical Archaeological Analysis
Review of historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the Project Site was undeveloped until a golf course was constructed in the Project Site by at least 1930. The existing building was also developed by at least 1980. Based on the lack of previous historic uses within the Project Site and the fact that no historic- period archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the Project Site or 0.50-mile radius, the potential to encounter historic-period archaeological resources within the Project Site is considered low.

Summary of Results and Recommended Mitigation
Measures
The results of the assessment indicate that no known archaeological resources have been identified within the Project Site. However, the archaeological sensitivity assessment has indicated that the potential for encountering buried precontact archaeological resources during construction is moderate to high, while the potential for encountering historic-period archaeological resources is low. Therefore, impacts to previously unknown buried archaeological resources would be potentially significant, and the following mitigation measures are provided in order to reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.
• Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (Qualified Archaeologist) to oversee an archaeological monitor who shall be present during initial Project construction work such as site demolition (e.g., building footings/foundations, subsurface utilities, surface parking lots, sidewalks, etc.), clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or related moving of soils within the Project Site (collectively, ground disturbing activities); provided, however, that ground disturbing activities shall not include any moving of soils after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by Project-related construction. The Qualified Archaeologist shall determine the frequency of monitoring based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. The frequency of monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections or ceased entirely if determined appropriate by the Qualified Archaeologist.
• Prior to commencement of excavation activities, an Archaeological and Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training shall be given for construction personnel. The training session shall be carried out by the Qualified Archaeologist and shall focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event. • In the event that historic or precontact archaeological resources (e.g., bottles, foundations, refuse dumps, etc.) are unearthed, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 25 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. After consulting with the Applicant, the Qualified Archeologist shall establish an appropriate buffer in accordance with industry standards, reasonable assumptions regarding the potential for additional discoveries in the vicinity, and safety considerations for those making an evaluation and potential recovery of the discovery. This buffer area shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work within the buffer area shall only be allowed to continue after the evaluation and recovery efforts are completed. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area.

All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines the find to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the Applicant and the City of Culver City (City) to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources and that provides for or the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the resources along with subsequent laboratory processing, analysis, evaluation, and reporting. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. The treatment plan shall also include measures regarding the curation of the recovered resources that may include curation at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the resources, they may be donated to a local school or historical society in the area (such as the Culver City Historical Society) for educational purposes. • The Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a final report and appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, treatment of the resources, results of the artifact processing, analysis, and research, and evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA. The report and the Site Forms shall be submitted by the Applicant to the City, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and required mitigation measures.

References
Bandy, O. L., and L. Marinkovich, Jr. 1973. Rates of Late Cenozoic Uplift, Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles, California. Science 181:653-655.

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino, in California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 538- 549 Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Byrd, Brian F., and Mark L. Raab. 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L.

Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 215-227.

Cerra, Julie Lugo. 2004. Images of America: Culver City, Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.

Cerra, Julie Lugo. 2013. Culver City Chronicles. Charleston, History Press.

Culver City Historical Society. n.d. “Culver City Timeline: A Work in progress”, https://www.culvercityhistoricalsociety.org/about/culver-city-timeline/ Archaeological Resources Assessment Report

5757 Uplander Project 26 ESA / D202300668.00
Archaeological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2007. Geologic map of the Venice and Inglewood quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-322, 1:24,000.

Erlandson, Jon M. 1994. Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast, Plenum Press, New York.

ESA. 2022. (in progress) Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Culver Studios Innovation Plan Project, City of Culver City, California. Report on file with ESA, Irvine, CA.

Geotechnologies, Inc. 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Mixed Use Development 5757 Uplander Way, Culver City, California. Prepared for: Link Logistics, 333 Michelson Avenue, Sujte 725, Irvine, CA 92612. Prepared by: Geotechnologies, Inc., 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201.

Grimmer, E. Anne. 2017. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Services: Technical Preservation Services.

Gumprecht, Blake. 2001. Los Angeles River: Its Life, and Possible Rebirth, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1999, Reprinted 2001.

Historicaerials.com. 2025. Aerial photographs for 5757 Uplander Way including the following years:
1952, 1963, 1972, and 1980. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed February 7, 2025.

Jones, Terry L., Brown, Gary M., Raab, Mark L., Janet L. McVickar. 1999. Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, in Current Anthropology, Vol. 40, No. 2 (April 1999), pp. 137-170.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

McCawley, William.1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles, Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

TopoView. 2025. Topographic maps showing the 5757 Uplander Way Project Site: 1896 Redondo 15- minute quadrangle, the 1924 and 1930 Inglewood 7.5-minute quadrangles, the 1944 Redondo 15- minute quadrangle, the 1948 and 1950 Inglewood 7.5-minute quadrangles, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/33.9862/-118.3854, accessed February 7, 2025.

Wallace, William J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.

Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast.

In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. Irwin-Williams, ed, pp. 1-4. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology. Portales.

Appendix A
Personnel

Kyle Garcia, MA, RPA
Principal Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Kyle Garcia has over 21 years of experience in the archaeology and prehistory of southern California, and meets and exceeds the Secretary of Interior Standards qualificaitons for a prehistoric and historic archaeolgoist. During his career, he has authored or contributed to more than 800 projects subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106 of the NHPA). He is well- versed in the archaeological resources of California’s coastal, interior, and island settings.

He is skilled in evaluation historic and prehistoric archaeological resources; agency and Native American consultation; pedestrian surveys, testing and evaluation excavations as well as archaeological and paleontological construction monitoring, and laboratory processing. During his tenure, he has authored or contributed to more than 400 technical reports and sections to support all levels of CEQA and NEPA documents. Kyle’s portfolio of projects includes energy, water, and transportation infrastructure as well as residential, commercial, mixed-use, institutional, and urban redevelopment serving public and private sector clients. Kyle has conducted archaeological work throughout California and is a certified archaeologist and paleontologist in Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Orange counties.

Relevant Experience
Archaeological/Paleontological Monitoring. Kyle has managed more than 120 archaeological and/or paleontological construction monitoring projects in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. He has a commanding knowledge of the procedures to implement in the event of an inadvertent discovery during construction, and how to navigate an applicant or lead agency though that process to ensure compliance with the project’s mitigation measures or conditions of approval and to reach consensus on treatment of the discovery, especially if the discovery is Native American in origin.

Paleontology. In addition to his archaeological work, Kyle has been cross-trained in paleontological mitigation monitoring and assisted in the excavations of a Miocene whale fossil near Irvine and a new species of extinct tuna in Laguna Niguel, California. Kyle has also managed or conducted more than 200 paleontological assessments and 40 paleontological monitoring projects throughout southern California. He has assisted ESA’s paleontologists with the preparation of paleontological reports in compliance with CEQA and local paleontological guidelines, including guidelines for the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology.

Project Experience
Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring for the LAX Crossfield Taxiway Improvements, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager/Archaeological Monitor. Between 2009- 2010, Kyle performed archaeological and paleontological monitoring services during

EDUCATION
MA, Anthropology
(Archaeology Option),
California State University
Los Angeles
BA, Anthropology,
(Physical/ Biological
Emphasis), University of
California, Santa Barbara
21 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
Registered Professional
Archaeologist, #4587
Secretary of Interior-
Qualified Archaeologist
Riverside County
Registered Archaeologist
#202 and Paleontologist
Orange County Certified
Archaeologist
Orange County Certified
Paleontologist
Santa Barbara County-
Certified Archaeologist
40-Hour HAZWOPER
Training – Update, 2023

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for American
Archaeology
Society for California
Archaeology
Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society
r- ESA
~
Kyle Garcia, MA, RPA (Continued)
Principal Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
earthmoving operations associated with the development of the Crossfield Taxiway project in accordance with established mitigation measures from the LAX Crossfield Taxiway Project (CFTP) EIR. PCR conducted archaeological and paleontological field visits, paleontological sediment sampling, and monitoring of earthmoving operations associated with the construction of CFTP until activities requiring monitoring ended. These operations included excavations for filter boxes, water pipeline installation, and the realignment of World Way West. In addition to monitoring, Kyle performed an archaeology and paleontology training session for appropriate project personnel involved with construction of the project. The training session focused on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. No resources were identified during the monitoring effort and these findings were summarized in a report that was submitted to Los Angeles World Airports. Kyle served as project director/manager, crew chief, monitor, and co-author of the final report.

University High School Beautification Project, Los Angeles, CA. Archaeologist. Kyle performed archaeological monitoring during earth-moving activities on the campus. The archaeological monitoring program ensured the protection of the village site and springs, and resulted in the discovery of remains of the original portico of the Administration Building which was destroyed by the Long Beach Earthquake of 1933.

Rancho Campana High School and Performing Arts Center Construction Monitoring, Camarillo, CA. Project Manager.

Kyle led the archaeological and paleontological monitoring for the project as a part of ESA’s on-call contract with Oxnard Union High School. He managed and coordinated the effort and prepared the associated report. ESA identified two archaeological resources (56-001512/CA-VEN-1512 and 56-001513/CA-VEN-1513H) during monitoring efforts and several paleontological localities during the monitoring and sediment screening activities and worked together with the Ventureño Chumash regarding treatment for the archaeological resources. Although several archaeological and paleontological resources were encountered during the construction monitoring efforts, the resources were treated in accordance with the mitigation measures and, as a result, the impacts to the resources were reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the CEQA.

Citron (Stella Park) Townhome Development, Escondido, CA: Project Manager. Kyle served as the project manager responsible for overseeing the archaeological and Native American monitoring at the project in accordance with the Conditions of Approval. The project included the construction of a 65-unit townhome development on a vacant 2.29- acre site in the City of Escondido.

Archaeological Monitoring, Test Excavations, and Data Recovery Excavations During Construction of the Crystal Geyser Roxane Cabin Bar Ranch Water Bottling Facility, Olancha, Inyo County, CA. Principal Investigator/Project Director/Manager/Crew Chief. Kyle managed/directed archaeological construction monitoring services in accordance with the Cultural Resources mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the EIR for the project. During initial clearing and grubbing activities associated with the project, five prehistoric archeological resources were encountered. Kyle assisted the Applicant in developing a cultural resources treatment plan to address identify, evaluate, and mitigate project impacts to these resources to a less than significant level. Pursuant to the MMRP, this treatment plan was developed in coordination with ESA (Kyle), the County, CG Roxane, and the Lone-Pine Pauite- Shoshone Reservation. The treatment plan included measures for resource avoidance, additional survey, and the excavation of nine controlled excavation units and multiple mechanical backhoe trenches across the project site. More than a 1,000 artifacts have been recovered from this project. This project began in 2015 and continues today. r- ESA
~
Fatima Clark
Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Fatima has 16 years of hands-on archaeological experience and is practiced in project management and cl ient a nd agency co ordination. H e r f ield ex perience is c o mplimented b
y the course study an d p a rticipation i n numerous archaeological excavations in California, Ar izona, and P e ru. F a tima h a s w r itte n California Environmental Qu ality A c t (
CEQA)-level technical reports, En vironmental Impact R ep ort (E IR) sections, In itia l Study sections, archaeological pe er rev iews, a rch aeological mo n itoring reports, and r e ports p
ursuant to California Dep artment o f Tr ansportation (C a ltrans) requirements. S he is als o ex
perienced in performing ar chaeological testing, si te recordation, l a boratory analysis, p
edestrian surveys, rec ords s ea rches t hrough several California Hi storical Resources In
formation Sy stems -In formation Centers, a n d mo nitoring for a wi de v ariety of pro jects, including mi xed -use, residential, an d ener gy, w a ter, a n d r o ad i n frastructure projects. I n addition to he r archaeology background, F a tima h as been cross-trained in conducting p
aleontological su rveys a nd monitoring and ha s c o-a uthored and manage d associated r
eports.

Relevant Experience
Lo
s Angeles Department of Water and Power, Fort Ind ependence Travel Plaza Power Project, Independence (Owens Valley), CA. Project Ma nager . Fat ima is i n the pr ocess o f p
reparing the cultural resources as sessment in co mpliance with NEPA, S ection 10 6, a nd CEQA. LADWP pr oposes t o install 13 new temporary pol es, on e (1 ) anchor, an d r ep lace one (1) ex isting p ole for a 34.5 kV line extension to provide power during co nstruction o f a new T
ravel Ce nter a t 14 1 N . Highway 39 5 in Fort I nd ependence, I nyo Cou nty, C a lifor n ia.

Landify ECT Corporation, Lo wer S w eetwater P ark Pro ject, Ci t y o f Ch ula V ista, CA.

Project Manager. Fa tima h as prepared a cultural resources as sessment i n co mplianc e with CEQA. The Project pr oposes t o redevelop the existing 21.3 acre Project Si te with sports facilities wi thin the City of Ch ula V is ta .

County of Los Angeles, Department of Pu blic Works, Wh ittier B o ulevard U n derground U
tility Project, Lo s Angeles County, CA. Project Co -Manager. Fatima pre pared the c
ultural resources as sessment in support of a Cl ass 2 Categorical Exemption. The project c
onsists of the removal of uti lity p ol es and o verhead lines, and the excavation fo r underground uti lity l i nes a long Wh ittier B oulevard right-of-way. On e historical resource, t
he early-to-m id 2 0 th century L o s An geles Ra ilway (o r Yellow Cars), wa s i dentified in the p
roject are a a s a res ult o f arc hival re s earch a nd geo technical i n vestigations. Fatima also ma
naged the archaeological monitoring of con struction activities and p r epared th e mo
nitoring report.

City of Carson, Avocet En ergy S t orage S ystem Project, Cit y of Ca rson, CA.

Archaeologist. Fatima ma naged t he preparation of th e archaeologica l and pa leontological r
esources as sessment r ep orts in compliance w it h CEQA . The proposed Pr oject includes t
he development of an ap proximately 2 0 0 -megawatt battery en ergy s tor age s ystem on a E

DUCATION
BA, Anthropology,
California State
University, Fullerton
16 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
Orange County Certified
Archaeologist
HAZWOPER Certified

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for California
Archaeology
r- ESA
~
Fatima Clark (Continued)
Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com

6.96-acre site (BESS site), improvements and upgrades to the existing SCE Hinson Substation (SCE Hinson Substation site), the construction of a gen-tie line to connect to substation to the BESS site (proposed gen-tie line route), and other associated improvements. The proposed gen-tie route would cross three jurisdictions including: the City of Carson, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Long Beach.

Storm Properties, Inc. Storm Hill Lane Project, Rolling Hills, CA. Project Manager . Fatima managed the day-to-day coordination for the monitoring and preparation of the archaeological /paleontological monitoring report pursuant to CEQA. As a result of the monitoring, several fossils were identified and these are currently being analyzed. The Project requires the reconstruction and expansion of Storm Hill Lane from the currently addressed and developed lot at 4 Storm Hill Lane to the three undeveloped lots.

Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., Ballona Wetlands Sequence 1 & 2 Restoration , Culver City, CA. Project Manager.

Fatima managed the coordination for the monitoring with the archaeological and biological monitors, as well as coordination with the client. ESA’s monitors were present during trenching and grading within portions of Ballona Creek in Culver City.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2024 Connect SoCal Program PEIR, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Imperial and Ventura, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the PEIR Sections (cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources), as well as coordinated the Native American consultation efforts. Connect SoCal 2024 is a long-range comprehensive plan for the region’s multi-modal transportation system.

Preparing the Plan is one of SCAG’s primary statutory responsibilities under federal and state law. A regional transportation plan (RTP) is the mechanism used in California by both metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies to conduct long-range (at least 20-year) planning in their regions. SCAG must adopt an RTP and update it every four years, or more frequently, if the region is to receive federal and state transportation dollars for public transit, streets/roads, and bicycle and pedestrian improvemen ts.

Culver City, Crossings Campus (Culver City & City of Los Angeles, CA). Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the archaeological resources report and coordinated the preparation of the paleontological resources report. Fatima also led the preparation of the EIR sections (cultural, paleo, tribal). Culver Crossings Properties LLC, the Applicant, proposes to develop an office project (Project) on an approximately 4.46-acre site (Project Site) comprised of two properties: one 1.63-acre parcel is located in the City of Culver City (City), while the second 2.83-acre parcel is located in the City of Los Angeles.

County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, Sweetwater Campground Geotech Boring Monitoring , San Diego County, CA. Project Co- Manager. Fatima co-managed the archaeological monitoring and coordinated with Red Tail for Native American monitoring and the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation during Geotech borings for the Project.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, East San Gabriel Valley Area Plan (ESGVAP) Program EIR, Eastern Portion of Los Angeles County, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima managed the preparation of the PEIR Sections (cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources). The ESGVAP is part of the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan, which will require an amendment. The ESGVAP is a long-range policy document developed to guide long-term growth of the area through development of a guiding vision, goals, policies, and implem entation actions for the unincorporated communities in the East San Gabriel Valley. The ESGVAP’s planning area consists of 24 unincorporated islands and communities and encompasses a total land area of 210.5 square miles . r- ESA
~
Fatima Clark (Continued)
Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County 2045 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update and PEIR, Los Angeles County, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima managed the preparation of the PEIR Sections (cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources). The County adopted the Unincorporated Los Angeles County Community Climate Action Plan 2020 (2020 CCAP) in 2015 as a component of the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. The 2020 CCAP aligned with General Plan goals, policies, and programs, as well as several other existing programs in Los Angeles County. The 2020 CCAP was the first attempt to set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals in Los Angeles County. Although the targets for the 2020 CCAP were ultimately not fully met, the plan provided a road map for implementing the County’s GHG reduction measures. The 2020 CCAP actions were implemented through County Code amendments and programs related to climate action. The Draft 2045 CAP builds on previous work and defines new reduction targets beyond the year 2020.

Eastern Municipal Water District, San Jacinto Valley Groundwater Treatment Facility Project, San Jacinto, CA.

Archaeologist. Fatima assisted with the Phase II archaeological testing for the Project. The site was the location of the region’s first trading post/general store, established ca. 1868. It later became the Palma Hotel, constructed by Henry T.

Hewitt. The hotel was also used as a Riverside County hospital before it was destroyed in an earthqua ke in 1899.

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Sand Canyon Flood Control Permitting Project, San Bernardino County, CA.

Archaeologist. Fatima was in charge of preparing the cultural resources assessment in compliance with Section 106.

Fatima also conducted the pedestrian survey. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians is considering taking over operation and maintenance of a concrete-lined channel and debris basin (known as Sand Creek) along Sand Canyon, within unincorporated San Bernardino County.

City of Long Beach, 615 E. Ocean Boulevard Project, Long Beach, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the cultural and paleontological resources reports in support of an addendum to the Certified City of Long Beach Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. The Project would develop a 21 -story high-rise residential building on an approximately 0.4-acre site located at 615 East Ocean Boulevard within the City’s limits (Project site).

City of Long Beach Department of Development Services, Planning Bureau, 7250 Carson Street Project, City of Long Beach, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the cultural and paleontological resources reports in compliance with CEQA. The Project Applicant proposes to subdivide a 20-acre parcel into two parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). Other than the approval of the tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing parcel, no proposed improvements or development for Parcel A are included a s part of the Project. Development of Parcel B (Project Site) would include the development of two fast-food restaurants and parking spaces.

City of Diamond Bar, Crooked Creek Residential Subdivision Project, Los Angeles County, CA. Archaeologist. Fatima conducted the archaeological and paleontological resources assessments in compliance with CEQA and the City of Diamond Bar General Plan Policy RC-P-42. The studies included records searches, pedestrian survey, and subsurface sensitivity assessments. No cultural resources were identified in the project site, but the area was found to have the potential to contain subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources and paleontological resources. The project consisted of the development of seven single-family residences and associated infrastructure on approximately 2.5 acres. The project required approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Conditional U se Permit, Tree Permit, and Development Review.
r- ESA
~

Appendix B
Sacred Lands File Search

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

January 16, 2025

Fatima Clark
ESA

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: 5757 Uplander - D202300668.00 Project, Los Angeles County

To Whom It May Concern:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians

ACTING EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY
Steven Quinn

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]

Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Last Updated Cahuilla Band of Indians F Erica Schenk, Chairperson 52701 CA Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 590-0942 (951) 763-2808 [email protected] Cahuilla 2/1/2024 Cahuilla Band of Indians F Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Band of Indians F BobbyRay Esparza, Cultural
Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 [email protected] Gabrieleno 8/18/2023 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Christina Swindall Martinez,
Secretary
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 [email protected] Gabrieleno 8/18/2023 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
N Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
(626) 483-3564 (626) 286-1262 [email protected] Gabrieleno 12/4/2023 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Christina Conley, Cultural
Resource Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
(626) 407-8761 [email protected]
u
Gabrielino 3/16/2023
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
(562) 761-6417 (562) 761-6417 [email protected] Gabrielino 3/16/2023 Gabrielino/Tongva Nation N Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., #231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
(951) 807-0479 [email protected] Gabrielino 3/28/2023 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Charles Alvarez, Chairperson 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA, 91307
(310) 403-6048 [email protected] Gabrielino 5/30/2023 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource Director
P.O. Box 3919
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
(909) 262-9351 [email protected] Gabrielino 5/30/2023 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Steven Estrada, Tribal Chairman P.O. Box 391820 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla 4/8/2024 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Vanessa Minott, Tribal Administrator
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla 4/8/2024 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 5757 Uplander - D202300668.00 Project, Los Angeles County.

Record: PROJ-2025-000252
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Los Angeles
NAHC Group: All
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Los Angeles County
1/16/2025
Counties
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
01/16/2025 10:27 AM
1 of 1
Appendix E
Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation

www.geoteq.com
May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File Number 22486

Link Logistics
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 725
Irvine, California 92612

Attention: Julie Marks

Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Mixed Use Development
5757 Uplander Way, Culver City, California

Dear Ms. Marks:

This letter transmits the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the subject site prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc. This report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site, including earthwork, seismic design, retaining walls, excavations, shoring and foundation design.

Due to its preliminary nature, this report is not intended for the purpose of obtaining a building permit. A comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation should be prepared o nce the proposed development plan achieves refinement. Supplemental exploration and laboratory testing, as well as the re -evaluation of the design parameters provided herein, may be required for the preparation of a comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation. This subsequent comprehensive geotechnica l engineering inves tigation would be suitable for building permit purposes.

The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. The exploration and testing presented in this report should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between the exploration locations, or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions.

Should you have any questions please contact this office.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.

GREGORIO VARELA
R.C.E. 81201

GV:km

Email to: [[email protected]]
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
439 Western Avenue
Glendale, California 91201-2837
818.240.9600 • Fax 818.240.9675

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
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................... 2 SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 2 North Outfall Replacement Sewer .......................................................................................... 3 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ............................................................................................. 4 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................ 4 Geologic Materials .................................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 5 Caving ..................................................................................................................................... 5 SEISMIC EVALUATION .............................................................................................................. 5 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................................... 5 REGIONAL FAULTING ........................................................................................................... 6 Overland Avenue Fault ........................................................................................................... 6 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 7 Surface Rupture ...................................................................................................................... 8 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................................ 8 Dynamic Dry Settlement....................................................................................................... 10 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding........................................................................................... 11 Landsliding ........................................................................................................................... 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 11 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 13 California Building Code Seismic Parameters ..................................................................... 13 EXPANSIVE SOILS ................................................................................................................ 14 WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES ............................................................................................ 15 GRADING GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................... 15 Site Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 16 Compaction ........................................................................................................................... 16 Acceptable Materials ............................................................................................................ 17 Utility Trench Backfill .......................................................................................................... 17 Wet Soils ............................................................................................................................... 18 Shrinkage .............................................................................................................................. 18 Weather Related Grading Considerations ............................................................................. 19 Geotechnical Observations and Testing During Grading ..................................................... 19 FOUNDATION DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 20 Conventional ......................................................................................................................... 20 Foundation Reinforcement.................................................................................................... 21 Lateral Design ....................................................................................................................... 21 Foundation Settlement .......................................................................................................... 21 Foundation Observations ...................................................................................................... 22 RETAINING WALL DESIGN ................................................................................................. 22 Restrained Retaining Walls ................................................................................................... 23 Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure ....................................................................................... 23 Miscellaneous Cantilever Retaining Walls ........................................................................... 24

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
Retaining Wall Drainage....................................................................................................... 24 Sump Pump Design............................................................................................................... 25 Waterproofing ....................................................................................................................... 26 Retaining Wall Backfill ........................................................................................................ 26 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................ 26 Excavation Observations ...................................................................................................... 27 SHORING DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 27 Soldier Piles – Drilled ........................................................................................................... 28 Soldier Piles – Vibration Method of Installation .................................................................. 29 Lagging ................................................................................................................................. 31 Lateral Pressures ................................................................................................................... 31 Tied-Back Anchors ............................................................................................................... 32 Anchor Installation................................................................................................................ 33 Tieback Anchor Testing ........................................................................................................ 33 Internal Bracing .................................................................................................................... 34 Deflection .............................................................................................................................. 35 Pre-Construction Survey ....................................................................................................... 35 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 35 Shoring Observations ............................................................................................................ 36 SLABS ON GRADE................................................................................................................. 36 Concrete Slabs-on Grade ...................................................................................................... 36 Design of Slabs That Receive Moisture-Sensitive Floor Coverings .................................... 37 Concrete Crack Control ........................................................................................................ 37 Slab Reinforcing ................................................................................................................... 38 PAVEMENTS........................................................................................................................... 38 SITE DRAINAGE .................................................................................................................... 40 STORMWATER DISPOSAL .................................................................................................. 40 The Proposed System ............................................................................................................ 40 Percolation Testing ............................................................................................................... 41 Stormwater Disposal Recommendations .............................................................................. 42 DESIGN REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 44 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ......................................................................................... 44 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 45 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 45 EXCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 47 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING .................................................................................................. 47 Classification and Sampling ................................................................................................. 47 Moisture and Density Relationships ..................................................................................... 48 Direct Shear Testing ............................................................................................................. 48 Consolidation Testing ........................................................................................................... 49 Expansion Index Testing....................................................................................................... 49 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics ............................................................................... 50 Grain Size Distribution ......................................................................................................... 50

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
Atterberg Limits .................................................................................................................... 50

ENCLOSURES
References
Vicinity Map
Plot Plan
Survey Plan
Cross Section A-A’
Local Geologic Map
NavigateLA Map
Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map
Plates A-1 through A-7
Plates B-1 and B-2
Plates C-1 through C-5
Plates D-1 and D-2
Plate E
Plate F
Liquefaction Analyses (3 sheets)
N.O.R.S. Map

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

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
5757 UPLANDER WAY

CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the preliminary geotechnical engineering investigation performed on the project site. The purpose of this investigation was to identify the distribution and engineering properties of the geologic materials underlying the site, and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the conceptual design of the proposed development.

Due to its preliminary nature, this report is not intended for the purpose of obtaining a building permit. A comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation should be prepared once the proposed development plan achieves refinement. Supplemental exploration and laboratory testing, as well as the re -evaluation of the design parameters provided herein, may be required for the preparation of a comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation. This subsequent comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation w ould be suitable for building permit purposes.

This investigation included seven exploratory excavations, collection of representative samples, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, review of published geologic data, review of available geotechnical engineering information and the preparation of this report. The exploratory excavation locations are shown on the enclosed Plot Plan and Survey Plan. The results of the exploration and the laboratory testing are presented in the Appendix of this report.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

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

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Information concerning the proposed development was furnished by the client. In addition, the Site Plan prepared by AC Martin, dated April 1, 2024, was reviewed for the preparation of this report. The proposed project consists of the construction of six mixed-used structures. The proposed structures will be seven stories in height and will be built over one subterranean parking garage. At this time, it is unknown if the subterranean parking garage will consist of one common podium level, or if it will consi st of several independent garages. The exact alignment and depth of the subterranean parking garage is unknown at this time. But based on the experience of this firm, it is anticipated that it may extend to depths ranging between 10 and 15 feet below the ground level.

Structural information is not available at this time. Column loads are estimated to be between 300 and 700 kips. Wall loads are estimated to be between 8 and 25 kips per lineal foot. These loads reflect the dead plus live loads. Grading is expected to consist of excavations in the order of 10 to 18 feet in depth for construction of the proposed subterranean parking garage and foundation elements.

Any changes in the design of the project or location of any structure, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. The recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid until reviewed and modified or reaffirmed, in writing, subsequent to such review.

SITE CONDITIONS

The project site is located at 5757 Uplander Way, in Culver City, California. The site is irregular in shape, and approximately 8 acres in area. The site is bounded by Hannum Avenue to the north, Uplander Way to the east, Sumner Way to the south, and Bristol Parkway and two office May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
developments to the west. The project site is shown relative to nearby topographic features in the enclosed Vicinity Map and Survey Plan.

The site is currently occupied by four office buildings, with surrounding paved parking lot s. The existing buildings are one to two stories in height and were built at-grade. Based on review of a topographic survey provided by the client , the current site ground elevations rang e between approximately 100.7 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) near the northwestern corner of the site, to approximately 116.8 feet AMSL at the east-central area of the site . The enclosed Survey Plan illustrates the current site topo graphy and development. The existing site topography is also illustrated in the enclosed Cross Section A-A’.

Vegetation at the site consists of mature trees, shrubs and grass lawns, contained in planter areas.

Drainage across the site appears to be by sheetflow to the city streets.

North Outfall Replacement Sewer

According to the NavigateLA Website, developed by the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works , t he western portion of the project site is located immediately adjacent to the North Outfall Replacement Sewer line (N.O.R.S.). In the vicinity of the project site the N.O.R.S. sewer line is approximately 12.5 feet in diameter, and it is supposed to have an invert elevation between approximate elevations 40.71 and 40.85 feet AMSL. A 30- foot-wide easement has been delineated for the N.O.R.S. It is our understanding that the N.O.R.S. utilized a tunneling installation methodology.

The enclosed NavigateLA Map, as well as the N.O.R.S. Map, illustrate the general location and depth of the N.O.R.S. pipe, as well as its easement, in relation to the project site. The potential surcharge influence of the proposed structures should be analyzed when the project scope achieves definition.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

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

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

FIELD EXPLORATION

The site was explored on March 5, 6, 7 and 8, 2024, by drilling seven borings. The borings were drilled to depths ranging between 40 and 80 feet below the existing site grade , with the aid of a truck-mounted drilling machine using 8 -inch diameter hollowstem augers. The exploration locations are shown on the Plot Plan and Survey Plan, and the geologic materials encountered are logged on Plates A-1 through A-7.

The location and elevation of the exploratory borings was determined from information presented in the enclosed Survey Plan. The location and elevation of the exploratory excavations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

Geologic Materials

Fill materials were encountered in all exploratory excavations, to depths ranging between 2 and 5 feet below the existing grade. The fill consists of a mixture of sand, silt and clay, which is medium brown to dark brown in color, and is moist, medium dense to dense, or stiff, and fine grained.

The fill was observed to be underlain by native soils. The native soils are composed of interlayered granular (sandy) soil layers, and fine soil layers. The granular soil layers are composed of sand, silty sand and clayey sand, while the fine layers are composed of sandy to silty clay and sandy to clayey silt. The observed native soils are slightly moist to moist, range from yellowish brown to orange brown to dark brown to gray in color, and are medium dense to very dense, stiff to very stiff, and fine to coarse grained, with occasional gravel.

More detailed descriptions of the earth materials encountered may be obtained from individual logs of the subsurface excavations.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during exploration, conducted to a maximum depth of 80 feet below the existing grade in Borings B2, B5, and B6. The historically highest groundwater level was established by review of the Venice 7½ Minute Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report, Plate 1.2, Historically Highest Ground Water Contours (CDMG, 2006). Review of this plate indicates that the historically highest groundwater level at the site was on the order of 40 feet below grade. A copy of this plate is included in the Appendix as Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map.

Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time of the measurements reported herein. Fluctuations also may occur across the site. High groundwater levels can result in changed conditions.

Caving

Caving could not be directly observed during exploration due to the continuously-cased design of the hollowstem auger. Based on the experience of this firm, large diameter excavations that encounter granular, cohesionless soils will most likely experience caving.

SEISMIC EVALUATION

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING

The subject site is located in the Los Angeles Basin. 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, 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 May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
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 h ave 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.

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 Holocene -active, Pre - Holocene faults, and Age -undetermined faults. Holocene -active faults are tho se which show evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,700 years. Pre -Holocene faults are those that have not moved in the past 11,700 years. Age-undetermined faults are faults where the recency of fault movement has not been determined.

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 Ca lifornia area. Due to the buried nature of these thrust faults, their existence is usually not known until they produce an earthquake. The risk for surface rupture potential of these buried thrust faults is inferred to be low (Leighton, 1990).

However, the seismic risk of these buried structures in terms of recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not well established. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture on these surface - verging splays at magnitudes higher than 6.0 cannot be precluded.

Overland Avenue Fault

As shown in the enclosed Local Geologic Map and NavigateLA Map, the Overland Avenue fault appears to intersect the northeastern corner of the project site. The Overland Fault extends from May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
the northwest flank of the Baldwin Hills to Santa Monica Boulevard, in the Vicinity of Overland Avenue. The fault trends northwest between the Charnock Fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone.

The Overland Fault is depicted by Poland, et al. (1959) as an inferred fault, cutting late Pleistocene terrace deposits and concealed under alluvium. Ziony, et al. (1979) note that the alluvium is not cut by the fault, an interpretation that is in agreeme nt with more recent work by Ziony and Jones (1989). The Overland Fault has not been observed at the surface, and there is no direct evidence that this fault has offset late Pleistocene or Holocene age alluvial deposits. The only evidence of the existence of this fault comes from water well data, and not from direct observation.

The dip of the Overland Avenue fault is unknown; however, based on historical water levels, displacement along the fault is believed to be vertical, with an offset of approximately 30 feet. It is anticipated that the west site of the fault has moved downward relative to the east side.

The Overland Fault has been designated as potentially active by the California Geological Survey (CGS), indicating that the fault could potentially have had its most recent surface displacement within the late Quaternary Age (past 700,000 years). To our knowledge, no Special Studies Zones have been delineated along any part of the Overland Avenue Fault by any jurisdiction, including the State of California, the City of Los Angeles, or Culver City. It is our understanding that further investigation of this fault is not required by the State of California, or the local building official.

SEISMIC HAZARDS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The primary geologic hazard at the site is moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration) caused by an earthquake on any of the local or regional faults. The potential for other earthquake-induced hazards was also evaluated including surface rupture, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, inundation and landsliding.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Surface Rupture

In 1972, the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (now known as the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act) was passed into law. As revised in 2018, The Act defines “Holocene-active” Faults utilizing the same aging criteria as that used by California Geological Survey (CGS). However, established state policy has been to zone only those faults which have direct evidence of movement within the last 11,700 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.

CGS policy is to delineate a boundary from 200 to 500 feet wide on each side of the Holocene - Active 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, a geologic fault rupture investigation must be performed that demonstrates that the proposed building site is not threatened by surface displacement from the fault before development permits may be issued.

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 and results of site reconnaissance, no known Holocene -active underlie the subject site, and the site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture is considered to be low for the project site.

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 eart hquake. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The Seismic Hazards Maps of the State of California (CDMG, 1999), do not classify the site as part of the potentially “Liquefiable” area. This determination is based on groundwater depth records, soil type and distance to a fault capable of producing a substantial earthquake. A copy of this map is included in the Appendix of this report.

Three site-specific liquefaction analyses were performed following the Recommended Procedures for Implementation of the California Geologic Survey Special Publication 117A (SP117A), Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CGS, 200 8), and the EERI Monograph (MNO-12) by Idriss and Boulanger (2008). This semi-empirical method is based on a correlation between measured values of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance and field performance data. Both the historically highest groundw ater level and the current groundwater level were utilized for their individual liquefaction analysis. These analyses are attached.

Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7 -16 indicates that the potential for liquefaction shall be evaluated utilizing an acceleration consistent with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). Utilizing the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) seismic utility program, this corresponds to a Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA M) of 0.9 0g. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation program (USGS, 2014) indicates a PGA of 0.85g (2 percent in 50 years ground motion) and a mean magnitude of 6.7 for the Project Site. The liquefaction potential evaluations were performed by utilizing a magnitude 6. 7 earthquake, and a peak horizontal acceleration of 0.90g.

The enclosed “Empirical Estimations of Liquefaction Potential” are based on Borings B2, B5 and B6. SPT data were collected at 5-foot intervals. Samples of the collected materials were conveyed to the laboratory for testing and analysis. The percent passing a Number 200 sieve is presented on the enclosed E-Plate.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The procedure presented in the SP117A guidelines was followed in analyzing the liquefaction potential of the Project Site. The SP117A guidelines were developed based on a paper titled, “Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils”, by Bray and Sancio (2006).

According to the SP117A guidelines, soils having a Plastic Index greater than 18 exhibit clay-like behavior, and the liquefaction potential of these soils are considered to be low. Therefore, where the results of Atterberg Limits testing showed a Plastic Index greater than 18, the soils would be considered non-liquefiable, and the analysis of these soil layers was turned off in the liquefaction susceptibility column. The results of Atterberg Limits testing are shown in Plate F.

Based on SP117A, a factor of safety against the occurrence of liquefaction greater than about 1.3 can be considered an acceptable level of risk where high -quality, site -specific penetration resistance and geotechnical laboratory data is collected. The site-specific liquefaction analyses demonstrate that the Project Site soils analyzed would have a factor of safety significantly higher than 1.3. Therefore, the analyzed soils would not be prone to liquefaction during the ground motion expected during the design basis earthquake. Furthermore, the Project Site soils analyzed are not expected to be affected by potential impacts related to liquefaction, such as lateral spreading and surface manifestation.

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 geologic materials, excessive differential settlements are not expected to occur.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
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 County of Los Angeles Flood and Inundation Hazards Map, Leighton (1990), indicates the site does not lie within the mapped tsunami inundation boundaries. The site is far and/or high enough from the ocean such that it would not be prone to hazards of a tsunami or seiche.

Review of the County of Los Angeles Flood and Inundation Hazards Map (Leighton, 1990), indicates the site does not lie within the inundation boundaries of a reservoir.

Landsliding

The probability of seismically-induced landslides occurring on the site is considered to be low due to the gentle elevation relief observed across or adjacent to the site.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the exploration, laboratory testing, and research, it is the preliminary finding of Geotechnologies, Inc. that construction of the proposed project is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the advice and recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during construction.

Due to its preliminary nature, this report is not intended for the purpose of obtaining a building permit. A comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation should be prepared once the proposed development plan achieves refinement. Supplemental exploration and laboratory testing, as well as the re -evaluation of the design parameters provided herein, may be required for the preparation of a comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation. This subsequent May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation would be suitable for building permit purposes.

Groundwater was not encountered during exploration, conducted to a maximum depth of 80 feet below the existing grade. Fill materials were encountered in all the exploratory excavations, to depths ranging between 2 and 5 feet below the existing grade. The existing fill materials are not suitable for support of the proposed structures.

It is anticipated that the existing fill materials will be removed during the excavation of the proposed subterranean parking garage . The proposed structure s may be supported by a conventional foundation system, bearing in the native soils expected at the subterranean subgrade.

The exact alignment and depth of the proposed subterranean levels is unknown at this time. The installation of temporary shoring will be required to stabilize temporary vertical subterranean excavations. As an option, w here sufficient space is available, the temporary subterranean excavations may be cut at a 1:1 slope gradient to a maximum height of 15 feet, and at a 1½:1 (horizontal: vertical) to a maximum height of 25 feet.

According to the NavigateLA Website, the western portion of the project site is located immediately adjacent to the North Outfall Replacement Sewer line (N.O.R.S.). In the vicinity of the project site the N.O.R.S. sewer line is approximately 12.5 feet in diameter, and it is supposed to have an invert elevation between approximate elevations 40.71 and 40.85 feet AMSL. A 30 - foot-wide easement has been delineated for the N.O.R.S. It is our understanding that the N.O.R.S. utilized a tunneling installation methodology . Once the proposed plan development achieves refinement, the potential surcharge influence of the proposed structures onto the N.O.R.S. tunnel should be analyzed.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The validity of the conclusions and design recommendations presented herein is dependent upon review of the geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction by this firm. The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from excavations on t he site as indicated and should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between these excavations, or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions. Any changes in the design, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. The recommendations contained herein should not be considered valid until reviewed and modified or reaffirmed subsequent to such review.

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

California Building Code Seismic Parameters

Based on information derived from the subsurface investigation, the subject site is classified as Site Class D, which corresponds to a “Stiff Soil” Profile, according to Table 20.3 -1 of ASCE 7 -

16. This information and the site coordinates were input into t he OSHPD seismic utility program (https://www.seismicmaps.org/) in order to calculate ground motion parameters for the site.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

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

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
California Building Code 2022
ASCE Design Standard 7-16
Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods (SS) 1.906g Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.0
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for Short Periods (SMS) 1.906g Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDS) 1.271g
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at One-Second Period (S1) 0.671g Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.7*
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for One -Second Period (SM1) 1.141g*
Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration for One -Second Period (SD1) 0.761g*

* These values are determined based on the tabulated values shown on ASCE 7 -16, Table 11.4-2 for the Long-Period Site Coefficient, Fv. It should be noted that the exception to performing a site- specific hazard analysis for structures on Site Class D for values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 presented by ASCE 7 -16 may be followed, provided the conditions outlined in the ASCE 7 -16 Section 11.4.8 (including Supplement 3 of the ASCE 7 Standards) are implemented in the structural design and analyses. This ex ception recommends that, where a site -specific ground motion hazard analysis is not required, the SM1 determined by eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50% for all applications of S M1 in this standard. The resulting value of the parameter S D1 determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of S D1 in this standard. This would require that the SM1 and SD1 values provided in the above table are increased by 50%.

EXPANSIVE SOILS

The upper onsite soils are in the moderate to high expansion range. The Expansion Index was found to be between 54 and 128 for bulk samples representative of the upper strata. Recommended reinforcing is provided in the “Foundation Design” and “Slab-On-Grade” sections of this report.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

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

WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES

The Portland cement portion of concrete is subject to attack when exposed to water -soluble sulfates. Usually, the two most common sources of exposure are from soil and marine environments.

The sources of natural sulfate minerals in soils include the sulfates of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium. When these minerals interact and dissolve in subsurface water, a sulfate concentration is created, which will react with exposed concrete. O ver time sulfate attack will destroy improperly proportioned concrete well before the end of its intended service life.

The water-soluble sulfate content of the onsite geologic materials was tested by California Test 417. The water-soluble sulfate content was determined to be less than 0.2% percentage by weight for the soils tested. Based on the most recent revision to Amer ican Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 318, the sulfate exposure is considered to be moderate for geologic materials with less than 0.2% and Type II cement may be utilized for concrete foundations in contact with the site soils. In addition, a water-cement ratio of 0.5 should be maintained in the poured concrete.

The design of the concrete mix is not within the area of expertise of the geotechnical engineer. It is recommended that a competent engineer familiar with concrete mix design should develop the recommendations for this project based on the tested sulfate exposure indicated above.

GRADING GUIDELINES

The following recommendations are provided for any miscellaneous grading that may be required, such as subgrade preparation, and the backfill of utility trenches or foundations.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Site Preparation

• A thorough search should be made for possible underground utilities and/or structures. Any existing or abandoned utilities or structures located within the footprint of the proposed grading should be removed or relocated as appropriate.

• All vegetation, existing fill, and soft or disturbed geologic materials should be removed from the areas to receive controlled fill. All existing fill materials and any disturbed geologic materials resulting from grading operations shall be completely remo ved and properly recompacted prior to foundation excavation.

• Any vegetation or associated root system located within the footprint of the proposed structures should be removed during grading.

• 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 excavated areas shall be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing compacted fill.

Compaction

All fill should be mechanically compacted in layers not more than 8 inches thick. Based on the moderate to high expansion index of some of the on -site soils, t he materials placed should be moisture conditions to approximately 5 percent over the optimum moisture content of the particular material placed. All fill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density for the materials used. The maximum density shall be determined by the laboratory operated by Geotechnologies, Inc. in general accordance with 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 May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
shall be made with adjustment of the moisture content, as necessary, until a minimum of 90 percent compaction is obtained.

Acceptable Materials

The excavated onsite materials are considered satisfactory for reuse in the controlled fills as long as any debris, organic matter, and oversize materials are removed. The size of the materials to be recompacted shall not exceed 6 inches on any dimension.

Any imported materials shall be observed and tested by the representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to use in fill areas. Imported materials should contain sufficient fines so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when c ompacted. Any required import materials should consist of geologic materials with an expansion index of less than 50. The water- soluble sulfate content of the import materials should be less than 0.1% percentage by weight.

Imported materials should 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.

Utility Trench Backfill

Utility trenches should be backfilled with controlled fill. The utility should be bedded with clean sands at least one foot over the crown. The remainder of the backfill may be onsite soil compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density, in layer s not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.

Utility trench backfill should be tested by representatives of this firm in accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D-1557.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Wet Soils

At the time of exploration some of the soils which will be exposed at the bottom of the excavations were locally above optimum moisture content. It is anticipated that some of the excavated material to be placed as compacted fill, and some of the materials exposed at the bottom of the excavated plane may require drying and aeration prior to recompaction.

Pumping (yielding or vertical deflection) of the high -moisture content soils at the bottom of the excavation may occur during operation of heavy equipment. Where pumping is encountered, angular minimum ¾ -inch gravel and/or crushed concrete should be placed and worked into the subgrade. The exact thickness of the gravel would be a trial and error procedure, and would be determined in the field. It would likely be on the order of 1 to 2 feet thick.

The gravel will help to densify the subgrade as well as function as a stabilization material upon which heavy equipment may operate. It is not recommended that rubber tire construction equipment attempt to operate directly on the pumping subgrade soils pri or to placing the gravel.

Direct operation of rubber tire equipment on the soft subgrade soils will likely result in excessive disturbance to the soils, which in turn will result in a delay to the construction schedule since those disturbed soils would then have to be removed and properly recompacted. Extreme care should be utilized to place gravel as the subgrade becomes exposed.

Shrinkage

Shrinkage results when a volume of soil removed at one density is compacted to a higher density.

A shrinkage factor between 5 and 15 percent should be anticipated when excavating and recompacting the existing fill and underlying native geologic materials on the site to an average comparative compaction of 92 percent.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Weather Related Grading Considerations

When rain is forecast all fill that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be properly compacted prior to stopping work for the day or prior to stopping due to inclement weather. These fills, once compacted, shall have the surface sloped to drain to an area where water can be removed.

Temporary drainage devices should be installed to collect and transfer excess water to the street in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall.

Work may start again, after a period of rainfall, once the site has been reviewed by a representative of this office. Any soils saturated by the rain shall be removed and aerated so that the moisture content will fall within three percent of the optimum moisture content.

Surface materials previously compacted before the rain shall be scarified, brought to the proper moisture content and recompacted prior to placing additional fill, if considered necessary by a representative of this firm.

Geotechnical Observations and Testing During Grading

Geotechnical observations and testing during grading are considered to be a continuation of the geotechnical investigation. It is critical that the geotechnical aspects of the project be reviewed by representatives of Geotechnologies, Inc. during the cons truction process. Compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations during construction requires review by this firm during the course of construction. Any fill which is placed should be observed, tested, and verified if used for engineered purposes. Please advise this office at least twenty-four hours prior to any required site visit.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

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

FOUNDATION DESIGN

Conventional

The proposed structure s may be supported by a conventional shallow foundation system, consisting of continuous wall foundations and isolated column foundations. The proposed foundation system may bear in the native soils expected to be exposed at the subterranean subgrade.

Continuous foundations may be designed for a bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 24 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 24 inches into the recommended native soils.

Column foundations may be designed for a bearing capacity of 3, 500 pounds per square foot and should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, 24 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 24 inches into the recommended native soils.

The bearing capacity increase for each additional foot of width is 200 pounds per square foot. The bearing capacity increase for each additional foot of depth is 500 pounds per square foot. The maximum recommended bearing capacity is 6,000 pounds per square foot.

The bearing capacities indicated above are for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Foundation Reinforcement

All continuous foundations should be reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars. Two should be placed near the top of the foundation, and two should be placed near the bottom.

Lateral Design

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces.

Passive geologic pressure for the sides of foundations poured against undisturbed or recompacted soil may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot.

The passive and friction components may be combined for lateral resistance without reduction. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for short duration loading such as wind or seismic forces.

Foundation Settlement

Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. The maximum settlement is not expected to exceed 1 -inch and occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ½-inch.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Foundation Observations

It is critical that all foundation excavations are observed by a representative of this firm to verify penetration into the recommended bearing materials. The observation should be performed prior to the placement of reinforcement. Foundations should be deepened to extend into satisfactory geologic materials, if necessary.

Foundation excavations should be cleaned of all loose soils prior to placing steel and concrete.

Any required foundation backfill should be mechanically compacted, flooding is not permitted.

RETAINING WALL DESIGN

Based on the estimated depth of the proposed subterranean parking garage, it is anticipated that retaining walls up to 15 feet in height will be required for the project. As a precautionary measure, recommendations for the design of underground retaining walls up to a height of 20 feet have been provided herein. Retaining walls may be designed as indicated below, depending on whether the walls will be restrained or cantilevered. Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the provisions of the “Foundation Design” section of this report.

Additional pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to vehicular traffic or adjacent structures. Based on review of the enclosed Plot Pla n, the proposed retaining walls are not anticipated to be surcharged by neighboring structures. Vehicular traffic is expected in the vicinity of the proposed subterranean retaining walls . For traffic surcharge, the upper 10 feet of any retaining wall adjacent to streets, driveways or parking areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot traffic surcharge. If the traffic is more than 10 feet from the retaining walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Restrained Retaining Walls

Restrained subterranean retaining walls up to 2 0 feet in height and supporting a level back slope may be designed to resist a triangular distribution of earth pressure. It is recommended the walls be designed to resist the greater of the at -rest pressure, or the active pressure plus the seismic pressure, as discussed in the “Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure” section below.

RESTRAINED BASEMENT WALLS

AT-REST EARTH

PRESSURE

ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE
*(To be Combined with Dynamic Seismic Earth
Pressure)
Height of
Wall
(Feet)
Triangular Distribution
of Pressure
(Pounds per Cubic
Foot)
Triangular Distribution of Pressure
(Pounds per Cubic Foot)
Up to 20 feet 64 39*

The lateral earth pressure recommended above for retaining walls assumes that a permanent drainage system will be installed so that external water pressure will not be developed against the walls. Also, where necessary, the retaining walls should be designed to accommodate any surcharge pressures that may be imposed by adjacent traffic and existing structures.

Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure

Retaining walls exceeding 6 feet in height shall be designed to resist the additional earth pressure caused by seismic ground shaking. A triangular pressure distribution should be utilized for the additional seismic loads, with an equivalent fluid pressure of 24 pounds per cubic foot. When using the load combination equations from the building code, the seismic earth pressure should be May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
combined with the lateral active earth pressure for analyses of restrained basement walls under seismic loading condition. The dynamic earth pressure may be omitted where the retaining wall is 6 feet in height or less.

Miscellaneous Cantilever Retaining Walls

Cantilever retaining walls up to 12 feet in height supporting a level back slope may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure. Cantilever retaining walls may be designed for 45 pounds per cubic foot for walls retaining up to 12 feet of earth. The moderate to highly expansive potential of the fine soils are considered in this pressure. This pressure assumes a subdrain system will be installed behind the wall. In addition, cantilever walls greater than 6 feet in height shall be designed to resist seismic earth pressure indicated in the “Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure” section above.

For this equivalent fluid pressure to be valid, walls which are to be restrained at the top should be backfilled prior to the upper connection being made. Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures.

Retaining Wall Drainage

All retaining walls shall be provided with a subdrain system in order to minimize the potential for future hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the proposed retaining walls. Subdrains may consist of four-inch diameter perforated pipes, placed with perforati ons facing down. The pipe shall be encased in at least one-foot of gravel around the pipe. The gravel shall be wrapped in filter fabric.

The gravel may consist of three-quarter inch to one-inch crushed rocks.

As an alternative to the standard perforated subdrain pipe and gravel drainage system, the use of gravel pockets and weepholes is an acceptable drainage method. Weepholes shall be a minimum May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
of 4 inches in diameter, placed at 8 feet on center along the base of the wall. Gravel pockets shall be a minimum of 1 cubic foot in dimension and may consist of three -quarter inch to one -inch crushed rocks, wrapped in filter fabric. A collector pipe shall be installed to direct collected waters to a sump

Certain types of subdrain pipe are not acceptable to the various municipal agencies, it is recommended that prior to purchasing subdrainage pipe, the type and brand is cleared with the proper municipal agencies. Subdrainage pipes should outlet to an accept able location. Some municipalities do not allow the use of flat -drainage products, such as Miradrain. The use of such a product should be researched with the building official.

The lateral earth pressures recommended above for retaining walls assume that a permanent drainage system will be installed so that external water pressure will not be developed against the walls. If a drainage system is not provided, the walls should be d esigned to resist an external hydrostatic pressure due to water in addition to the lateral earth pressure. In any event, it is recommended that retaining walls be waterproofed.

Sump Pump Design

The purpose of the recommended retaining wall backdrainage system is to relieve hydrostatic pressure. Groundwater was not encountered during exploration to a depth of 80 feet. Therefore, the only water which could affect the proposed retaining walls would be irrigation water and precipitation. Additionally, the proposed site grading is such that all drainage is directed to the street and the structure has been designed with adequate non-erosive drainage devices.

Based on these considerations the retaining wall backdrainage system is not expected to experience an appreciable flow of water, and in particular, no groundwater will affect it. However, for the purposes of design, a flow of 5 gallons per minute may be assumed.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Waterproofing

Moisture effecting retaining walls is one of the most common post construction complaints. Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to efflorescence or standing water inside the building.

Efflorescence is a process in which a powdery substance is produced on the surface of the concrete by the evaporation of water. The white powder usually consists of soluble salts such as gypsum, calcite, or common salt. Efflorescence is common to retaining walls and does not affect their strength or integrity.

It is recommended that retaining walls be waterproofed. Waterproofing design and inspection of its installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. A qualified waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method which would provide protection to below grade walls.

Retaining Wall Backfill

Any required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers not more than 8 inches thick, to at least 90 percent relative compaction, obtainable by the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557 method of compaction. Flooding should not be permitted. Proper compaction of the backfill will be necessary to reduce settlement of the backfill and to reduce settlement of overlying walks and paving. Some settlement of required backfill should be anticipated, and any utilities supported therein should be designed to accept differential settlement.

TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

Excavations up to a depth of 20 feet below the existing grade may be anticipated for construction of the proposed subterranean levels and foundation elements. The excavations are expected to expose fill and dense native soils, which are suitable for vertical excavations up to 5 feet whe re May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
not surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures. Vertical excavations exceeding 5 feet, or excavations which will be surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures should be shored.

Where sufficient space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments could be cut at a uniform 1:1 slope gradient to a maximum height of 15 feet, and at a 1½:1 (H:V) up to a maximum height of 25 feet. A uniform sloped excavation is sloped from bottom to top and does not have a vertical component.

Where sloped embankments are utilized, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads near the top of slope within a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the excavation. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are strongly recommended along the tops of the slopes to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Water should not be allowed to pond on top of the excavation nor to flow towards it.

Excavation Observations

It is critical that the soils exposed in the cut slopes are observed by a representative of Geotechnologies, Inc. during excavation so that modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the geologic material conditions occur. Many building officials require that temporary excavations should be made during the continuous observations of the geotechnical engineer. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation.

SHORING DESIGN

The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible at this time. It is suggested that Geotechnologies, Inc. review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles. The soldier piles may be designed as cantilevers or laterally braced utilizing drilled tied-back anchors or raker braces.

Soldier Piles – Drilled

Drilled cast-in-place soldier piles should be placed no closer than 2½ diameters on center. The minimum diameter of the piles is 18 inches. Structural concrete should be used for the soldier piles below the excavation; lean -mix concrete may be employed abo ve that level. As an alternative, lean-mix concrete may be used throughout the pile where the reinforcing consists of a wideflange section. The slurry must be of sufficient strength to impart the lateral bearing pressure developed by the wideflange section to the earth materials. For soldier pile design purposes, an allowable passive value for the earth materials below the bottom plane of excavation may be assumed to be 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot.

To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be implemented to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed earth materials.

The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and retained earth material may be used to resist the vertical component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.3 7 based on uniform contact between the steel beam and lean-mix concrete and retained earth. The portion of soldier piles below the plane of excavation may also be employed to resist the downward loads.

The downward capacity may be determined using a frictional resistance of 500 pounds per square foot. The minimum depth of embedment for shoring piles is 5 feet below the bottom of the footing excavation, or 7 feet below the bottom of excavated plane, whichever is deeper.

Caving of the granular soil layers may occur during drilling of piles. In the event of caving, casing will most likely be required during drilling in order to maintain open shafts. If casing is used, extreme care should be employed so that the pile is not pulled apart as the casing is withdrawn. At no time should the distance between the surface of the concrete and the bottom of the casing be less than 5 feet.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Soldier Piles – Vibration Method of Installation

I-beam soldier piles may also be vibrated into place as a means of installation. When using the vibration method of installing the soldier beams, the minimum embedment depth shall be 10 feet below the lowest excavated plane. The available passive resistance of the pile may be determined using the diagonal length from the outer edges of opposite flange sections. Similar to the drilled soldier piles, the allowable passive value for the earth materials below the bottom plane of excavation may be assumed to be 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot.

Predrilling may be utilized by the shoring contractor in order to vibrate and install the shoring beams to the design depths. However, the depth of the predrilled holes should not exceed the planned excavation depth. In addition, it is recommended that the diameter of the predrilled holes does not exceed 75 percent of the depth of the web of the I-beam. When predrilling, the auger shall be back spun out of the pilot holes, leaving the soils in place. All shoring (predrilling, installation of shoring piles, and lagging) shall be performed under the continuous inspections by a deputy grading inspector of this firm.

The allowable level of vibration that results from the installation of the piles should not exceed a threshold where occupants of the nearby structures are disturbed, despite higher vibration tolerances that a building may endure without deformation. There is a relationship between particle velocity and vibration frequency that will occur due to the installation. A range of tolerable particle peak velocity and frequency of vibration is shown in the graph below. The shaded area on the graph is considered within acceptable limits to avoid damage to nearby structures. The acceptable limits should be measured at the neighboring structures.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The vibrations should be monitored with a seismograph during pile installation to detect the magnitude of vibration and oscillation experienced by the adjacent structure. The results should be recorded and provided to the owner. If, during installation, th e vibrations exceed the range shown on the graph below, the shoring contractor should modify the installation procedure to reduce the values to the acceptable range.

1 0.1

0.05 0.04

0.03 0 .02

0.01 1
FREQUENCY (cps)
Given Velocity = 0.2 inch /sec.

Frequency = 1 o cps
Then from Graph, Displacement = 0.003 inches
Acceleration = 0 .03g
100
Motion is easy notic eab le or troublesome to person s
NOl'E: Shaded area CONklmed ti.... 111,_,ald Im lllnlclll19 d..,,1111• May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Lagging

Soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated pressures. Due to arching in the geologic materials, the pressure on the lagging will be less. It is recommended that the lagging should be designed for the full design pressure but be l imited to a maximum of 400 pounds per square foot. It is recommended that a representative of this firm observe the installation of lagging to insure uniform support of the excavated embankment.

Lateral Pressures

Cantilevered shoring supporting a level backslope may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure as indicated in the following table:

HEIGHT OF SHORING “H”
(feet)

EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE
(pounds per cubic foot)
Up to 20 30

A trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure would be appropriate where shoring is to be restrained at the top by bracing or tie backs, with the trapezoidal distribution as shown in the diagram below.

TRAPEZOIDAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURE
~ 0 . 2 H
H 0.6 H
.,,,..,,

0.2 H
~
May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Restrained shoring supporting a level backslope may be designed utilizing a trapezoidal distribution of pressure as indicated in the following table:

HEIGHT OF SHORING “H”
(feet)

DESIGN SHORING FOR
(Where H is the height of the wall)
Up to 20 19H
20 to 25 22H

Where a combination of sloped embankment and shoring is utilized, the pressure will be greater and must be determined for each combination. Additional active pressure should be applied where the shoring will be surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures.

Tied-Back Anchors

Tied-back anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. Friction anchors are recommended. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom plane of the excavation. Friction anchors should extend a minimum of 20 feet beyond the potentially active wedge. Anchors should be placed at least 6 feet on center to be considered isolated.

Drilled friction anchors constructed without utilizing pressure -grouting techniques may be designed for a skin friction of 500 pounds per square foot. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. Where belled anchors are utilized, the capacity of belled anchors may be designed by applying the skin friction over the surface area of the bonded anchor shaft. The diameter of the bell may be utilized as the diameter of the bonded anchor shaft whe n determining the surface area. This implies that in order for the belled anchor to fail, the entire parallel soil column must also fail.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Depending on the techniques utilized, and the experience of the contractor performing the installation, it is anticipated that a skin friction of 2,500 pounds per square foot could be utilized for post-grouted anchors, provided the design does not rely on end-bearing plates to provide the necessary capacity. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads.

Anchor Installation

Tied-back anchors may be installed between 20 and 45 degrees below the horizontal. Where caving of the anchor shafts is experienced, the following provisions should be implemented in order to minimize such caving. The anchor shafts should be filled with co ncrete by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. In order to minimize the chances of caving, it is recommended that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The sand backfill should be placed by pumping; the sand may contain a small amount of cement to facilitate pumping.

Tieback Anchor Testing

At least 10 percent of the anchors should be selected for “Quick”, 200 percent tests. It is recommended that at least three of these anchors be selected for 24 -hour, 200 percent tests. It is recommended that the 24-hour tests be performed prior to installation of additional tiebacks. The purpose of the 200 percent tests is to verify the friction value assumed in design. The anchors should be tested to develop twice the assumed friction value. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on these initial ancho rs, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The total deflection during the 24 -hour 200 percent test should not exceed 12 inches. During the 24-hour tests, the anchor deflection should not exceed 0.75 inches measured after the 200 percent test load is applied.

For the "quick" 200 percent tests, the 200 percent test load should be maintained for 30 minutes.

The total deflection of the anchor during the 200 percent quick tests should not exceed 12 inches; the deflection after the 200 percent load has been applied should not exceed 0.25 inch during the 30-minute period.

All of the remaining anchors should be tested to at least 150 percent of design load. The total deflection during the 150 percent test should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150 percent test load should not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15-minute period in order for the anchor to be approved for the design loading.

After a satisfactory test, each anchor should be locked -off at the design load. This should be verified by rechecking the load in the anchor. The load should be within 10 percent of the design load. Where satisfactory tests are not attained, the anchor dia meter and/or length should be increased, or additional anchors installed until satisfactory test results are obtained. Where post - grouted anchors are utilized, additional post-grouting may be required. The installation and testing of the anchors should be observed by a representative of the soils engineer.

Internal Bracing

Rakers may be utilized to brace the soldier piles in lieu of tieback anchors. The raker bracing could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings (deadmen) or by the permanent interior footings. An allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design a raker foundations. This bearing pressure is based on a raker foundation a minimum of 24 inches in width and length as well as 24 inches in depth into native alluvial soils. The base of the raker May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
foundations should be horizontal. Care should be employed in the positioning of raker foundations so that they do not interfere with the foundations for the proposed structure.

Deflection

It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized that some deflection will occur. It is recommended that shoring deflection be limited to ½ inch at the top of the shored embankment where a structure is within a 1:1 plane projected up from the base of the excavation. A maximum deflection of 1-inch has been allowed, provided there are no structures within a 1:1 plane drawn upward from the base of the excavation. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of adjacent buildings and utilities in adjacent street and alleys. If d esired to reduce the deflection, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design.

Pre-Construction Survey

Prior to excavation of the proposed basement levels, it is recommended the surrounding structures and improvements be surveyed to provide a documented record of their condition. It is recommended this include video and/or photographic documentation as well. Such a survey would aid in the resolution of any disputes that may arise concerning damage to adjacent facilities caused by the proposed construction.

Monitoring

Because of the depth of the excavation, some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is suggested. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all soldier piles and the lateral movement along the entire lengths of May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
selected soldier piles. Also, some means of periodically checking the load on selected anchors will be necessary, where applicable.

Some movement of the shored embankments should be anticipated as a result of the relatively deep excavation. It is recommended that photographs of the existing buildings on the adjacent properties be made during construction to record any movements for use in the event of a dispute.

Shoring Observations

It is critical that the installation of shoring is observed by a representative of Geotechnologies, Inc.

Many building officials require that shoring installation should be performed during continuous observation of a representative of the geotechnical eng ineer. The observations insure that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented and so that modifications of the recommendations can be made if variations in the geologic material or groundwater conditions warrant. The observations will allow for a report to be prepared on the installation of shoring for the use of the local building official, where necessary.

SLABS ON GRADE

Concrete Slabs-on Grade

Interior slabs -on-grade and outdoor flatwork should be a minimum of 5 inches in thickness.

Interior s labs-on-grade and outdoor flatwork should be cast over undisturbed native soils, or properly controlled fill materials. Due to the high expansion potential of some of the on-site soils, it is recommended that a 4-inch-thick coarse aggregate layer be placed below the interior slabs.

Any geologic materials loosened or over -excavated should be wasted from the site or properly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Design of Slabs That Receive Moisture-Sensitive Floor Coverings

Geotechnologies, Inc. does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation and mitigation. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified consultant be engaged to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and an y impact on the proposed construction. The qualified consultant should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impacts of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure.

Where dampness would be objectionable, it is recommended that the floor slabs should be waterproofed. A qualified waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method which would provide protection for concrete slabs-on-grade.

All concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported on vapor retarder. The design of the slab and the installation of the vapor retarder should comply with the most recent revisions of ASTM E 1643 and ASTM E 1745. The vapor retarder should comply with ASTM E 1745 Class A requirements.

Where a vapor retarder is used, a low-slump concrete should be used to minimize possible curling of the slabs. The barrier can be covered with a layer of trimmable, compactible, granular fill, where it is thought to be beneficial. See ACI 302.2R-32, Chapter 7 for information on the placement of vapor retarders and the use of a fill layer.

Concrete Crack Control

The recommendations presented in this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of concrete slabs-on-grade due to settlement. However even where these recommendations have been implemented, foundations, stucco walls and concrete slabs -on-grade may display some cracking due to minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete cracking may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete used, proper concrete placement May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
and curing, and by placement of crack control joints at reasonable intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

For standard control of concrete cracking, a maximum crack control joint spacing of 8 feet should not be exceeded. Lesser spacings would provide greater crack control. Joints at curves and angle points are recommended. The crack control joints should be installed as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints shoul d extend a minimum depth of one -fourth the slab thickness. Construction joints should be designed by a structural engineer.

Complete removal of the existing fill soils beneath outdoor flatwork such as walkways or patio areas, is not required, however, due to the rigid nature of concrete, some cracking, a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs should be anticipated. In order to provide uniform support beneath the flatwork it is recommended that a minimum of 12 inches of the exposed subgrade beneath the flatwork be scarified and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction.

Slab Reinforcing

Interior concrete slabs-on-grade and outdoor flatwork should be reinforced with a minimum of #4 steel bars on 16-inch centers each way.

PAVEMENTS

Prior to placing paving, the existing grade should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moistened or dried to approximately 5 percent over the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to 9 5 percent relative compaction, as determined by the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557. The client should be aware that removal of all existing fill in the area of new paving is not required, however, pavement constructed in this manner will most likely ha ve a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. The following pavement sections are recommended:

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Service Asphalt Pavement Thickness
Inches
Base Course
Inches
Passenger Cars 4 6
Moderate Truck 5 7
Heavy Trucks 6 9

A subgrade modulus of 100 pounds per cubic inch may be assumed for design of concrete paving.

Concrete paving for passenger cars and moderate truck traffic shall be a minimum of 6 inches in thickness and shall be underlain by 6 inches of aggregate base. Concrete paving for heavy truck traffic shall be a minimum of 7½ inches in thickness and shall be underlain by 6 inches of aggregate base. Concrete paving should be reinforced with a minimum of # 4 steel bars on 1 6-inch centers each way. For standard crack control maximum expansion joint spacing of 8 feet should not be exceeded. Lesser spacing would provide greater crack control. Joints at curves and angle points are recommended.

Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum dry density. Base materials should consist of Crushed Aggregate Base which conform with Section 200 -2.2 or 200 -2.4 of the most recent edition of “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction”, (Green Book).

The performance of pavement is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edges. Ponding of water on or adjacent to pavement can result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent pavement distress. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend a minimum of 12 inches below the bottom of the aggregate base.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

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

SITE DRAINAGE

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, with the exception of any required to disposed of onsite by stormwater regulations, 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 site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. D rainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. Planters which are located within a distance equal to the depth of a retaining wall should be sealed to prevent moisture adversely affecting the wall. Planters which are located within five feet of a foundation should be sealed to prevent moisture affecting the earth materials supporting the foundation.

STORMWATER DISPOSAL

The Proposed System

It is anticipated that a suitable infiltration system would consist of a deep drywell system. The exact location and depth of the potential drywell system has not been discussed. The final location and design of the proposed infiltration system shall be reviewed and approved by this office prior to construction to evaluate whether the intent of the recommendations provided by this firm are satisfied.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Percolation Testing

Percolation testing was conducted in Borings B2, B5 and B6, following the procedure for boring percolation test provided in the Guidelines for Design, Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration (GS200.1), dated June 30, 2021, presented in the Administrative Manual for the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Material Engineering Division.

At the completion of drilling of these three borings , a 2-inch diameter casing was placed within the center of the boreholes for the purpose of conducting percolation testing. The casing consisted of a slotted PVC pipe within the lower section of the borehole, and solid PVC pipe to the top of the borehole. A sand pack consisting of #3 Monterey Sand was poured into the annular space around the slotted portion of the casing. A 1 -foot thick, hydrated bentonite seal was placed over the sand and drill cuttings were placed to the ground surface.

Prior to testing, the borehole s were filled with water for the purpose of pre -soaking for 2 hours.

After presoaking, the borehole s were refilled with water, and the rate of drop in the water level was measured. The percolation test readings were recorded a minimum of 8 times or until a stabilized rate of drop was obtained, whichever occurred first.

The table below summarizes the results of the infiltration rates derived from the testing. This rate includes correction factors (RF t, RF v, and RF s), as required by the County of Los Angeles procedure. A factor of safety is not reflected on these rates.

Boring No.

Depth of Boring
Below Existing
Ground Surface
(ft.)
Percolation
Testing Conducted
Between Depths
(ft.)
Infiltration Rate
(in./hr.)
B2 80 50 to 80 34.7
B5 80 50 to 80 32.6
B6 80 50 to 80 26.9
May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
At the completion of the percolation testing, the PVC casing was removed from the percolation testing well, and the resulting hole was backfilled with on-site soils to the ground surface.

Stormwater Disposal Recommendations

Based on the results of the exploration, testing and research, it is the finding of this firm that the use of a drywell system for the purpose of stormwater infiltration disposal is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The drywell system is not expected to impact the neighboring or proposed developments, provided the advice and recommendations presented herein are implemented during design and construction.

It is the opinion of this firm that t he native site soils encountered during the geotechnical explorations are suitable for stormwater infiltration. The previous section of this report presents the anticipated infiltration rates of selected soil layers. It is the recommendation of this firm that the lowest infiltration rate of 26.9 inches per hour may be utilized by the civil engineer for the design of a stormwater infiltration system suitable for the project.

The potential drywell system may be installed inside, or outside the proposed structures. It is recommended that the edge of any potential drywell system maintain s a minimum horizontal setback of 10 feet away from the private property lines. Stormwater infiltration shall occur below the primary zone of foundation influence. Based on the anticipated loading distribution of the foundations proposed adjacent to the drywells, it is the determination of this firm that the primary zone of foundation influence extends to a depth of 20 feet below the bottom of the deepest adjacent foundation.

Soils located within the primary zone of foundation influence should not become wet or saturated as a result of the drywells. It is anticipated that a settling chamber will be installed within this primary zone of foundation influence; therefore the seams and bottom of the settling chamber should be adequately sealed to prevent infiltration at this zone. Depending on its final location, the May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
settling chamber of the drywell may be surcharged by proposed adjacent foundations, in which case the chamber should be designed to withstand this additional surcharge load. The final location of the proposed drywells shall be reviewed and approved by this office prior to construction.

Stormwater infiltration must be conducted a minimum of 10 feet above the groundwater level. At the site, groundwater was not encountered to the maximum excavated depth of 80 feet, which corresponds to elevation 30.2 feet AMSL in Boring B2 . Based on this consideration, it is the recommendation of this firm that the proposed drywell system does not extend deeper than elevation 40.2 feet AMSL.

Due to the granular nature of the site soils, caving could potentially occur in the drilled shafts. The use of casing to maintain open shafts for installation of the drywells may be necessary.

It is recommended that the design team, including the structural engineer, waterproofing consultant, plumbing engineer, environmental engineer and landscape architect be consulted in regards to the design and construction of infiltration systems. The desig n and construction of stormwater infiltration systems is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. However, based on the experience of this firm, it is recommended that several aspects of the use of such facilities should be considered by the design and construction team:

• All infiltration devices should be provided with overflow protection. Once the device is full of water, additional water flowing to the device should be diverted to another acceptable disposal area, or disposed offsite in an acceptable manner.

• All connections associated with stormwater infiltration systems should be sealed and water-tight. Water leaking into the subgrade soils can lead to loss of strength, piping, erosion, settlement and/or expansion of the effected earth materials.

• Excavations proposed for the installation of stormwater systems should comply with the “Temporary Excavations” sections of this geotechnical engineering investigation, as well as CalOSHA Regulations where applicable.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

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

DESIGN REVIEW

Engineering of the proposed project should not begin until approval of the geotechnical report by the Building Official is obtained in writing. Significant changes in the geotechnical recommendations may result during the building department review process.

It is recommended that the geotechnical aspects of the project be reviewed by this firm during the design process. This review provides assistance to the design team by providing specific recommendations for particular cases, as well as review of the propo sed construction to evaluate whether the intent of the recommendations presented herein are satisfied.

CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

Geotechnical observations and testing during construction are considered to be a continuation of the geotechnical investigation. It is critical that this firm review the geotechnical aspects of the project during the construction process. Compliance with t he design concepts, specifications or recommendations during 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. Please advise Geotechnologies, Inc. at least twenty -four hours prior to any required site visit.

If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those disclosed herein, notify Geotechnologies, Inc. immediately so the need for modifications may be considered in a timely manner.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly sloped or shored. All temporary excavations should be cut and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations.

EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS

The exploration performed for this investigation is limited to the geotechnical excavations described. Direct exploration of the entire site would not be economically feasible. The owner, design team and contractor must understand that differing excavation and drilling conditions may be encountered based on boulders, gravel, oversize materials, groundwater and many other conditions. Fill materials, especially when they were placed without benefit of modern grading codes, regularly contain materials which co uld impede efficient grading and drilling. Southern California sedimentary bedrock is known to contain variable layers which reflect differences in depositional environment. Such layers may include abundant gravel, cobbles and boulders.

Similarly bedrock c an contain concretions. Concretions are typically lenticular and follow the bedding. They are formed by mineral deposits. Concretions can be very hard. Excavation and drilling in these areas may require full size equipment and coring capability. The contractor should be familiar with the site and the geologic materials in the vicinity.

CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS

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 geote chnical 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 skil l 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.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The recommendations of this report per tain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the geologic conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation.

If any variations are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geotechnologies, Inc. should be notified so that supplemen tal recommendations can be prepared.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or the owner’s representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer and are incorporated into the plans. The owner is also responsible to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out the geotechnical recommendations during construction.

The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addit ion, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside control of this firm. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

Geotechnical observations and testing during construction is considered to be a continuation of the geotechnical investigation. It is, therefore, most prudent to employ the consultant performing the initial investigative work to provide observation and tes ting services during construction. This practice enables the project to flow smoothly from the planning stages through to completion.

Should another geotechnical firm be selected to provide the testing and observation services during construction, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their assumption of the responsibilities of geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
for review. The letter should acknowledge the concurrence of the new geotechnical engineer with the recommendations presented in this report.

EXCLUSIONS

Geotechnologies, Inc. does not practice in the fields of methane gas, radon gas, environmental engineering, waterproofing, dewatering organic substances or the presence of corrosive soils or wetlands which could affect the proposed development including mold and toxic mold. Nothing in this report is intended to address these issues and/or their potential effect on the proposed development. A competent professional consultant should be retained in order to address environmental issues, waterproofing, organic substances and wetlands which might affect the proposed development.

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 Soi l Classification System. Laboratory classification may include visual examination, Atterberg Limit Tests and grain size distribution.

The final classification is shown on the excavation logs.

Samples of the geologic 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 excavation logs as an SPT sample, samples acq uired 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 outside diameter and 1.00 inch in height. The central portion of the samples are stored in close fitting, May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
waterproof containers for transportation to the laboratory. Samples noted on the excavation logs as SPT samples are obtained in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 1586.

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 in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 4959 or ASTM D 4643. This informati on 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 “Excavation Logs”, A - Plates. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight.

Direct Shear Testing

Shear tests are performed in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 3080 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.

The most recent revision of ASTM 3080 limits the particle size to 10 percent of the diameter of the direct shear test specimen. The sheared sample is inspected by the laboratory technician running the test. The inspection is performed by splitting the samp le along the sheared plane and May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
observing the soils exposed on both sides. Where oversize particles are observed in the shear plane, the results are discarded, and the test run again with a fresh sample.

Consolidation Testing

Settlement predictions of the soil's behavior under load are made on the basis of the consolidation tests in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 2435. The consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a single one -inch high ring. Lo ads 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 fl uid. 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 most recent revision of ASTM D 4829. 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. Results are presented in Plate D of this report.

May 8, 2024
Revised May 24, 2024
File No. 22486

Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837  Tel: 818.240.9600  Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics

The maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content of a soil are determined in general accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557. A soil at a selected moisture content is placed in five layers into a 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 suffi cient 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 an d modified maximum dry unit weight are determined from the compaction curve. Results are presented in Plate D of this report.

Grain Size Distribution

Sieve analysis, ASTM D6913, is used to determine the grain size distribution of the soil larger than the Number 200 sieve. The grain size distributions are plotted on the E -Plates presented in the Appendix of this report.

Atterberg Limits

Depending on their moisture content, cohesive soils can be solid, plastic, or liquid. The water contents corresponding to the transitions from solid to plastic or plastic to liquid are known as the Atterberg Limits. The transitions are called the plastic l imit and liquid limit. The difference between the liquid and plastic limits is known as the plasticity index. ASTM D 4318 is utilized to determine the Atterberg Limits. The results are shown on the enclosed F-Plate.

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

REFERENCES

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998 (Revised 2006), Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the Venice 7½-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California., C.D.M.G. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 036, map scale 1:24,000.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Venice 7½-minute Quadrangle.

California Division of Mines and Geology (1978), Fault Evaluation Report FER-71.

California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.

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.

Poland, J.F., Garell, A.A., AND Sinott, A., 1959, Geology, Hydrology, and Chemical Character of Groundwaters in the Torrance-Santa Monica area, California; U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1461.

SEAOC/OSHPD U.S. Seismic Design Maps tool.

Tinsley, J.C., and Fumal, T.E., 1985, Mapping Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Areal Variations in Shaking Response, in Evaluation Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, Ziony, J.I. ed., pp 101-125.

Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., Vedder, J.G., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California-An Introduction, U.S. Geological Professional Paper 420-A.

REFERENCE:

VICINITY MAP
FILE NO. 22486

VENICE, CA QUADRANGLE
U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES,
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

LINK LOGISTICS
N

SUBJECT SITE
w ~lon;:tane 1 .. ~U P , ~,..,.--;; Iii 1 ••1 ~ ~ . ~ ~~f.\a1'-\0n "'' . ~ I ~(Q f}, cJ l ,
1 ~
_ ..... 0 ~ ~ "" (9~- ~~o t _ __....-:::,,,r,~'\:
<ii "' ~ ~elm
rf2, ~veAi ••
'
lio/y C
~ z'js e
~ ~ ~
I ·,
~
t .. - --~• I
,:JtSlaus
...J.,'t
u'~ ~-9,
~
1e'i>\.-G
- ;,,; _ ... ~~1k 1.,
SCALE 1:12000e,,,_

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 .6
MILES
0 1000 2000 3000
FEET
LEGEND
B7

LOCATION & NUMBER OF BORING
B1
B2
B4
B5
B6
B7
B3
A
A'
File No.: 22486
Date: April 2024
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

PLOT PLAN

LINK LOGISTICS

A'A CROSS SECTION

SITE LIMITS
REFERENCE: SITE PLAN BY AC MARTIN
DATED APRIL 1, 2024
160800

SCALE IN FEET
I I
7 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WITH GROUND LEVEL RETAIL AND 1
LEVEL OF SUBTERANIAN PARKING.

RETAIL PA KING ENTRY ---- --/

RESI PPIKING ENTRY
l

RESI PARKING ENTRY
7 STORY RESIDENT! L
BUILDING WITH 1 LE L

OF SUBTERANIAN
PARKING.

A
AVE.
7 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WITH 1 LEVEL OF SUBTERANIAN
PARKING.
7 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WITH 1 LEVEL OF SUBTERANIAN
PARKING.
7 STORY

RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING WITH 1

LEVEL OF

SUBTERANIAN
PARKING.

UPLANDER PLAZA
ENTRY
!

ELANE /

CESS ROAD

RE PARKING
_ ENTRY
·;
I
I ~
I z
~
'<" 1../.;
Q
~
z
" Q
✓
B1
B2
B4
B5
B6 B7
B3
LEGEND
B7

LOCATION & NUMBER OF BORING
File No.: 22486
Date: April 2024
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

SURVEY PLAN

LINK LOGISTICS

A'A CROSS SECTION

SITE LIMITS
REFERENCE: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLIENT

NOT DATED
A
A'
160800

SCALE IN FEET
I

HANNUM AVENUE
• ' •'" ;,S '" "" ,,._ ~
' I~ j-J.~~~~~~.;.i-~ '~;;.~ ~ .p..= :;..~$F~•~ j~~;-=~i. : :)··:'. . j ... ~ -A -c-.'.'F -,,Gp 7.:: .. - .c_.,-"fy-· -C"S•--=~ -::r: - 1"'Y'~ . _ ::i:: .. .:-, ;~ \. \ ...... >-
1 I 11
1 'fi • •.:. ,,,., ~~~J'~~ffi'?,0; 0$$ii'ff,gJ;i'~i,?:J?W):1/$}'~ifi').1U'sf~ 1''" ''f ·' •'r;liZ1"'~""\, 1 \ ' ';:,'
.A i'" " •.
1 i~ . -•- r· c½ ' "" •• ---- ·'
1 • ---.....
'"'C, " •'""' i '""'" ____ --- - •" "' • ·- c+·•• -- --- - --- , 1, os• cc ~
I ,,. ' I . . --- --- ·y)i .. • ~ ' -- • - - - • ,I .... I I ' \t ~il'''' ll'J /%;; ,. ' c-- • ''" -- - """•' ,,.. - • • , /' ~" ' ' \\\ I t,, . I --;y •· ,,. e-- , , , p ,,., . ",J\ -· -,,.___ - - '' • - • ~ I ~ I ' -~- .i' r/:f ~r FI \j' - 1-1 ;:::;;;5 l'i r-"'" -~- " l _u• :"",~"' \ I \ , N I I I \ - - _, - ' 'Cf{; ._ ' P J ' - - ,- - - -- ' I !:: : I ,i,I • \ ; ; ,.J· - - •:• •~ v• :. +- • j__--- "'·"• -\ ,<rc1\- -±--""\:''/' " : I 1 ;-1·1 §'S,c;•c'"'"'' ., ,•r« I iiJ "· "''", _ •• -'L " · - - \ ,, 'i'i " ' /I . I ., ... " . ;;;/ ' " '" ,._ •-' • •"i •' ,,.. •• \ 111 ~ ' " ' I i: I I I l < C::-~'~,· ;~ ;.,; .,_,7 ~ ,;;~ ?if;}: :J:1$:{;~/4':f:i!};:{f,!,:;0£1{1 _,, " ~i ir:,, ' '" -~ ~ / "'' ;\, i' ,, •• • •1' I \'\ I ) :1 ~ --f ,,,·. l,c,~ ·r - •~.J!'' Ol~ _.2.... 1_1;~>//1/:;; /«;j : ,:··1, ;- ,~", , _ 1," ' ;cc' ''i I : '"t:· Ni 1///', ~ T__w~-~ --- l ..,.= ± ,'f --- : · t c----- "' '''' ' ' 0 1/ 1 'r•·, -· '-• . ,- ' •"// 1/// ',,-,' •,, •, ,V._-, • , "/ "'"' ' '~ ••'• - -- • -- -- " I I 1,·, ; L... /~ ,_ . -[ - "' _'.- - , ·"o/d 1/;:f 1 , I , , , '. .• ' ,, , ~. , 1- 1 ' \'.;~ I I E gp-. -'.;'/4/. I 1--- , - -- ;\-• ·r , 1 I r "'· '· · ,j •... -- __ J ,o3½ % - •,- "' 1// " '' l; : - --" ·- d .. --1/J ,.. . t " : :-y-2 ,,,_?, r ' ·tjji 011 ,,, " •. •§} "t' • i \' •• ,. :: ·, -- - -, f i~--"- -----= - : g: , i 'f , I --- --- c
1 ~•;·
1 ,~ 30 1i';' , ~ c' ::-~ \ 1/ / \ ,,. t'J~~ ':_2c.,·, .-~,c0 - - " \ I I er : , . ~ 11,; · 1· . r _, - __ , L :i;,;:;:;,f% 4%t"df; ' ~. ., ' - ~"%'<,:%"<:iii i_ J --- r· __ , .,,.- -,, ----------+--------'"-'-':;f~ m r· FI . \',;; ~ --- :.~. ,, ',,~ ,,"-,';-cC::'-';' .:,, ~f · .. ' ' :·. ,_, • .;---: " ;cec -'c: . ,_ /~ k+: ' -- ·:· - I, /! ' , .. , ,,J ;;,.!,) 'i- ""'" , .•,' '• ,, , : ',, .', i ', I ,• ,., ,. '• 'I I•, c, , ';} ;i•" "" ) ' ••• .~:"" f i;;", . ]c/'>1c i··>- ;,~·~ ··;-- ,r -• t
1 ~c --, --- ~ --- ~ ~•-,, ~~ •: t· -·:1}~ !·
-. • .,, . ¥ -fn"'•I I , .. ~, I" 1" ·- -. ~ •': :, I L,,. i ., ,. " i·•'; -- "·'', lJ1', [i. '''; "" \ ..rw· ·,_. ,~_,,1 : •'' : ,_- "(: I ;,: 11~-J ,+t,_: _ __;___ ,,,,,,,. ,r. -~i; l1w-i L;.:'S.lJf ~ '.;.,~ -- -'_!,;;;{"$\:;;':~· 2:~1;: ;~~11~f ~ "~.~r~c=+!, ~~~-.ic1t;':~"~i1f ,;i.tif ~~f ~~:-~,-~:" ',,1/···. l :,,,,\, /1," ... "" " "" • "1 ', , • w ' I", ' ' • ' ~ - .... , J • ' ._ ._ ,,s , ' ,,, • ' ._ • ,,, •..ti. ' •"" ... / ·' ,1 r,,,~ . , "' l"S ' , .. - ,_ .,.,, :' ,,, '• • >" • ,,, '' • ' '" ""• ,,, ,} •' • ,.,, , ._' ,., • ._._'' ,,; / 'ill' •,,., • I . • - rn " '';" , , , , . , • , ' • • , , • 4' ,v,,_,,,, •! 11 ·~
"'
/~~-'
I
I
I
IN-'" p " ._. --~ - - - & '7"'.
'·:, ·, '-"':'.- , . -~,- , ·, " .,, ct .. -"'6" ~---·, ,; ,... "· i'-'1 1---1 ,;: : •1,1 •• ,.;t~{~'-!~1/ J '" I'
1 TI ""· Y.• -'•V.w ,A -l"'" [ • • 1 /L I" , l ' • ,, 7 : ' • • , • '·3JL'' ~~: ; ,,A( :', '.... u
1 ipf?"{ 8f:%~/;¾'.t/7drf-"'/,.f;%;?"#1'~ ~4%8iWf,J;l .. i' '~'"",, JI ,, '~ -' ... ., ' "' "" ' -- - " • :s; r-. "r,,1n,::.:ri ''" ' ~-- --- .,',',//• r ,._ 1:
11 'u 1\;0 T_ ,_ L'.:, I I ~ ;'i~
11 •'" , , , ,,, / ; :, w~
II ', (;/; i' l, T \jQ 2~ - /%J// >, 1 '1// I e n L
-, ' • C/ " ""' ; / ,_ " • J;/ I
"'""' • ,. J✓ 0r - • - • , r. ' ·-· '" ' p;;, w,-- "" i · ,.. •• • ,.., \:IJ .L, :-,nu \~..:"(//f&: 1:fff//:/..f//%(!i(;:JP$%~..%//£f://i!f:/ :r.Wl· ,, , I ,., ~ \• • "' ' - • ,,'(};½i/t, ;;;:{{:// ~:di:J:;;f i'kL'P'< /.i{f,ii";½ - -"' c--·• 3/ • , "l' : ,i ,..,:';"' I . --• " ;,c-1;:;, ~ ·- - ~-;, : _ - ,;,__ ~ . ;;.:;, ;;:.;,,-.--- -f :f ' / • " ' ,./ •I f'\'·" " ' , _,_ ' "-' -.. " .-•~ "· .. V-'.. '"""' , ' - ~' I ~~~ !J.. " " " " 1! ~?.-- __ .. •" __ · '1 • • -=. ~- _;:_" ---· ···_: f < .. -.. , .. - -• .. "/ / / ,;; .::, L13L-CU5-":.:2j✓ 1~':1,
1 ,r , 1 ,c"' ?'' : , 1,/l\ 1 ,,_£_J,~ :;:,1•/ ,
1 °
1 ~',
0 ,:i!~-- a./ f ', c/ '
1 11
I ,•., •' o c: I I ~ :~i'\ : 1';~ :,\;1 ' '1
1 ,) , 1 r' \ ">7 t
- -------.------ t5-- ~ -.----.=- -_-----• . -... - • .. __ _ ', , -.. ::· ', · .-- 1 :' ' '" . , , , __ : _,; ,,.' :c f ·• r1'-- f;r /;,
{'~ I-,-- , 7 j _l 1":). : I I- I ?+ 1 I ti- 1 - ~I 1: - \ --;- , ' ' ' ' ( ', ' 1->' \ ,.,.

I
I . ;• ' ._ ' •-•e•· <c , ._ ._ • C • •-;• ._ ,, ' ._ ' ; "' ,. ' ._ ' '/ " . ' ' .... " ' . ' ' ,... --- . ' •• ·' " ' '. ·\ ... _., __ ~ : . . ,• ,, .. ' . ' : . ' ',", ' ' ,, _, ' ' ' ,_, " " : ' ' ' • ., - ·'\ f ., :f/ cLt L~1 -_ 1. 'i ---·--.Lt,- ,,-t -.f.J; _. 1 /' °' JI_.,,. --- ~ .. , R ,·"~•w;M " .. ,~) ·,""~ I - -;,,,>;,;; J,,,~.!(' ·1 ' :'• ', : :, ', , 0~* ,; ~ • ~1· 1, i :~' / r ~ ~ :=;;i':-; 1 I-- : -:-/- I~( _/" ~---1-ff ,//:i;, ,-c;.e· • , -.,•./ --- -9 '· "" ,: ' .'c 1 ~ --. ,: ----
'" · --- -. ''°' "" W /o, "' '"d ,-- - \ ,- -F --- '--77 , fl, I,, ,, --- :' __ "- ,c' f;..;.;,;/ % :-1- ' -.// ----;[Q_-i,,y;_ ? -'- _"" / ',"· r ,'fi- -+--=:::l=::
---- I'' , ' /½ ///, ,--- I ,:1/-- --- , ;;:_;,;:;;$/7//. ///{:.;;?? ~ ,.. ,r-; ___J___ -"'" .' -- ' •,I - -- - .. ,;1v /'' . .,,. I I ·- " '"""' ""'/ w,;,,%/, ,~;f X k 0€ ,., ~ t ::r~ ~ I
,, , --1 1: --- ~ ,-. ✓/ ;1,, ... ,., r-:" ._.,,:e; , , '"'0: ' n ' , ,- . /• .... : ' -/ ',I-' ~-· .,. "" W· ·re . ,-- ''.•"' • l's'"+' • 1/" /., : • • ' ,rr,'---'-- ~ ~ _..,_.. . . ' . - w," w • . ' " • ·• - .,. '', ;,; " '. " .. -1·1 :::;. ~, '" 1 I\ ,, "Ir .-._; ,;;;; 1-1 ~ • : :•, , - • 0 r»· //-~ ., •• • :,· -',;:;cl- f- - 1, ,- --it'.'-r ~~,/ 0 :> 1, ', , i t,--- '-'~ -' ;.;:??:;/ /., ::, ~) i I / ' ,-' --'---' ''" 1 ---- 11 , • 1~ I ////; '"' )7', I 11" ' -T - - :~// /~ 1 I . \ 1' - ' '., ~- - 1_ ' :.,; ;/ j// \ I • } r> - I /, ~ " f I ,;\,,t" ,, .--, 1 u"~: ///1\"C'>, £1' I - - ,,c_J(' ;% 0½''' n' "' I 1 --..,
11 1 -- - ' ~ ' ~// // -:: " ;;1/,f --- 1 I : '1 i1 --- ' -+i ;";;, 1/~//•-t1"' 11 ~ ", :J J \
' ' I _, -.~ --, I· /// u c,' /, I I I I ' / ' ', ;- '/~; '. / 11' J. I --- :, ·--:, ___ , ' ;:::::: '-2 1/,-1 : ' : :,:?,: ;:2/•' i::;;; /7 '" ,u ~,,, "'1 ' .. ul ,1 -,\'., ~-1 --.:- ,, "' / .~»?/ ~ , I •, • , .,, • ,., • :,; -, :, //41 ' • • ---1 ' ,- " "'1 • l}'/4; %, • ' - " - I[/ (@ - ._ I, •" -, · -· I' ,,: , · t 1/j ,,~;~ , ' ', • -_,,~ -1 9 :: • ,,;;j ,--~ ~ -'-"''" I \:
1 i.\ :; :~;~ d1 1. ·:~, t "'\* : l:
1 f 1 j;~
I"\: I I ;,~ ,:;;; ~ "' ' \ \ ;. j:.b ,.,~ *-i; ~ 1'1 1 1 ",· 7 \ // '1' ' .. :. ' ::~ //?:j ( '1 I ,--- I 1, c,1/; W ;J I: I I I ,-;c- I -·-- 1~ / ;//1 1 \y --- ' 1//" ;1//) \ ' li I """1->n'-- •• . . ' • /;;; ;J - '• -,:.. >/'<:ff ')?>)---·•,''•• I \
,_ .,.., ,--- -fi, .:f;, / // '--' ' : • :·--- • " 0 ' i0 {dfi !• ,,, \1 ,,,,t ~ : ' - ti 1 :- :" w, " " ·, ,.,, @W"" ;i, ~ tl , ' ' ' - ---L--":'"';' -.cc .. ••- 1• - •-- . I',,:% )'/ -"' , -- ,C-' • ~d• cc /:i ,ch l "i I' .,,,.,,,•,"·1---- ·"' , - . -::a ::~•' - - -- ,.--- .,.,, -0 :~r' 1 , 1• ,·, ,1,::1
<'" I· _ _. ,f-' • - • l " %' ,/, -- : '- - -'lh1 s '" ; ,., • I 1 'o...✓;.c C<-- '""' /:% ;%:; ,--- 1,~ _ i;-• ~ :%/ % ,; , I ijl c 1 ~ \
1 ~ ,-•:1tJm.P$f~%';1/;3/-' ;--, C •:,\, ' 11 _:...::; ½i',~,"1 ?$..::-/~:f"'..-j@;,~)~ '.'.- ',a( 1 4"
/' . ,. · ,_,. ... , ·, , . - 1,-,r<+. ,---,,,.•· _ ,. '. _, -'\ -= , ,, I --:; ""'.'.',.'' ., "'' ~,:: •• , /c ,--1 ,.,/'G ' ~- ',--P"' i<l»- ~ • o> "" - ~ ' ' ,-.,"'•'i' l -~ -s % ' \ .. ,. - - ,_ . ' - -- .- .... "" - - - " " - ~ "" -- .. •' ~ / / ◊ " ~ ... --- ......,;;,,.; - - ~ ! ' ' - ,,, ' -- ... ·-;.,. - ,., ' "' --"" ;/ - ·"""" '' ' , -;"·---~~ , ... ,- - ~,c~J'";";,:..-£P-:,:--,:- . -1~ -~:-" ....._ ~.".:C',~2e' , .. ;, , ., " : -- • & • : - I ' • •I \ •, : ', : I I ' : " £ ,. -- • , __ ,_ •;
-- •• .. -- -,· • c,·,- , ,,,----- ., , • --,: - t , -- -), ~-~'{ ~,t11 ;,•.~,.~.;. '"" ~tl :,·· •• 1~_:. E) ";~ ,,, .. , . ,. - "'' ., B
I C
,r - 1R I r
4 _4 - :)~'-:i- =L=
suMNERWAY
11 ,1 ~
A

ELEVATION IN FEET
A
120
130
140
100
110
70 80
90 150
160
50 60
40 170
180
190
200
A'
120
130
140
100
110
70 80
90 150
160
50 60
40 170
180
190
200
30 20
30 20
(Projected)
BORING 1 (Projected)
BORING 3
(Projected)
BORING 5
(Projected)
BORING 7
P.L. P.L.

FILL FILL
EXIST. G.S. FILL
EXIST. G.S.

FILL
EXIST. G.S.

HANNUM AVE.

SUMNER WAY

NATIVE SOILS

NATIVE SOILS

NATIVE SOILS

NATIVE SOILS
ESTIMATED SUBTERRANEAN F.F.E. ESTIMATED SUBTERRANEAN F.F.E. ESTIMATED SUBTERRANEAN F.F.E.

PROPOSED 7-STORY MIXED-USE STRUCTURE OVER ONE SUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL PROPOSED 7-STORY MIXED-USE STRUCTURE OVER ONE SUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL PROPOSED 7-STORY MIXED-USE STRUCTURE OVER ONE SUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL NORTH
File No.: 22486
Date: April 2024
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

CROSS SECTION A-A'

LINK LOGISTICS
REFERENCE: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLIENT

NOT DATED
EXIST. G.S.
? ?
?
?
?
?
160800

SCALE IN FEET
- -[
I I
I
!
I
I I
! ~
·------------------------------------------------------ -------:! I : r 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I 17 :
! L,-J,, ! I I
I I
! ! ! !
! □Ii ! I I
A
Geotechnologies, Inc.

LOCAL GEOLOGIC MAP
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO. 22486

LINK LOGISTICS
LEGEND
NTerrace Cover - Reddish Brown Sand.

San Pedro Formation - Sand, gravel, silt and clay.Qsp:

Qpu:

REFERENCE: POLAND, J.F., ET AL, (1959) WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1461 PLATE 2 Trace of Fault - Dashed where interferred, dotted where concealed by deposits of rescent age.

OVERLAN
D AVEN
UE FAU
LT

SCALE IN MILES
0 1

SUBJECT SITE
--···
File No.: 22486
Date: May 2024
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

LINK LOGISTICS
NAVIGATE L.A. MAP
REFERENCES: http://navigatela.lacity.org/

SUBJECT SITE
160800

SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Geological Faults
Sewer Pipes
~ Sewer Easements
i
Fault Zone Name: Overland Avenue fault
Fault Ag e: LTQT
""'..,._...,. Geolog ic Slip Rate:

Data Source: State of Californ ia,
Departm ent of ConseJVation, Californ ia
Geolog ical Survey

HISTORICALLY HIGHEST GROUNDWATER LEVELS
CDMG, SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE REPORT, 036REFERENCE:

VENICE 7.5 - MINUTE QUADRANGLE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (1998, REVISED 2006) DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER IN FEET40
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

SUBJECT SITE
N
FILE NO. 22486

LINK LOGISTICS

ONE MILE
SCALE
r-...../

EARTHQUAKE ZONES OF REQUIRED INVESTIGATION MAP
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES, VENICE QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP (CDMG, 1998) REFERENCE:

LIQUEFACTION AREA
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

SUBJECT SITE
N
FILE NO. 22486

LINK LOGISTICS
5 0 1MILE
==============================================I
1000.EC::::ECEc'r:=== 1~000~===""1000~===3000E==='= -I0003:==::::::::soooE===~60003::===1000~ FEET s 0 1 KILOMETER
Link Logistics Date: 03/05/24 Elevation: 104.6'* Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger
kk *REFERENCE: Topographic Survey provided by Client, not dated Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 3" Asphalt over 5" Base
-
1 --
- FILL: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained 2 --

2.5 71 19.7 114.0 - SC NATIVE SOILS: Clayey Sand, dark and grayish brown, moist, 3 -- dense, fine grained
-
4 --
-
5 90 4.3 112.2 5 --
- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine 6 -- grained
-
7 --

7.5 90 1.5 102.7 -
8 -- SP Sand, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine grained -
9 --
-
10 85 1.8 103.4 10 --
- light brown
11 --
-
12 --
-
13 --
-
14 --
-
15 89 2.1 103.6 15 --
- yellowish brown
16 --
-
17 --
-
18 --
-
19 --
-
20 45 7.7 88.4 20 --
50/5" - yellowish and dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained 21 --
-
22 --
-
23 --
-
24 --
-
25 44 5.2 106.4 25 --
50/4" - slightly moist, fine grained
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1a
BORING LOG NUMBER 1
File No. 22486
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
--- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --
-
28 --
-
29 --
-
30 40 4.8 96.3 30 --
50/4" - light brown
31 --
-
32 --
-
33 --
-
34 --
-
35 46 4.0 100.6 35 --
50/5" - yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium grained
36 --
-
37 --
-
38 --
-
39 -- slightly moist
-
40 46 3.4 101.1 40 --
50/3" - Total Depth 40 feet
41 -- No Water
- Fill to 3 feet
42 --
-
43 --
-
44 --
- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate 45 -- boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. -
46 -- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
47 -- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted -
48 --
-
49 --
-
50 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1b
BORING LOG NUMBER 1
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
--- --- -- -- -- - - -- -- - - -
Link Logistics Date: 03/05/24 Elevation: 110.2'* Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger
kk *REFERENCE: Topographic Survey provided by Client, not dated Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 3" Asphalt over 5" Base
-
1 --
- FILL: Silty Sand to Sandy Silt, dark brown, moist, medium dense, 2 -- stiff, fine grained

2.5 63 11.1 120.7 -
3 --
- SM NATIVE SOILS: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, dense, fine 4 -- grained
-
5 37 12.9 SPT 5 --
- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, reddish and grayish brown, moist, medium 6 -- dense, fine grained
-
7 --

7.5 62 25.4 99.4 -
50/5" 8 -- CL Sandy Clay, grayish brown, moist, very stiff -
9 --
-
10 55 26.0 SPT 10 --
- dark and grayish brown
11 --
-
12 --

12.5 23 29.0 90.1 -
50/5" 13 --
-
14 --
-
15 90 4.6 SPT 15 --
- SM Silty Sand, reddish brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine 16 -- grained
-
17 --

17.5 82 3.3 109.3 -
18 -- orange brown
-
19 --
-
20 77 3.4 SPT 20 --
-
21 --
-
22 --

22.5 42 3.8 106.1 -
50/4" 23 -- dark and yellowish brown, moist
-
24 --
-
25 72 5.9 SPT 25 --
- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, orange brown, moist, very dense, fine grained GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-2a
BORING LOG NUMBER 2
File No. 22486
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --

27.5 100/7" 7.9 102.5 -
28 --
-
29 --
-
30 72 9.1 SPT 30 --
- SP Sand, light brown, moist, very dense, fine grained 31 --
-
32 --

32.5 100/6" 6.5 103.1 -
33 -- yellowish brown
-
34 --
-
35 72 4.8 SPT 35 --
- light brown
36 --
-
37 --

37.5 100/7" 3.0 103.6 -
38 --
-
39 --
-
40 50/4" 3.3 SPT 40 --
- fine to medium grained
41 --
-
42 --

42.5 100/7" 5.3 95.5 -
43 -- yellowish brown, fine grained
-
44 --
-
45 75 7.8 SPT 45 --
-
46 --
-
47 --

47.5 100/7" 6.3 102.5 -
48 -- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, - fine grained
49 --
-
50 65 5.9 SPT 50 --
50/5" - SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine grained
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-2b
BORING LOG NUMBER 2
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
51 --
-
52 --

52.5 100/7" 7.9 107.3 -
53 -- light brown
-
54 --
-
55 30 7.5 SPT 55 --
50/5" - yellowish brown
56 --
-
57 --

57.5 100/7" 2.9 103.5 -
58 --
-
59 --
-
60 50/5" 3.9 SPT 60 --
-
61 --
-
62 --

62.5 100/7" 5.6 102.2 -
63 --
-
64 --
-
65 50/6" 3.7 SPT 65 --
-
66 --
-
67 --

67.5 100/7" 4.7 103.1 -
68 -- fine to coarse grained
-
69 --
-
70 47 4.0 SPT 70 --
50/5" -
71 --
-
72 --

72.5 100/7" 4.1 110.6 -
73 --
-
74 --
-
75 50/5" 4.0 SPT 75 --
- light brown, fine grained
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-2c
BORING LOG NUMBER 2
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
76 --
-
77 --

77.5 100/7" 6.1 102.4 -
78 -- orange brown, fine to medium grained
-
79 --
- light brown, fine grained
80 32 3.9 SPT 80 --
50/5" - Total Depth 80 feet
81 -- No Water
- Fill to 3 feet
82 --
-
83 --
-
84 --
-
85 --
-
86 --
-
87 --
-
88 -- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate - boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. 89 --
- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
90 -- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted 91 --
- SPT=Standard Penetration Test
92 --
-
93 --
-
94 --
-
95 --
-
96 --
-
97 --
-
98 --
-
99 --
-
100 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-2d
BORING LOG NUMBER 2
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
/
/
.--------------
Link Logistics Date: 03/05/24 Elevation: 106.0'* Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger
kk *REFERENCE: Topographic Survey provided by Client, not dated Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 3" Asphalt over 6" Base
-
1 --
- FILL: Sandy Clay, dark brown, moist, stiff
2 --

2.5 25 15.5 115.8 -
3 -- dark and medium brown
-
4 --
-
5 26 18.8 107.0 5 --
- CL NATIVE SOILS: Sandy Clay, dark brown, moist, stiff 6 --
-
7 --

7.5 34 15.1 118.3 -
8 -- SC Clayey Sand, dark and medium brown, moist, medium dense, - stiff, fine grained
9 --
-
10 41 13.7 115.9 10 --
- SC/SP Clayey Sand to Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine 11 -- grained
-
12 --
-
13 --
-
14 --
-
15 80 4.3 107.8 15 --
- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained 16 --
-
17 --
-
18 --
-
19 --
-
20 40 5.2 107.5 20 --
50/3" -
21 --
-
22 --
-
23 --
-
24 --
-
25 79 28.3 99.0 25 --
- CL Sandy Clay, dark and grayish brown, moist, very stiff GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-3a
BORING LOG NUMBER 3
File No. 22486
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --
-
28 --
-
29 --
-
30 45 8.0 115.1 30 --
50/2" - ML Sandy to Clayey Silt, dark and grayish brown, moist, very stiff 31 -- very stiff
-
32 --
-
33 --
-
34 --
-
35 46 4.5 94.8 35 --
50/2" - SP/SM Sand to Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, very dense, fine grained 36 --
-
37 --
-
38 --
-
39 --
- yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine to medium grained 40 45 3.9 102.4 40 --
50/3" - Total Depth 40 feet
41 -- No Water
- Fill to 5 feet
42 --
-
43 --
-
44 -- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate - boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. 45 --
- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
46 -- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted 47 --
-
48 --
-
49 --
-
50 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-3b
BORING LOG NUMBER 3
------ -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics Date: 03/07/24 Elevation: 115.5'* Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger
kk *REFERENCE: Topographic Survey provided by Client, not dated Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 4" Asphalt over 5" Base
-
1 --
- FILL: Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained 2 --

2.5 66 8.9 115.4 -
3 --
- SM/SP NATIVE SOILS: Silty Sand to Sand, dark brown, moist, dense, 4 -- fine grained
-
5 66 10.4 116.0 5 --
-
6 --
-
7 --
-
8 --
-
9 --
-
10 72 6.0 106.2 10 --
- SP/SM Sand to Silty Sand, medium brown, moist, very dense, fine 11 -- grained
-
12 --
-
13 --
-
14 --
-
15 69 14.8 116.7 15 --
- CL Sandy Clay, dark and grayish brown, moist, very stiff 16 --
-
17 --
-
18 --
-
19 --
-
20 34 6.3 109.7 20 --
50/5" - SP/SM Sand to Silty Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, 21 -- fine grained
-
22 --
-
23 --
-
24 --
-
25 37 3.8 103.3 25 --
50/4" - SP Sand, yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-4a
BORING LOG NUMBER 4
File No. 22486
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --
-
28 --
-
29 --
-
30 29 4.1 101.5 30 --
50/5" - light brown
31 --
-
32 --
-
33 --
-
34 --
-
35 28 4.0 108.1 35 --
50/4" - orange brown, coarse grained
36 --
-
37 --
-
38 --
-
39 --
-
40 29 3.7 100.5 40 --
50/3" - Total Depth 40 feet
41 -- No Water
- Fill to 5 feet
42 --
-
43 --
-
44 -- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate - boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. 45 --
- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
46 -- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted 47 --
-
48 --
-
49 --
-
50 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-4b
BORING LOG NUMBER 4
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics Date: 03/06/24 Elevation: 114.1'* Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger
kk *REFERENCE: Topographic Survey provided by Client, not dated Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 3" Asphalt over 5" Base
-
1 -- FILL: Sandy Clay, dark brown, moist to very moist, stiff -
2 --

2.5 12 16.7 112.4 -
3 --
- CL NATIVE SOILS: Sandy Clay, dark brown, very moist, stiff 4 --
-
5 9 20.5 SPT 5 --
- moist
6 --
-
7 --

7.5 21 10.4 110.8 -
8 -- ML/SM Sandy Silt to Silty Sand, yellow and grayish brown, moist, - medium dense, stiff, fine grained
9 --
-
10 29 17.9 SPT 10 --
-
11 --
-
12 --

12.5 61 20.7 107.5 - ML/SC Sandy Silt to Clayey Sand, moist, dense, very stiff, fine grained 13 --
-
14 --
-
15 72 7.2 SPT 15 --
- SP Sand, yellow and grayish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained 16 --
-
17 --

17.5 90 3.5 101.1 -
18 -- yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense
-
19 --
-
20 40 5.8 SPT 20 --
- dense
21 --
-
22 --

22.5 22 5.3 103.4 -
50/5" 23 --
-
24 --
-
25 48 7.7 SPT 25 --
- orange brown, fine to coarse grained
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-5a
BORING LOG NUMBER 5
File No. 22486
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --

27.5 45 3.9 107.8 -
50/4" 28 -- light brown
-
29 --
-
30 32 26.3 SPT 30 --
- SM/ML Silty Sand to Sandy Silt, grayish brown, moist, medium dense, 31 -- stiff, fine grained
-
32 --

32.5 46 10.5 120.5 -
50/4" 33 -- very dense
-
34 --
-
35 32 9.3 SPT 35 --
- SM Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained 36 --
-
37 --

37.5 40 5.2 104.1 -
50/3" 38 -- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained -
39 --
-
40 43 5.4 SPT 40 --
- dense
41 --
-
42 --

42.5 40 4.5 105.7 -
50/4" 43 -- yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine grained -
44 --
-
45 80 7.8 SPT 45 --
-
46 --
-
47 --

47.5 45 5.4 107.3 -
50/4" 48 -- fine to medium grained
-
49 --
-
50 38 5.7 SPT 50 --
- orange brown
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-5b
BORING LOG NUMBER 5
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
51 --
-
52 --

52.5 46 5.1 104.3 -
50/4" 53 -- light brown, fine grained
-
54 --
-
55 49 6.0 SPT 55 --
- yellowish brown
56 --
-
57 --

57.5 48 8.3 95.5 -
50/2" 58 --
-
59 --
-
60 38 8.1 SPT 60 --
50/5" -
61 --
-
62 --

62.5 100/8" 10.6 95.8 -
63 --
-
64 --
-
65 40 5.2 SPT 65 --
50/5" -
66 --
-
67 --

67.5 100/8" 7.6 105.9 -
68 --
-
69 --
-
70 38 3.7 SPT 70 --
50/4" -
71 --
-
72 --

72.5 100/8" 3.6 103.3 -
73 -- fine to coarse grained
-
74 --
-
75 68 27.4 SPT 75 --
- CL Sandy Clay, grayish brown, moist, very stiff
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-5c
BORING LOG NUMBER 5
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
76 --
-
77 --

77.5 100/8" 4.5 109.9 -
78 --
-
79 --
- SP Sand, yellowish brown, moist, very dense, coarse grained 80 38 3.5 SPT 80 --
50/5" - Total Depth 80 feet
81 -- No Water
- Fill to 5 feet
82 --
-
83 --
-
84 --
-
85 --
-
86 -- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate - boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. 87 --
- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
88 -- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted 89 --
- SPT=Standard Penetration Test
90 --
-
91 --
-
92 --
-
93 --
-
94 --
-
95 --
-
96 --
-
97 --
-
98 --
-
99 --
-
100 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-5d
BORING LOG NUMBER 5
/
Link Logistics Date: 03/08/24 Elevation: 110.7'* Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger
kk *REFERENCE: Topographic Survey provided by Client, not dated Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 4" Asphalt over 4" Base
-
1 --
- FILL: Silty Clay, dark brown, moist, stiff
2 --

2.5 14 13.7 117.1 -
3 --
- SM/ML NATIVE SOILS: Silty Sand to Clayey Silt, dark and grayish 4 -- brown, moist, medium dense, stiff, fine grained
-
5 9 24.8 SPT 5 --
-
6 --
-
7 --

7.5 81 14.6 116.3 -
8 -- SM Silty Sand, dark brown, moist, very dense, fine grained -
9 --
-
10 33 18.9 SPT 10 --
- SM/ML Silty Sand to Sandy Silt, dark and grayish brown, moist, medium 11 -- dense, stiff, fine grained
-
12 --

12.5 72 27.7 97.3 -
13 -- very dense, very stiff
-
14 --
-
15 22 23.1 SPT 15 --
- SM/ML Silty Sand to Sandy Silt, grayish brown, moist, medium dense, 16 -- stiff, fine grained, stiff
-
17 --

17.5 30 34.3 84.0 -
18 -- CL Sandy Clay, grayish brown, moist, stiff
-
19 --
-
20 11 22.8 SPT 20 --
- SC Clayey Sand gray and dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine 21 -- grained
-
22 --

22.5 49 4.2 109.6 -
23 -- SP Sand, yellow and light brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained -
24 --
-
25 30 6.0 SPT 25 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-6a
BORING LOG NUMBER 6
File No. 22486
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --

27.5 58 4.2 118.3 -
50/4" 28 -- very dense
-
29 --
-
30 60 3.8 SPT 30 --
50/4" - slightly moist
31 --
-
32 --

32.5 33 4.4 103.8 -
50/3" 33 --
-
34 --
-
35 50 5.3 SPT 35 --
-
36 --
-
37 --

37.5 32 3.3 101.6 -
50/4" 38 --
-
39 --
-
40 30 40 --
50/3" -
41 --
-
42 --

42.5 45 38.2 82.2 -
43 -- CL Sandy Clay, dark and grayish brown, moist, stiff -
44 --
-
45 35 21.1 SPT 45 --
-
46 --
-
47 --

47.5 46 40.9 81.0 -
48 --
-
49 --
-
50 32 40.4 SPT 50 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-6b
BORING LOG NUMBER 6
No Recovery
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
51 --
-
52 --

52.5 39 30.2 94.3 -
53 --
-
54 --
-
55 19 37.8 SPT 55 --
- gray
56 --
-
57 --

57.5 74 32.2 92.4 -
50/3" 58 -- dark and grayish brown, very stiff
-
59 --
-
60 48 5.9 SPT 60 --
- SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and grayish brown, moist, dense, fine 61 -- grained
-
62 --

62.5 32 5.6 99.5 -
50/4" 63 -- SP Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained -
64 --
-
65 65 5.8 SPT 65 --
-
66 --
-
67 --

67.5 45 5.6 99.0 -
50/3" 68 --
-
69 --
-
70 21 5.4 SPT 70 --
50/4" -
71 --
-
72 --

72.5 31 7.5 102.4 -
50/3" 73 --
-
74 --
-
75 22 5.2 SPT 75 --
50/5" -
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-6c
BORING LOG NUMBER 6
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
76 --
-
77 --

77.5 33 3.0 110.1 -
50/5" 78 -- yellow and light brown, fine to coarse grained -
79 --
-
80 41 3.4 SPT 80 --
- Total Depth 80 feet
81 -- No Water
- Fill to 3 feet
82 --
-
83 --
-
84 --
-
85 --
-
86 -- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate - boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. 87 --
- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
88 -- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted 89 --
- SPT=Standard Penetration Test
90 --
-
91 --
-
92 --
-
93 --
-
94 --
-
95 --
-
96 --
-
97 --
-
98 --
-
99 --
-
100 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-6d
BORING LOG NUMBER 6
- - -- - - - - - - - - -
Link Logistics Date: 03/07/24 Elevation: 113.5'* Method: 8-inch diameter Hollow Stem Auger
kk *REFERENCE: Topographic Survey provided by Client, not dated Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt for Parking 0 -- 4" Asphalt over 4" Base
-
1 -- FILL: Sandy Silt to Silty Clay, dark brown, moist, stiff -
2 --

2.5 46 15.8 120.8 -
3 --
- CL NATIVE SOILS: Silty Clay, dark brown, moist, stiff 4 --
-
5 26 20.4 102.8 5 --
- SM Silty Sand, dark and yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, 6 -- fine grained
-
7 --
-
8 --
-
9 --
-
10 62 13.7 106.7 10 --
50/4" - yellow and grayish brown, moist, very dense, fine grained 11 --
-
12 --
-
13 --
-
14 --
-
15 42 7.2 100.9 15 --
50/5" - SM/SP Silty Sand to Sand, dark and grayish brown, moist, very dense, 16 -- fine grained
-
17 --
-
18 --
-
19 --
-
20 31 9.6 112.9 20 --
50/4" - yellowish brown
21 --
-
22 --
-
23 --
-
24 --
-
25 32 3.7 102.8 25 --
50/5" - SP Sand, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine grained GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-7a
BORING LOG NUMBER 7
File No. 22486
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Link Logistics
File No. 22486
kk
Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS Description Depth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.
-
26 --
-
27 --
-
28 --
-
29 --
-
30 26 2.3 101.4 30 --
50/3" -
31 --
-
32 --
-
33 --
-
34 --
-
35 41 2.5 115.4 35 --
50/2" - SP/SW Sand to Gravelly Sand, yellowish brown, moist, very dense, fine 36 -- to coarse grained, gravel
-
37 --
-
38 --
-
39 --
- ML Sandy Silt, dark and grayish brown, moist, stiff
40 48 31.0 90.4 40 --
- Total Depth 40 feet
41 -- No Water
- Fill to 3 feet
42 --
-
43 --
-
44 -- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate - boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual. 45 --
- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
46 -- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop
- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted 47 --
-
48 --
-
49 --
-
50 --
-
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-7b
BORING LOG NUMBER 7
---

SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DRY

DENSITY (PCF)

INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
B1 @ 2.5' SM 114.0 19.7 24.3
B7 @ 5' SM 102.8 20.4 23.2
B3 @ 7.5' SM/CL 118.3 15.1 18.7
B5 @ 7.5' ML/SM 110.8 10.4 20.1
B1 @ 10' SP 103.4 1.8 18.6
B4 @ 10' SP 106.2 6.0 19.2
B2 @ 12.5' ML 90.1 29.0 38.8
B6 @ 12.5' SM/ML 97.3 27.7 25.8
B3 @ 15' SP 107.8 4.3 16.6
B7 @ 15' SM/SP 100.9 7.2 19.1
PHI = 28 DEGREES
C = 255 PSF

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Shear Strength (KSF)
Normal Pressure (KSF)Direct Shear, Saturated
B1 @ 2.5'
B1 @ 2.5'
B1 @ 2.5'
B7 @ 5'
B7 @ 5'
B7 @ 5'
B3 @ 7.5'
B3 @ 7.5'
B5 @ 15', B1 @ 10', B5 @ 7.5'
B5 @ 7.5'
B5 @ 7.5'
B1 @ 10'
B1 @ 10'
B4 @ 10'
B4 @ 10'
B4 @ 10'
B2 @ 12.5'
B2 @ 12.5'
B6 @ 12.5'
B6 @ 12.5'
B6 @ 12.5'
B3 @ 15'
B3 @ 15'
B7 @ 15'
B7 @ 15'
B3 @ 15'
B3 @ 7.5'
B2 @ 12.5'
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO: PLATE:

SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM (ASTM D3080)

LINK LOGISTICS
22486 B-1
0 0
u n
0 0
0 V'
I
I
I
a /
4 ~
V /
I
~
V /
•
Ii
- i I

SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DRY

DENSITY (PCF)

INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
B1 @ 20' SP 88.4 7.7 28.4
B5 @ 22.5' SP 103.4 5.3 20.6
B3 @ 25' SM/ML 99.0 28.3 26.4
B6 @ 27.5' SP 118.3 4.2 16.6
B1 @ 30' SP 96.3 4.8 21.8
B4 @ 30' SP 101.5 4.1 20.8
B7 @ 30' SP 101.4 2.3 19.2
B5 @ 32.5' SM 120.5 10.5 15.6
B2 @ 37.5' SP 103.6 3.0 20.0
B6 @ 37.5' SP 101.6 3.3 20.4
PHI = 30 DEGREES
C = 135 PSF

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Shear Strength (KSF)
Normal Pressure (KSF)Direct Shear, Saturated
B6 @ 37.5', B1 @ 20'
B1 @ 20'
B1 @ 20'
B5 @ 22.5'
B5 @ 22.5'
B5 @ 22.5'
B3 @ 25'
B3 @ 25'
B3 @ 25'
B6 @ 27.5'
B6 @ 27.5'
B6 @ 27.5'
B1 @ 30'
B1 @ 30'
B1 @ 30'
B7 @ 30'
B4 @ 30'
B4 @ 30'
B7 @ 30'
B7 @ 30'
B7 @ 30'
B5 @ 32.5'
B5 @ 32.5'
B5 @ 32.5'
B2 @ 37.5'
B2 @ 37.5'
B2 @ 37.5'
B6 @ 37.5'
B6 @ 37.5'
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO: PLATE:

SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM (ASTM D3080)

LINK LOGISTICS
22486 B-2
n
0 n
I t
I I
0 vi
I t
I I / I •
I
V
V n
V /
/
V
•
Ii
- i I
Water added at 2 KSF
PROJECT: LINK LOGISTICS
FILE NO.: 22486 PLATE: C-1
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

CONSOLIDATION
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
CONSOLIDATION (ASTM D2435)

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B2 @ 12.5'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B4 @ 15'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B6 @ 17.5'
,.._
'~ -r- 1-41...
---.... ,.__
----
~
........... -............
r-......
' ""'--.... ,,
r-...... l'.1
r----.... "r--. ........ ,._
" "'-.. --+- --
N .,._,_
-.
o ... ,_
- ~,.___,
~
-,~
•r-....... ...
0--- 1-..... ..... - -i-- - .... I... 'r-......
..........
--+- I-+-+-
I I
◄ k
◄ ....... ~--
........... ,.._..,. .....
.............. ~I ..___
~:-,.. ---...., .
............... .........
---...... '"-
,_...._ ~
..._
'
--+-
'
,-,-
~NI
~ I I I
~ .
-
-~ I
Water added at 2 KSF
PROJECT: LINK LOGISTICS
FILE NO.: 22486 PLATE: C-2
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
CONSOLIDATION (ASTM D2435)

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B2 @ 22.5'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B3 @ 25'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B2 @ 27.5'
,._
~,
-----r-- ..
--
NL
-.............. ---
~ ~--
o.__
--,.._
----.. -...~
----....... """"1 ~
....... r---•• ,111 .. r--. ..... .
~ k 'r-...
~- ...........
•-+-+-
~
-
1-f- + --
- ---
r--.....
------, ' .__
i--.
---...... ..... ....__
-
~ ~ 1-e--
~
-~ I
Water added at 2 KSF
PROJECT: LINK LOGISTICS
FILE NO.: 22486 PLATE: C-3
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
CONSOLIDATION(ASTM D2435)

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B6 @ 27.5'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B1 @ 30'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B4 @ 30'
,.__ -- --H ..__
--
--+- ~ --
._
--- ·----~
•l
-.......... ...
~~~
~'1L
r-----.
-~~
- --+-
-~~
I I
-,.__
i---.i L
-H ~--- -
--+- ~~-
11!1
I
1,,
-~ I
Water added at 2 KSF
PROJECT: LINK LOGISTICS
FILE NO.: 22486 PLATE: C-4
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
CONSOLIDATION(ASTM D2435)

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B7 @ 30'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B5 @ 32.5'

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B6 @ 37.5'
--t-- ! I I I
t-- t--L I I I
r--...._ I
'-I I ...,~ I I
IL I i I i I I I ~ i
... ,.... ,-..,.
; i .......

T I T I I I - •

I I I I I I I I
~ L -1----1-

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I
! I I I

I I I I I
I
I i i I I I
~.
'~ ....
-~ t-,...,
-- i-- +--T- ;-. 1-;L_ >i
~"
"- ~ . '
I I
--i-- +--
rr, ............
~.

I~
--,~ r-- I,,..._
... ,-..t----.....
--
~
~
~ ,
~
-'{
-~ I
Water added at 2 KSF
PROJECT: LINK LOGISTICS
FILE NO.: 22486 PLATE: C-5
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
CONSOLIDATION(ASTM D2435)

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.1 1 10 100
Percent
Consolidation (%)
Normal Load (ksf)
B2 @ 42.5'
---- ~
.___
~ ...__
...... .... .
""r-,.... ........___
----+- I- + -+ -
,
-~ I

LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS
(ASTM D1557)
SAMPLE B1 @ 1'-5' B2 @ 1'-5' B3 @ 1'-5'

SOIL TYPE SC SM CL
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) 118.5 134.3 128.7
OPTIMUM MOISTURE % 14.1 8.6 9.6

SULFATE CONTENT
(CALIFORNIA TEST 417)
SAMPLE B1 @ 1'-5' B2 @ 1'-5' B3 @ 1'-5'
SULFATE CONTENT:
(Percentage by Weight) <0.2% <0.2% <0.1%

EXPANSION INDEX
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE B1 @ 1'-5' B2 @ 1'-5' B3 @ 1'-5'

SOIL TYPE SC SM CL

EXPANSION INDEX
UBC STANDARD 18-2 128 54 90

EXPANSION CHARACTER HIGH MODERATE HIGH

COMPACTION/EXPANSION/SULFATE DATA SHEET

LINK LOGISTICS
22486 D-1
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO: PLATE:
- -
J~ I

LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS
(ASTM D1557)
SAMPLE B5 @ 1'-5' B6 @ 1'-5' B7 @ 1'-5'

SOIL TYPE CL ML/CL CL
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) 127.8 125.8 127.2
OPTIMUM MOISTURE % 9.7 11.4 10.5

SULFATE CONTENT
(CALIFORNIA TEST 417)
SAMPLE B5 @ 1'-5' B6 @ 1'-5' B7 @ 1'-5'
SULFATE CONTENT:
(Percentage by Weight) <0.1% <0.2% <0.2%

EXPANSION INDEX
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE B5 @ 1'-5' B6 @ 1'-5' B7 @ 1'-5'

SOIL TYPE CL ML/CL CL

EXPANSION INDEX
UBC STANDARD 18-2 70 114 110

EXPANSION CHARACTER MODERATE HIGH HIGH

COMPACTION/EXPANSION/SULFATE DATA SHEET

LINK LOGISTICS
22486 D-2
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO: PLATE:
- -
-~ I

GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

MEDIUM TO COARSE FINE
B6 @ 50' NO. 200
NO. 100
NO. 40
NO. 20
NO. 10
NO. 4
3/8 in.
3/4 in.
1 in.
3 in.
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
100.0

76.20 25.4

19.05 10.0

9.52 4.75

2.00 1.0

0.840

0.420

0.150

0.1 0.075

0.01 0.001
Grain Diameter (mm)
Percent Passing By Weight
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
B6 @ 55'
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO: PLATE:

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM D1140)

LINK LOGISTICS
22486 E

I I I I I I
'
Iii
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
- i I
Sample ID Descriptions Passing #200 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index B6 @ 55' CH 89.1 77.0 31.0 46.0
PROJECT: LINK LOGISTICS
FILE NO.: 22486 PLATE: F-1
Geotechnologies, Inc.

CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318)
B6 @ 55'
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plastic Index
Liquid Limit
ML
ML or OL
CL
MH or OH
CH

CL - ML
V
/ /
V
V / •
/
V
V
/ /
1/v V
V
/
/ / V
/ /
/
/
{
-~
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Project: Link Logistics
File No.: 22486
Description: Liquefaction Analysis
Boring No: B2
EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: BOREHOLE AND SAMPLER INFORMATION:

Earthquake Magnitude (M): 6.7 Borehole Diameter (inches): 4.3 Peak Ground Horizontal Acceleration, PGA (g): 0.90 SPT Sampler with room for Liner (Y/N): Y Calculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 1.234 LIQUEFACTION BOUNDARY:

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: Plastic Index Cut Off (PI): 18 Current Groundwater Level (ft): 81.0 Minimum Liquefaction FS: 1.3 Historically Highest Groundwater Level* (ft): 40.0
Unit Weight of Water (pcf): 62.4
* Based on California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report Depth to Total Unit Current Historical Field SPT Depth of SPT Fines Content Plastic Vetical Effective Fines Stress Cyclic Shear Cyclic Factor of Safety Liquefaction Base Layer Weight Water Level Water Level Blowcount Blowcount #200 Sieve Index Stress Vert. Stress Corrected Reduction Ratio Resistance CRR/CSR Settlment (feet) (pcf) (feet) (feet) N (feet) (%) (PI) svc, (psf) svc', (psf) (N1)60-cs Coeff, rd CSR Ratio (CRR) (F.S.) DSi (inches) 1 134.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 37 5 0.0 0 134.1 134.1 76.7 1.00 0.587 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 2 134.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 37 5 0.0 0 268.2 268.2 76.7 1.00 0.586 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 3 134.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 37 5 0.0 0 402.3 402.3 69.7 1.00 0.583 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 4 134.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 37 5 0.0 0 536.4 536.4 64.7 0.99 0.581 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 5 134.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 37 5 0.0 0 670.5 670.5 65.0 0.99 0.579 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 6 134.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 37 5 0.0 0 804.6 804.6 62.0 0.99 0.577 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 7 134.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 37 5 0.0 0 938.7 938.7 59.5 0.98 0.575 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 8 124.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1063.3 1063.3 85.6 0.98 0.572 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 9 124.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1187.9 1187.9 88.4 0.97 0.570 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 10 124.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1312.5 1312.5 86.1 0.97 0.567 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 11 124.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1437.1 1437.1 84.0 0.96 0.564 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 12 124.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1561.7 1561.7 82.2 0.96 0.562 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 13 116.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1677.8 1677.8 80.7 0.96 0.559 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 14 116.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1793.9 1793.9 79.3 0.95 0.556 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 15 116.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 55 10 0.0 0 1910.0 1910.0 87.2 0.95 0.553 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 16 116.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 90 15 0.0 0 2026.1 2026.1 140.4 0.94 0.550 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 17 116.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 90 15 0.0 0 2142.2 2142.2 138.4 0.93 0.547 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 18 112.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 90 15 0.0 0 2255.1 2255.1 136.5 0.93 0.544 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 19 112.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 90 15 0.0 0 2368.0 2368.0 134.8 0.92 0.541 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 20 112.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 90 15 0.0 0 2480.9 2480.9 133.1 0.92 0.537 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 21 112.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 77 20 0.0 0 2593.8 2593.8 112.6 0.91 0.534 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 22 112.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 77 20 0.0 0 2706.7 2706.7 111.3 0.91 0.531 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 23 110.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 77 20 0.0 0 2816.8 2816.8 110.2 0.90 0.528 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 24 110.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 77 20 0.0 0 2926.9 2926.9 109.1 0.90 0.524 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 25 110.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 77 20 0.0 0 3037.0 3037.0 108.0 0.89 0.521 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 26 110.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 25 0.0 0 3147.1 3147.1 100.0 0.88 0.517 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 27 110.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 25 0.0 0 3257.2 3257.2 99.1 0.88 0.514 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 28 110.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 25 0.0 0 3367.8 3367.8 103.4 0.87 0.510 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 29 110.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 25 0.0 0 3478.4 3478.4 102.6 0.87 0.507 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 30 110.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 25 0.0 0 3589.0 3589.0 101.7 0.86 0.503 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 31 110.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 30 0.0 0 3699.6 3699.6 100.9 0.85 0.500 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 32 110.6 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 30 0.0 0 3810.2 3810.2 100.1 0.85 0.496 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 33 109.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 30 0.0 0 3920.0 3920.0 99.4 0.84 0.493 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 34 109.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 30 0.0 0 4029.8 4029.8 98.7 0.84 0.489 1.997 Non-Liq. 0.00 35 109.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 30 0.0 0 4139.6 4139.6 98.0 0.83 0.485 1.978 Non-Liq. 0.00 36 109.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 35 0.0 0 4249.4 4249.4 97.3 0.82 0.482 1.959 Non-Liq. 0.00 37 109.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 35 0.0 0 4359.2 4359.2 96.7 0.82 0.478 1.940 Non-Liq. 0.00 38 106.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 35 0.0 0 4466.0 4466.0 96.0 0.81 0.474 1.922 Non-Liq. 0.00 39 106.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 35 0.0 0 4572.8 4572.8 95.4 0.80 0.471 1.905 Non-Liq. 0.00 40 106.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 35 0.0 0 4679.6 4679.6 94.9 0.80 0.467 1.888 Non-Liq. 0.00 41 106.8 Unsaturated Saturated 100 40 0.0 0 4786.4 4724.0 131.0 0.79 0.470 1.872 4.0 0.00 42 106.8 Unsaturated Saturated 100 40 0.0 0 4893.2 4768.4 130.2 0.79 0.472 1.856 3.9 0.00 43 100.6 Unsaturated Saturated 100 40 0.0 0 4993.8 4806.6 129.5 0.78 0.474 1.841 3.9 0.00 44 100.6 Unsaturated Saturated 100 40 0.0 0 5094.4 4844.8 128.9 0.77 0.476 1.827 3.8 0.00 45 100.6 Unsaturated Saturated 100 40 0.0 0 5195.0 4883.0 128.2 0.77 0.478 1.812 3.8 0.00 46 100.6 Unsaturated Saturated 75 45 0.0 0 5295.6 4921.2 95.7 0.76 0.479 1.798 3.8 0.00 47 100.6 Unsaturated Saturated 75 45 0.0 0 5396.2 4959.4 95.2 0.76 0.481 1.785 3.7 0.00 48 109.0 Unsaturated Saturated 75 45 0.0 0 5505.2 5006.0 94.7 0.75 0.482 1.770 3.7 0.00 49 109.0 Unsaturated Saturated 75 45 0.0 0 5614.2 5052.6 94.2 0.74 0.483 1.756 3.6 0.00 50 109.0 Unsaturated Saturated 75 45 0.0 0 5723.2 5099.2 93.7 0.74 0.484 1.742 3.6 0.00 51 109.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 50 0.0 0 5832.2 5145.8 124.3 0.73 0.485 1.728 3.6 0.00 52 109.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 50 0.0 0 5941.2 5192.4 123.7 0.73 0.486 1.714 3.5 0.00 53 115.8 Unsaturated Saturated 100 50 0.0 0 6057.0 5245.8 123.1 0.72 0.486 1.700 3.5 0.00 54 115.8 Unsaturated Saturated 100 50 0.0 0 6172.8 5299.2 122.5 0.71 0.487 1.687 3.5 0.00 55 115.8 Unsaturated Saturated 100 50 0.0 0 6288.6 5352.6 121.9 0.71 0.487 1.673 3.4 0.00 56 115.8 Unsaturated Saturated 90 55 0.0 0 6404.4 5406.0 109.2 0.70 0.487 1.660 3.4 0.00 57 115.8 Unsaturated Saturated 90 55 0.0 0 6520.2 5459.4 108.7 0.70 0.487 1.647 3.4 0.00 58 106.5 Unsaturated Saturated 90 55 0.0 0 6626.7 5503.5 108.2 0.69 0.487 1.635 3.4 0.00 59 106.5 Unsaturated Saturated 90 55 0.0 0 6733.2 5547.6 107.8 0.69 0.487 1.623 3.3 0.00 60 106.5 Unsaturated Saturated 90 55 0.0 0 6839.7 5591.7 107.3 0.68 0.487 1.612 3.3 0.00 61 106.5 Unsaturated Saturated 100 60 0.0 0 6946.2 5635.8 118.8 0.68 0.487 1.601 3.3 0.00 62 106.5 Unsaturated Saturated 100 60 0.0 0 7052.7 5679.9 118.3 0.67 0.487 1.590 3.3 0.00 63 107.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 60 0.0 0 7160.6 5725.4 117.8 0.67 0.487 1.578 3.2 0.00 64 107.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 60 0.0 0 7268.5 5770.9 117.4 0.66 0.486 1.568 3.2 0.00 65 107.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 60 0.0 0 7376.4 5816.4 116.9 0.65 0.486 1.557 3.2 0.00 66 107.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7484.3 5861.9 116.5 0.65 0.485 1.546 3.2 0.00 67 107.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7592.2 5907.4 116.0 0.64 0.485 1.536 3.2 0.00 68 103.1 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7695.3 5948.1 115.6 0.64 0.485 1.526 3.1 0.00 69 103.1 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7798.4 5988.8 115.2 0.64 0.484 1.516 3.1 0.00 70 103.1 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7901.5 6029.5 114.8 0.63 0.484 1.507 3.1 0.00 71 103.1 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8004.6 6070.2 114.4 0.63 0.483 1.497 3.1 0.00 72 103.1 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8107.7 6110.9 114.0 0.62 0.483 1.488 3.1 0.00 73 115.2 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8222.9 6163.7 113.6 0.62 0.482 1.478 3.1 0.00 74 115.2 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8338.1 6216.5 113.2 0.61 0.481 1.468 3.1 0.00 75 115.2 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8453.3 6269.3 112.8 0.61 0.480 1.458 3.0 0.00 76 115.2 Unsaturated Saturated 100 75 0.0 0 8568.5 6322.1 112.4 0.60 0.479 1.448 3.0 0.00 77 115.2 Unsaturated Saturated 100 75 0.0 0 8683.7 6374.9 112.0 0.60 0.479 1.438 3.0 0.00 78 108.6 Unsaturated Saturated 100 75 0.0 0 8792.3 6421.1 111.6 0.60 0.478 1.429 3.0 0.00 79 108.6 Unsaturated Saturated 100 75 0.0 0 8900.9 6467.3 111.3 0.59 0.477 1.420 3.0 0.00 80 108.6 Unsaturated Saturated 92 80 0.0 0 9009.5 6513.5 102.0 0.59 0.476 1.411 3.0 0.00 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION (Idriss & Boulanger, EERI NO 12) J1 A
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Project: Link Logistics
File No.: 22486
Description: Liquefaction Analysis
Boring No: B5
EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: BOREHOLE AND SAMPLER INFORMATION:

Earthquake Magnitude (M): 6.7 Borehole Diameter (inches): 4.3 Peak Ground Horizontal Acceleration, PGA (g): 0.90 SPT Sampler with room for Liner (Y/N): Y Calculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 1.234 LIQUEFACTION BOUNDARY:

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: Plastic Index Cut Off (PI): 18 Current Groundwater Level (ft): 81.0 Minimum Liquefaction FS: 1.3 Historically Highest Groundwater Level* (ft): 40.0
Unit Weight of Water (pcf): 62.4
* Based on California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report Depth to Total Unit Current Historical Field SPT Depth of SPT Fines Content Plastic Vetical Effective Fines Stress Cyclic Shear Cyclic Factor of Safety Liquefaction Base Layer Weight Water Level Water Level Blowcount Blowcount #200 Sieve Index Stress Vert. Stress Corrected Reduction Ratio Resistance CRR/CSR Settlment (feet) (pcf) (feet) (feet) N (feet) (%) (PI) svc, (psf) svc', (psf) (N1)60-cs Coeff, rd CSR Ratio (CRR) (F.S.) DSi (inches) 1 131.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 131.2 131.2 16.4 1.00 0.587 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 2 131.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 262.4 262.4 16.4 1.00 0.586 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 3 131.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 393.6 393.6 16.4 1.00 0.583 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 4 131.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 524.8 524.8 16.4 0.99 0.581 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 5 131.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 656.0 656.0 17.6 0.99 0.579 0.245 Non-Liq. 0.00 6 131.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 787.2 787.2 16.5 0.99 0.577 0.230 Non-Liq. 0.00 7 131.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 918.4 918.4 15.4 0.98 0.575 0.215 Non-Liq. 0.00 8 122.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1040.7 1040.7 45.5 0.98 0.572 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 9 122.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1163.0 1163.0 46.8 0.97 0.570 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 10 122.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1285.3 1285.3 45.7 0.97 0.567 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 11 122.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1407.6 1407.6 44.7 0.96 0.564 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 12 122.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1529.9 1529.9 43.8 0.96 0.562 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 13 129.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1659.7 1659.7 42.9 0.96 0.559 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 14 129.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1789.5 1789.5 42.0 0.95 0.556 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 15 129.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 10 0.0 0 1919.3 1919.3 45.9 0.95 0.553 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 16 129.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 15 0.0 0 2049.1 2049.1 112.0 0.94 0.550 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 17 129.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 15 0.0 0 2178.9 2178.9 110.2 0.93 0.547 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 18 104.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 15 0.0 0 2283.6 2283.6 108.9 0.93 0.544 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 19 104.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 15 0.0 0 2388.3 2388.3 107.6 0.92 0.541 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 20 104.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 72 15 0.0 0 2493.0 2493.0 106.4 0.92 0.537 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 21 104.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 40 20 0.0 0 2597.7 2597.7 58.5 0.91 0.534 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 22 104.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 40 20 0.0 0 2702.4 2702.4 57.9 0.91 0.531 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 23 108.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 40 20 0.0 0 2811.2 2811.2 57.3 0.90 0.528 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 24 108.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 40 20 0.0 0 2920.0 2920.0 56.7 0.90 0.524 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 25 108.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 40 20 0.0 0 3028.8 3028.8 56.1 0.89 0.521 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 26 108.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 48 25 0.0 0 3137.6 3137.6 66.7 0.88 0.517 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 27 108.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 48 25 0.0 0 3246.4 3246.4 66.2 0.88 0.514 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 28 112.0 Unsaturated Unsaturated 48 25 0.0 0 3358.4 3358.4 69.0 0.87 0.510 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 29 112.0 Unsaturated Unsaturated 48 25 0.0 0 3470.4 3470.4 68.4 0.87 0.507 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 30 112.0 Unsaturated Unsaturated 48 25 0.0 0 3582.4 3582.4 67.9 0.86 0.503 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 31 112.0 Unsaturated Unsaturated 32 30 0.0 0 3694.4 3694.4 44.7 0.85 0.500 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 32 112.0 Unsaturated Unsaturated 32 30 0.0 0 3806.4 3806.4 44.3 0.85 0.496 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 33 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 32 30 0.0 0 3939.6 3939.6 43.8 0.84 0.493 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 34 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 32 30 0.0 0 4072.8 4072.8 43.3 0.84 0.489 1.990 Non-Liq. 0.00 35 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 32 30 0.0 0 4206.0 4206.0 42.8 0.83 0.485 1.966 Non-Liq. 0.00 36 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 32 35 0.0 0 4339.2 4339.2 42.4 0.82 0.482 1.943 Non-Liq. 0.00 37 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 32 35 0.0 0 4472.4 4472.4 41.9 0.82 0.478 1.921 Non-Liq. 0.00 38 109.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 43 40 0.0 0 4581.9 4581.9 57.0 0.81 0.474 1.904 Non-Liq. 0.00 39 109.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 43 40 0.0 0 4691.4 4691.4 56.6 0.80 0.471 1.887 Non-Liq. 0.00 40 109.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 43 40 0.0 0 4800.9 4800.9 56.3 0.80 0.467 1.870 Non-Liq. 0.00 41 109.5 Unsaturated Saturated 43 40 0.0 0 4910.4 4848.0 55.9 0.79 0.469 1.853 3.9 0.00 42 109.5 Unsaturated Saturated 43 40 0.0 0 5019.9 4895.1 55.6 0.79 0.472 1.837 3.9 0.00 43 110.5 Unsaturated Saturated 43 40 0.0 0 5130.4 4943.2 55.3 0.78 0.474 1.821 3.8 0.00 44 110.5 Unsaturated Saturated 43 40 0.0 0 5240.9 4991.3 55.0 0.77 0.475 1.806 3.8 0.00 45 110.5 Unsaturated Saturated 43 40 0.0 0 5351.4 5039.4 54.7 0.77 0.477 1.791 3.8 0.00 46 110.5 Unsaturated Saturated 80 45 0.0 0 5461.9 5087.5 101.2 0.76 0.478 1.776 3.7 0.00 47 110.5 Unsaturated Saturated 80 45 0.0 0 5572.4 5135.6 100.7 0.76 0.480 1.761 3.7 0.00 48 113.1 Unsaturated Saturated 80 45 0.0 0 5685.5 5186.3 100.1 0.75 0.481 1.747 3.6 0.00 49 113.1 Unsaturated Saturated 80 45 0.0 0 5798.6 5237.0 99.6 0.74 0.482 1.732 3.6 0.00 50 113.1 Unsaturated Saturated 80 45 0.0 0 5911.7 5287.7 99.1 0.74 0.482 1.718 3.6 0.00 51 113.1 Unsaturated Saturated 38 50 0.0 0 6024.8 5338.4 46.9 0.73 0.483 1.704 3.5 0.00 52 113.1 Unsaturated Saturated 38 50 0.0 0 6137.9 5389.1 46.6 0.73 0.484 1.691 3.5 0.00 53 109.6 Unsaturated Saturated 38 50 0.0 0 6247.5 5436.3 46.4 0.72 0.484 1.678 3.5 0.00 54 109.6 Unsaturated Saturated 38 50 0.0 0 6357.1 5483.5 46.2 0.71 0.484 1.665 3.4 0.00 55 109.6 Unsaturated Saturated 38 50 0.0 0 6466.7 5530.7 46.0 0.71 0.485 1.653 3.4 0.00 56 109.6 Unsaturated Saturated 49 55 0.0 0 6576.3 5577.9 59.0 0.70 0.485 1.641 3.4 0.00 57 109.6 Unsaturated Saturated 49 55 0.0 0 6685.9 5625.1 58.8 0.70 0.485 1.628 3.4 0.00 58 103.4 Unsaturated Saturated 49 55 0.0 0 6789.3 5666.1 58.5 0.69 0.485 1.617 3.3 0.00 59 103.4 Unsaturated Saturated 49 55 0.0 0 6892.7 5707.1 58.3 0.69 0.485 1.606 3.3 0.00 60 103.4 Unsaturated Saturated 49 55 0.0 0 6996.1 5748.1 58.1 0.68 0.485 1.595 3.3 0.00 61 103.4 Unsaturated Saturated 98 60 0.0 0 7099.5 5789.1 115.7 0.68 0.485 1.585 3.3 0.00 62 103.4 Unsaturated Saturated 98 60 0.0 0 7202.9 5830.1 115.3 0.67 0.484 1.574 3.2 0.00 63 105.9 Unsaturated Saturated 98 60 0.0 0 7308.8 5873.6 114.8 0.67 0.484 1.564 3.2 0.00 64 105.9 Unsaturated Saturated 98 60 0.0 0 7414.7 5917.1 114.4 0.66 0.484 1.553 3.2 0.00 65 105.9 Unsaturated Saturated 98 60 0.0 0 7520.6 5960.6 114.0 0.65 0.483 1.543 3.2 0.00 66 105.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7626.5 6004.1 115.9 0.65 0.483 1.533 3.2 0.00 67 105.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7732.4 6047.6 115.5 0.64 0.482 1.523 3.2 0.00 68 114.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7846.4 6099.2 115.0 0.64 0.482 1.512 3.1 0.00 69 114.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 7960.4 6150.8 114.6 0.64 0.481 1.501 3.1 0.00 70 114.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 65 0.0 0 8074.4 6202.4 114.1 0.63 0.480 1.491 3.1 0.00 71 114.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8188.4 6254.0 113.7 0.63 0.480 1.481 3.1 0.00 72 114.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8302.4 6305.6 113.3 0.62 0.479 1.471 3.1 0.00 73 107.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8409.4 6350.2 112.9 0.62 0.478 1.461 3.1 0.00 74 107.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8516.4 6394.8 112.6 0.61 0.478 1.452 3.0 0.00 75 107.0 Unsaturated Saturated 100 70 0.0 0 8623.4 6439.4 112.2 0.61 0.477 1.443 3.0 0.00 76 107.0 Unsaturated Saturated 68 75 0.0 0 8730.4 6484.0 76.0 0.60 0.476 1.434 3.0 0.00 77 107.0 Unsaturated Saturated 68 75 0.0 0 8837.4 6528.6 75.8 0.60 0.476 1.425 3.0 0.00 78 114.8 Unsaturated Saturated 68 75 0.0 0 8952.2 6581.0 75.5 0.60 0.475 1.416 3.0 0.00 79 114.8 Unsaturated Saturated 68 75 0.0 0 9067.0 6633.4 75.3 0.59 0.474 1.407 3.0 0.00 80 114.8 Unsaturated Saturated 98 80 0.0 0 9181.8 6685.8 108.1 0.59 0.473 1.397 3.0 0.00 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION (Idriss & Boulanger, EERI NO 12) J1 A
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Project: Link Logistics
File No.: 22486
Description: Liquefaction Analysis
Boring No: B6
EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: BOREHOLE AND SAMPLER INFORMATION:

Earthquake Magnitude (M): 6.7 Borehole Diameter (inches): 4.3 Peak Ground Horizontal Acceleration, PGA (g): 0.90 SPT Sampler with room for Liner (Y/N): Y Calculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 1.234 LIQUEFACTION BOUNDARY:

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: Plastic Index Cut Off (PI): 18 Current Groundwater Level (ft): 81.0 Minimum Liquefaction FS: 1.3 Historically Highest Groundwater Level* (ft): 40.0
Unit Weight of Water (pcf): 62.4
* Based on California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report Depth to Total Unit Current Historical Field SPT Depth of SPT Fines Content Plastic Vetical Effective Fines Stress Cyclic Shear Cyclic Factor of Safety Liquefaction Base Layer Weight Water Level Water Level Blowcount Blowcount #200 Sieve Index Stress Vert. Stress Corrected Reduction Ratio Resistance CRR/CSR Settlment (feet) (pcf) (feet) (feet) N (feet) (%) (PI) svc, (psf) svc', (psf) (N1)60-cs Coeff, rd CSR Ratio (CRR) (F.S.) DSi (inches) 1 133.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 133.1 133.1 16.4 1.00 0.587 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 2 133.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 266.2 266.2 16.4 1.00 0.586 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 3 133.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 399.3 399.3 16.4 1.00 0.583 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 4 133.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 532.4 532.4 16.4 0.99 0.581 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 5 133.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 665.5 665.5 17.6 0.99 0.579 0.245 Non-Liq. 0.00 6 133.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 798.6 798.6 16.4 0.99 0.577 0.229 Non-Liq. 0.00 7 133.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 9 5 0.0 0 931.7 931.7 15.3 0.98 0.575 0.213 Non-Liq. 0.00 8 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1064.9 1064.9 51.4 0.98 0.572 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 9 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1198.1 1198.1 52.9 0.97 0.570 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 10 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1331.3 1331.3 51.4 0.97 0.567 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 11 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1464.5 1464.5 50.2 0.96 0.564 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 12 133.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1597.7 1597.7 49.0 0.96 0.562 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 13 124.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1721.9 1721.9 48.1 0.96 0.559 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 14 124.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1846.1 1846.1 47.2 0.95 0.556 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 15 124.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 33 10 0.0 0 1970.3 1970.3 51.9 0.95 0.553 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 16 124.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 22 15 0.0 0 2094.5 2094.5 33.1 0.94 0.550 0.947 Non-Liq. 0.00 17 124.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 22 15 0.0 0 2218.7 2218.7 32.2 0.93 0.547 0.816 Non-Liq. 0.00 18 112.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 22 15 0.0 0 2331.5 2331.5 31.5 0.93 0.544 0.724 Non-Liq. 0.00 19 112.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 22 15 0.0 0 2444.3 2444.3 30.9 0.92 0.541 0.652 Non-Liq. 0.00 20 112.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 22 15 0.0 0 2557.1 2557.1 30.2 0.92 0.537 0.593 Non-Liq. 0.00 21 112.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 11 20 0.0 0 2669.9 2669.9 12.9 0.91 0.534 0.168 Non-Liq. 0.00 22 112.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 11 20 0.0 0 2782.7 2782.7 12.6 0.91 0.531 0.164 Non-Liq. 0.00 23 114.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 2896.9 2896.9 42.3 0.90 0.528 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 24 114.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 3011.1 3011.1 41.8 0.90 0.524 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 25 114.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 3125.3 3125.3 41.3 0.89 0.521 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 26 114.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 3239.5 3239.5 40.8 0.88 0.517 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 27 114.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 3353.7 3353.7 40.4 0.88 0.514 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 28 123.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 3477.0 3477.0 42.3 0.87 0.510 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 29 123.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 3600.3 3600.3 41.8 0.87 0.507 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 30 123.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 30 25 0.0 0 3723.6 3723.6 41.3 0.86 0.503 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 31 123.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 100 30 0.0 0 3846.9 3846.9 138.7 0.85 0.500 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 32 123.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 100 30 0.0 0 3970.2 3970.2 137.6 0.85 0.496 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00 33 108.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 100 30 0.0 0 4078.6 4078.6 136.6 0.84 0.493 1.989 Non-Liq. 0.00 34 108.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 100 30 0.0 0 4187.0 4187.0 135.7 0.84 0.489 1.969 Non-Liq. 0.00 35 108.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 100 30 0.0 0 4295.4 4295.4 134.8 0.83 0.485 1.951 Non-Liq. 0.00 36 108.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 50 35 0.0 0 4403.8 4403.8 66.9 0.82 0.482 1.933 Non-Liq. 0.00 37 108.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 50 35 0.0 0 4512.2 4512.2 66.5 0.82 0.478 1.915 Non-Liq. 0.00 38 104.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 50 35 0.0 0 4617.1 4617.1 66.1 0.81 0.474 1.898 Non-Liq. 0.00 39 104.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 50 35 0.0 0 4722.0 4722.0 65.7 0.80 0.471 1.882 Non-Liq. 0.00 40 104.9 Unsaturated Unsaturated 50 35 0.0 0 4826.9 4826.9 65.3 0.80 0.467 1.866 Non-Liq. 0.00 41 104.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 40 0.0 0 4931.8 4869.4 130.0 0.79 0.469 1.850 3.9 0.00 42 104.9 Unsaturated Saturated 100 40 0.0 0 5036.7 4911.9 129.2 0.79 0.472 1.835 3.9 0.00 43 113.6 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5150.3 4963.1 44.7 0.78 0.474 1.819 3.8 0.00 44 113.6 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5263.9 5014.3 44.3 0.77 0.475 1.803 3.8 0.00 45 113.6 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5377.5 5065.5 44.0 0.77 0.477 1.787 3.7 0.00 46 113.6 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5491.1 5116.7 43.7 0.76 0.478 1.772 3.7 0.00 47 113.6 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5604.7 5167.9 43.3 0.76 0.479 1.757 3.7 0.00 48 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5718.9 5219.7 43.0 0.75 0.480 1.742 3.6 0.00 49 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5833.1 5271.5 42.7 0.74 0.481 1.728 3.6 0.00 50 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 35 45 0.0 0 5947.3 5323.3 42.4 0.74 0.482 1.714 3.6 0.00 51 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 32 50 94.9 0 6061.5 5375.1 41.9 0.73 0.483 1.700 3.5 0.00 52 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 32 50 94.9 0 6175.7 5426.9 41.5 0.73 0.483 1.686 3.5 0.00 53 122.8 Unsaturated Saturated 32 50 94.9 0 6298.5 5487.3 41.2 0.72 0.484 1.672 3.5 0.00 54 122.8 Unsaturated Saturated 32 50 94.9 0 6421.3 5547.7 40.8 0.71 0.484 1.658 3.4 0.00 55 122.8 Unsaturated Saturated 32 50 94.9 0 6544.1 5608.1 40.4 0.71 0.484 1.644 3.4 0.00 56 122.8 Unsaturated Saturated 19 55 89.1 46 6666.9 5668.5 21.1 0.70 0.484 0.228 Non-Liq. 0.00 57 122.8 Unsaturated Saturated 19 55 89.1 46 6789.7 5728.9 20.9 0.70 0.483 0.225 Non-Liq. 0.00 58 122.2 Unsaturated Saturated 19 55 89.1 46 6911.9 5788.7 20.7 0.69 0.483 0.222 Non-Liq. 0.00 59 122.2 Unsaturated Saturated 19 55 89.1 46 7034.1 5848.5 20.6 0.69 0.483 0.220 Non-Liq. 0.00 60 122.2 Unsaturated Saturated 19 55 89.1 46 7156.3 5908.3 20.4 0.68 0.482 0.217 Non-Liq. 0.00 61 122.2 Unsaturated Saturated 48 60 0.0 0 7278.5 5968.1 56.3 0.68 0.482 1.567 3.3 0.00 62 122.2 Unsaturated Saturated 48 60 0.0 0 7400.7 6027.9 56.1 0.67 0.481 1.554 3.2 0.00 63 105.1 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 7505.8 6070.6 75.6 0.67 0.481 1.544 3.2 0.00 64 105.1 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 7610.9 6113.3 75.4 0.66 0.481 1.534 3.2 0.00 65 105.1 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 7716.0 6156.0 75.1 0.65 0.480 1.524 3.2 0.00 66 105.1 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 7821.1 6198.7 74.8 0.65 0.480 1.514 3.2 0.00 67 105.1 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 7926.2 6241.4 74.6 0.64 0.479 1.504 3.1 0.00 68 104.6 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 8030.8 6283.6 74.3 0.64 0.479 1.495 3.1 0.00 69 104.6 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 8135.4 6325.8 74.0 0.64 0.478 1.486 3.1 0.00 70 104.6 Unsaturated Saturated 65 65 0.0 0 8240.0 6368.0 73.8 0.63 0.477 1.476 3.1 0.00 71 104.6 Unsaturated Saturated 81 70 0.0 0 8344.6 6410.2 91.7 0.63 0.477 1.467 3.1 0.00 72 104.6 Unsaturated Saturated 81 70 0.0 0 8449.2 6452.4 91.4 0.62 0.476 1.458 3.1 0.00 73 110.1 Unsaturated Saturated 81 70 0.0 0 8559.3 6500.1 91.1 0.62 0.475 1.449 3.0 0.00 74 110.1 Unsaturated Saturated 81 70 0.0 0 8669.4 6547.8 90.7 0.61 0.475 1.439 3.0 0.00 75 110.1 Unsaturated Saturated 81 70 0.0 0 8779.5 6595.5 90.4 0.61 0.474 1.430 3.0 0.00 76 110.1 Unsaturated Saturated 82 75 0.0 0 8889.6 6643.2 91.3 0.60 0.473 1.421 3.0 0.00 77 110.1 Unsaturated Saturated 82 75 0.0 0 8999.7 6690.9 91.0 0.60 0.473 1.412 3.0 0.00 78 113.3 Unsaturated Saturated 82 75 0.0 0 9113.0 6741.8 90.7 0.60 0.472 1.403 3.0 0.00 79 113.3 Unsaturated Saturated 82 75 0.0 0 9226.3 6792.7 90.4 0.59 0.471 1.394 3.0 0.00 80 113.3 Unsaturated Saturated 41 80 0.0 0 9339.6 6843.6 44.5 0.59 0.470 1.385 2.9 0.00 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION (Idriss & Boulanger, EERI NO 12) J1 A

SUBJECT SITE
File No.: 22486
Date: May 2024
Geotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

LINK LOGISTICS
N.O.R.S MAP
REFERENCES: http://navigatela.lacity.org/
I I I I I I u, n ► r-11:r ti) ..
:,:
..
0 ,.
,.
.,. - z 0 ~ z C: 3: Cl JTI ::u
-·,
I ,­
•
j
~
r
'\
j :
;,
-
~
.
\"
/
.
~~-­
:
fl
1'
,' '·
:i-1
~-t--:~---,-,~
k-\
L~~
I
---:-f--t-;--'-1-,.,,-:ll~~i2...

I I I I I
~~
I
1 1-
:=-:
-~
-~--W~Q>..!...
.,J!i' 't·tr11t=
~
~b½~#-del2...

I
_ _._:_
;: ~-~-=
~
~~
-~.\-J
I ·.
'
--• -- -
-Ljia
~··;'.C
1 1
II
i
c:;
,
1 '.
:
·~~
/
!
I
.
.

I I
25 "' 0 0 "' 0 ... 0
0 0
,--
....
·--···7-r; g 0 0 0 "' 8
'
\ "' "' l> "O ::c 0 (J) <"> )> i;; (") I 0)
CITY
OF
LOS

ANGELES
'· ;
I
.

I,) . a;
~

10.'. ~
rs (")
i
~
~
r'§ ~
~
"
:b!
~ w lO f:11
"'i
'v NO
.

OIV
./t)l!'--T
.
!N
GA
.
()AT[
flOl!ERT
S.

HC!tt
CITY

ENGINEER
o.n:
____
.::::4;,;,
-.?o:;siz..
..
n
1---1--------
-----+-----1----1
STA
266+00
TQSTA..285+50
t--+--
--
---
----
---,
f-----~f----"'
.NORTtl

OUTFALL
REP.LACEMENT
SEWER

MCCARTHY
PROJ
ECT
EN
GR.
ala.
ne
C.
oh
r
R.E. NO
, .:l./07/
AS
ST
. DIY
.tOIST.

ENGR
. ../os
,J,
R.

E.

NO
.I
58"f~
Appendix F
Paleontological Resources
Assessment

Public Version
5757 UPLANDER PROJECT
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report
Prepared for
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90067-601 9
March 2025

Public Version
5757 UPLANDER PROJECT
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report
Prepared for:

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90067 -6019
Prepared by:

ESA
633 West 5th Street, Suite 830
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Project Manager:

Fatima Clark, BA
Principal Investigator and Author:

J .0. Stewart, Ph .0.

Senior Reviewer:

Kyle Garcia, MA, RPA
Project Location:

Venice (CA) USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quad
Township 2 South, Range 14 West, Section 19
Acreage: 8.34 acres
Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 4134-
005-021, 4134-005-004, 4134-005-003
and 4134-005-002
633 West 5th Street
Suite 830
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.599.4300
www.esassoc.com
Bend
Irvine
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Barbara
Sarasota
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland Rancho Cucamonga Seattle
Orlando Sacramento
Palm Beach County San Diego
D202300668.00
Tampa
Thousand Oaks
March 2025
r ESA
~

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY I ESA helps a variety of public a nd pri vate sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adop ted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations . This document was produced using recycled p aper.

5757 Uplander Project i ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

CONTENTS
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report
Page
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................................ 5 State ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Local ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Guidelines ........................................................... 6 Paleontological Resources Significance Criteria .......................................................................... 6 Geologic Setting............................................................................................................................ 8 Geologic Map and Literature Review ........................................................................................... 8 Review of Geotechnical Report .................................................................................................... 9 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Records Search ............................................ 11 Paleontological Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................................ 12 Summary of Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................... 12 References .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4 Geologic Map .................................................................................................................... 10

Table
Table 1 Summary of NHMLAC Fossil Localities ............................................................................ 11

Appendices
A. Personnel Qualifications
B. NHMLAC Records Search

Contents

5757 Uplander Project ii ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

This page intentionally left blank

5757 Uplander Project ES-1 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

B9 Sequoia Culver City Owner LP, the Applicant, proposes to develop a mixed-use residential and commercial project (Project) on an approximately 8.34-acre site (Project Site) located at 5800 Hannum Avenue, 6031 Uplander Way, 5821 Uplander Way, and 5835 Sumner Way, Bldg E, within the Fox Hills neighborhood of the City of Culver City (City). Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has prepared a paleontological resources assessment to identify potential impacts from the Project to paleontological resources in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scope of work for this assessment included a geologic map and literature review, review of a site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the Project, a paleontological resources records search through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), and the recommendation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts from the Project to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. The City is the lead agency for the Project pursuant to CEQA.

Geologic mapping indicates that the surface of the Project Site is underlain by Pleistocene-aged alluvium (Qoa) and the Paleosol of Baldwin Hills (Qop). The Pleistocene alluvium has a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. The Paleosol of the Baldwin Hills also has a high sensitivity because the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines (SVP, 2010) specifically call out paleosols as sensitive, although there is no record of paleontologists testing the Paleosol for the presence of fossils.

Moreover, the paleontological records search conducted through the NHMLAC indicates that no known fossil localities have been identified within the Project Site, but many known fossil localities exist nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the Project Site, and have been recovered at unknown depths and depths up to 16 feet below ground surface (bgs).

Given the identification of numerous fossil specimens at depth during construction projects in the immediate vicinity, the positive results of NHMLAC records search, and since excavations for the Project would extend to a maximum depth of 25 feet bgs (although building footings could extend to approximately 28 feet bgs), the potential to encounter buried paleontological resources during construction of the Project is considered high. Therefore, as the Project could directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources, impacts on buried paleontological resources are considered potentially significant. As such, recommended mitigation measures, including retention of a Qualified Paleontologist, paleontological resources monitoring, and procedures to be followed in the event of the discovery of paleontological resources, are provided in the Summary of Findings and Recommended Mitigation Measures section of this report in order to reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level under CEQA.

Executive Summary
5757 Uplander Project ES-2 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

This page intentionally left blank

5757 Uplander Project 1 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
5757 UPLANDER WAY
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report
Introduction
B9 Sequoia Culver City Owner LP, the Applicant, proposes to develop a mixed-use residential and commercial project (Project) on an approximately 8.34-acre site (Project Site) located at 5800 Hannum Avenue, 6031 Uplander Way, 5821 Uplander Way, and 5835 Sumner Way, Bldg E, within the Fox Hills neighborhood of the City of Culver City (City). Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has prepared a paleontological resources assessment to identify potential impacts to paleontological resources in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scope of work for this assessment included a geologic map and literature review, review of a site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the Project, a paleontological resources records search through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), and the recommendation of mitigation measures to prevent potential impacts from the Project to significant paleontological resources, should they be encountered. The City is the lead agency for the Project pursuant to CEQA.

ESA personnel involved in the preparation of this report are as follows: Fatima Clark, B.A., Project Manager and report author; J.D. Stewart, Ph.D., Principal Investigator and report author; Kyle Garcia, M.A. RPA, Senior Reviewer; and Chance Scott, GIS specialist. Resumes of key personnel are included in Appendix A of this report.

Project Location
As mentioned above, the Project Site is located at 5800 Hannum Avenue, 6031 Uplander Way, 5821 Uplander Way, and 5835 Sumner Way, Bldg E, within the City’s limits (Figure 1). The Project Site is bounded by Hannum Avenue to the north, Uplander Way to the east and south, and Bristol Parkway to the west (Figure 2). It is also situated within Section 19 of Township 2 South, Range 14 West on the Venice, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 3).

Project Description
The Project would demolish the existing surface parking, landscaping and four, one- to two-story office buildings and construct three new seven-story mid-rise buildings with a maximum height of 88 feet and six inches. The Project would provide private and common open space for residents. Each of the three buildings would have its own dedicated parking areas that would be located within a combination of subterranean (up to two levels) and podium parking levels. The Project would include a total of 1,304 vehicular parking spaces (1,283 residential and 21 commercial). Four points of vehicular access would be provided to the Project Site, including three driveways along Uplander Way (two on the east and one on the south) and a driveway connecting to Bristol Parkway. The maximum depth of ground disturbance would reach depths of up to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs), although building footings could extend to approximately 28 feet bgs.
8 <f)
u ::,
-0,
ii:
i
l'
2 "5
~
~
·e
~I
~
~
~I
"5
~I
~:
:g
~
al
i i ·e
\
usann'a, ,,
' 'VIO
' Unta1n \ s
\
Simi Valley
0 ~
Hills 6 calabasas
Acton
0--,--
Santa Clarita
0 Soledad Canyon
San Fernando
0 San
Fernando
Valley
Los Angeles
Verdugo
Mountains
Burbank
La Canada
OFlintridge
0 Glendale Pasadena
0 0
Arcadia
0 f
Mon ica Mountains s an ta West Covina El Monte o
Malibu
0 0
Beverly Hills
Santa Monica
0 Project
Site
Inglewood
0 Torrance
0 Palos
Verde Hills
0 Los Angeles
0 East Los Angeles
0 Huntington Park
0 South GatG7
o 15'owney
0 I
I
',
L
1- - - ea-Haora - - - - - - - "',
Norwalk I O Ch,
I
®7
0 Cerritos
Q ..,I 1
I
I
I
J
/
Long Bea®
0 \
J
/
I
Fullerton
0 Anaheim
0 Orange
0 Santa Ana
0 Fountain Valley
0 . Irvine Huntington o
Beach Costa Mesa
0 0
~'-------------~
~
San
Joaquin
Hi II s
~ Q o---====-----10 c::::J Project Site ~ \:1 Miles
a_ L_ ____________ _j_ __________________________ _j_ ________ -----" SOURCE: ESA, 2025 5757 Uplander Way
Figure 1
Regional Location
SOURCE : ESA, 2025 5757 Uplander Way
Figure 2
Aerial Photograph
::,
~ Feet
CL
SOURCE : ESA, 2025 5757 Uplander Way
Figure 3
Project Location
Regulatory Framework

5757 Uplander Project 5 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Regulatory Framework
Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value that are afforded protection under state laws and regulations. The following section summarizes the applicable state laws and regulations, as well as professional standards.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.), define the procedures, types of activities, individuals, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. As part of CEQA’s Initial Study process, one of the questions that must be answered by the lead agency relates to paleontological resources: “Will the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section VII, Part f).

The loss of a significant paleontological resource, which includes any identifiable fossil that is unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, diagnostically, or stratigraphically important, and/or those that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas—stratigraphically, taxonomically, and/or regionally—would be a significant environmental impact. Direct impacts to paleontological resources primarily concern the potential destruction of nonrenewable paleontological resources and the loss of information associated with these resources. This includes the unauthorized collection of fossil remains. If potentially fossiliferous bedrock or surficial sediments are disturbed, the disturbance could result in the destruction of paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information.

The CEQA threshold of significance for a significant impact to paleontological resources is reached when a project is determined to “directly or indirectly destroy a significant paleontological resource or unique geologic feature” (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section VII, Part f). In general, for project sites that are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the higher the potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources.

California Penal Code Section 622.5
Under California Penal Code Section 622.5, “[e]very person, not the owner thereof, who willfully injures, disfigures, defaces, or destroys any object or thing of archeological or historical interest or value, whether situated on private lands or within any public park or place, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” California PRC Section 5097.5
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 provides protection for paleontological resources on public lands, where Section 5097.5(a) states, in part, that:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, paleontological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other paleontological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.

Regulatory Framework

5757 Uplander Project 6 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Local
City of Culver City General Plan
The City’s General Plan 2045 has one goal (Goal C-1) for cultural resources (including paleontological resources), which indicates that “cultural resources are protected and enhanced through proactive measures” (City of Culver City, 2024:248). Measures C-1.15 and C-1.21 provided below are focused on the protection of paleontological resources.

C-1.15: Public knowledge promotion. Promote public knowledge and understanding of cultural resources (including archaeological, tribal cultural resources, historic resources, and paleontological resources) present within the city.

C-1.21: Protect Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Promote programs and policies to protect known archaeological and paleontological sites and Tribal Cultural Resources.

The City’s General Plan also includes the following implementation actions for the preservation of paleontological resources.

IA.C-8: Historic discretionary review. Require that projects subject to discretionary review are screened to Cultural Affairs to determine if further evaluation by cultural affairs is warranted and, if so, require that projects undergo historic, archaeological, and paleontological assessments and are documented in technical studies by qualified experts to identify the potential for resources to be negatively affected during project implementation and to ensure steps are taken, where warranted, to protect resources.

IA.C-10: Standard conditions of development approval. Continue to implement standard conditions of approval that require and specify the steps to be taken to avoid damage and promote preservation if unknown archaeological or paleontological resources, or Tribal Cultural Resources are uncovered during construction.

Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Guidelines The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Guidelines (SVP, 2010) outline professional protocols and practices for conducting paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, specimen preparation, identification, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most state and local regulatory agencies accept and use the professional standards set forth by the SVP.

Paleontological Resources Significance Criteria
As defined by the SVP (2010:11), significant nonrenewable paleontological resources are:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).

Regulatory Framework

5757 Uplander Project 7 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Multiple paleontological studies have additional criteria for the assessment of significance for fossil discoveries (e.g., Murphey et al., 2019; Murphey and Daitch, 2007; Scott and Springer, 2003). In general, these studies assess fossils as significant if one or more of the following criteria apply:

1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct.

2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein.

3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas.

4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life.

5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

In summary, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important (Murphey et al., 2019; Murphey and Daitch, 2007; Scott and Springer, 2003). Any identifiable vertebrate fossil is significant (SVP, 2010).

Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important (Scott and Springer, 2003; Scott et al., 2004).

Paleontological Potential
Paleontological potential is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. This is determined by rock type, the past history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and the fossil localities recorded from that unit. Paleontological potential is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit and not just from one specific survey. In its “Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources,” the SVP (2010) defines four categories of paleontological sensitivity (potential) for rock units: high, low, undetermined, and no potential.
• High Potential. Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcaniclastic formations (e. g., ashes or tephras), and some low-grade metamorphic rocks which contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e. g., middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.).

Regulatory Framework

5757 Uplander Project 8 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
• Low Potential. Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances and the presence of fossils is the exception not the rule, e. g. basalt flows or Recent colluvium. Rock units with low potential typically will not require impact mitigation measures to protect fossils. • Undetermined Potential. Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A field survey by a qualified professional paleontologist to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of these rock units is required before a paleontological resource impact mitigation program can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface stratigraphy. • No Potential. Some rock units have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, for instance high-grade metamorphic rocks (such as gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (such as granites and diorites). Rock units with no potential require no protection nor impact mitigation measures relative to paleontological resources.

For geologic units with high potential, full-time monitoring is generally recommended during any project- related ground disturbance. For geologic units with low potential, monitoring will not generally be required. For geologic units with undetermined potential, field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist should be conducted to specifically determine the paleontological potential of the rock units present within the study area.

Geologic Setting
The Project Site is situated in the northern portion of the Los Angeles Basin (Basin), a structural depression approximately 50 miles long and 20 miles wide (Yerkes et al., 1965; Ingersoll and Rumelhart, 1999). The Basin is within the Transverse Ranges physiographic-structural province, a series of east-west trending mountains and valleys that interrupt the northwest-southeast orientation of other major California ranges, including the Peninsular Ranges, Coast Ranges, and the Sierra Nevada. The Basin is bounded on the north by the Santa Monica Mountains, the Elysian, Repetto, and Puente Hills and on the east, and by the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills to the southeast. The Basin formed between 18 and 3 million years ago as a result of tectonic subsidence (Critelli et al., 1995). Continuous sedimentation into the Basin began during the middle Miocene around 13 million years ago, as thousands of feet of sediments were deposited in a marine environment (Yerkes et al., 1965). The deposition of terrestrial alluvial sediments commenced during the Pleistocene Epoch. More specifically, the Project Site is situated on the southwest edge of the Baldwin Hills.

Geologic Map and Literature Review
Review of the Dibblee and Minch (2007) geologic map of the Venice and Inglewood quadrangles indicates that the Project Site is underlain by older alluvium (Qoa) along the northwest portion and Paleosol in Baldwin Hills (Qop) in the northeastern, central, and southern portions of the Project Site Regulatory Framework

5757 Uplander Project 9 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
(Figure 4). Qoa is described as “[o]lder alluvium of gray to light brown pebble-gravel, sand, and silt-clay, elevated and dissected; in Baldwin Hills designated as Baldwin Hills sandy gravel” (Dibblee and Minch, 2007). Qop overlies the Qoa and is described as the “[p]aleosol in Baldwin Hills… [and consisting of a] “gray to rusty brown, sandy, locally pebbly, moderately indurated “hard pan” on Qoa” (Dibblee and Minch, 2007). The first mention of the Paleosol was by Weber et al. (1982) who named it the Fox Hills relict paleosol. No exposures of marine sediments are mapped in the immediate area of the Project, but the San Pedro Sand (Qsp) is mapped a few blocks northwest of the Project.

Bandy and Marinkovich (1973) documented marine deposits in the Baldwin Hills dated at 36,200 ±2,750 radiocarbon years and 28,450 ±2,600 radiocarbon years. Thus, uplift of the Baldwin Hills postdates those dates. It is probable that the Qoa and Qop units postdate the 28,000-year date.

Pebbles of the Santa Monica Schist are common in the Pleistocene sediments found in portions of Culver City. It is probable that these pebbles of the Santa Monica Schist could also be encountered during excavations, because the Baldwin Hills were submerged prior to their late Pleistocene uplift.

Neither of the collections of California Pleistocene non-marine vertebrate fossil localities (Jefferson, 1991a, 1991b) have any entries in the Baldwin Hills area. Per review of the NHMLAC’s records, there are many known vertebrate fossil localities, but all those are located in the low lying areas of Culver City.

It is thus possible that Pleistocene terrestrial vertebrate fossils could be unearthed in the Baldwin Hills and these could be potentially discovered during screening of sediment samples.

There is a growing list of Pleistocene paleosols that have produced vertebrate fossils in southern California.

Many of these paleosols have been found in desert settings (Stewart et al., 2012; Raum et al., 2014; Stewart and Hakel, 2016; Stewart and Hakel 2017; Stewart and Hakel, 2019), while others have been found in a coastal setting (Stewart, 2018; 2024). There is no record of paleontologists testing the paleosol in the Baldwin Hills area for fossils. If exposures of the paleosols are found in this Project, a test for fossils would be possible. Furthermore, if pedogenic calcium carbonate is present, a radiocarbon dating would also be possible.

Review of Geotechnical Report
ESA reviewed the geotechnical report prepared for the Project by Geotechnologies, Inc. (2024). Review of the geotechnical report indicates that a total of seven borings were drilled at the Project Site to depths ranging between 40 and 80 feet bgs. Fill materials were encountered in all borings ranging in depth between 2 and 5 feet bgs. Native materials were found beneath the fill materials. The native materials are characterized as the following:
…interlayered granular (sandy) soil layers, and fine soil layers. The granular soil layers are composed of sand, silty sand and clayey sand, while the fine layers are composed of sandy to silty clay and sandy to clayey silt. The observed native soils are slightly moist to moist, range from yellowish brown to orange brown to dark brown to gray in color, and are medium dense to very dense, stiff to very stiff, and fine to coarse grained, with occasional gravel.” (Geotechnologies, Inc., 2024:4).

No attempt was made to distinguish terrestrial sediments from marine sediments in the geotechnical report. Pleistocene marine sediments would logically be encountered at some undetermined depth. .I
Feet
SOURCE : ESA, 2024; Dibblee, 2007
. . . . )· •.
,. ' • :.
•• !I, .... '!- · • : ..
. . . .... . . . .. '
:1
■■ :,w- I• ■
Project Site
Geology
Qa: Alluvial gravel, sand, and clay
Qoa: Older alluvium
Qop: Paleosol in Baldwin Hills
5757 Uplander Way
Figure 4
Geologic Map
Regulatory Framework

5757 Uplander Project 11 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Records Search In addition to the literature search, ESA requested a database search on December 24, 2024, from the NHMLAC for records of fossil localities in and around the Project Site. The purpose of the museum records search was to: (1) determine whether any previously recorded fossil localities occur in the Project Site, (2) assess the potential for disturbance of these localities during construction, and (3) evaluate the paleontologic al sensitivity within the Project Site and vicinity. The results from the NHMLAC were received on December 30, 2024 and provided in Appendix B of this report.

The results indicate that no known fossil localities are located within the Project Site, but that fossil localities have been identified nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the Project Site, either at surface or at depth ( Table 1). Fossil localities (including horse, camel, mammoth, bison, hares, antelope, birds, ground sloth, mastodon, saber -toothed cat, deer, bivalves, bony fish, sponges, snails, scallops, shellfish and other invertebrates) have been recovered in the vicinity of the Project Site. These localities were found at unknown depths and depths between 1.6 and 16 feet bgs. Localities LACM VP 1180 and 4942 also produced cf. Mammut, and Equus (Jefferson, 1991b). These are not mentioned in the records search report from the NHMLAC. The only fossil localities listed in Table 1 that are within Baldwin Hills area are the marine fossil localities. Specifically, marine mollusks were recovered at localities (LACM IP 42394 – 42408) only a few hundred feet northwest of the Project (Bell, 2024).

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF NHMLAC FOSSIL LOCALITIES
Locality
Number Formation Taxa Depth
LACM IP 42394
- 42408
Pleistocene terrace deposits Sponge trace (Entobia), oysters (Ostrea), scallops (Leptopecten, Chlamys), and
other unsorted invertebrates

1.6 – 9.8 ft bgs
(50 cm- 3m)
LACM IP 23224 Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Cerith (Lirobittium), dove snail
(Amphissa), nutclam (Acila [Truncacila]),
wentletrap (Hirtoscala), bivalve (Saccella),
slipper shell (Crepidula), top snail
(Calliostoma, Norrisia), scallop
(Leptopecten), jewel boxes (Chama), horn
snail (Bittium), cardita (Cyclocardia),
hatchet shell (Thyasira), venus clam
(Compsomyax), tower shell (Turritella),
nut clam (Nuculana)
Unknown
LACM VP 1180,
4942
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene, massive
sandy mudstone w
scattered pieces of gravel)
Mammoth (Mammuthus); bison (Bison);
hare (Lepus)
16 ft bgs
LACM VP 3789 Unknown (Pleistocene;
pebbly gray-green to brown
mud that directly overlies a
gray-green fine sand)
Mammoth (Mammuthus) 14 ft bgs
LACM VP 1170 Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Sloth (Megalonyx), camel (Camelops),
weasel (Mustela frenata), bison (Bison),
deer (Odocoileus), sabertooth cat
(Smilodon), pronghorn antelope
(Capromeryx), Mastodon (Mammut),
peccary (Platygonus), horse (Equus), coot
(Fulica), unidentified birds (Aves)
Unknown
Summary of Findings and Recommendations

5757 Uplander Project 12 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025

Paleontological Sensitivity Analysis
The literature and geologic mapping review and the records search results presented above were used to assign paleontological sensitivity to the geologic units at surface and underlying the Project Site, following the guidelines of the SVP (2010):
• Fill Material: As indicated by geotechnical testing (Geotechnologies, Inc., 2024), fill material is present at the surface of the Project Site and extends to depths between 2 and 5 feet. It is unclear as to where the fill material came from and so assigning an age is not possible. Given that the fill is described as artificial and is likely the result of past grading or construction activities at the Project Site, it is unlikely to contain intact fossiliferous deposits. Therefore, this unit is assigned No Potential to contain significant paleontological resources.
• Qop, Paleosol of Baldwin Hills: This unit is described as gray to rusty brown, sandy, locally pebbly, moderately indurated “hardpan” on Qoa. This unit is assigned a High Potential to contain paleontological resources because the SVP guidelines (SVP, 2010) specifically call out paleosols as sensitive. There is no record of paleontologists testing the Paleosol in the Baldwin Hills for fossils. • Qoa, Older alluvium: Dibblee and Minch (2007) describe this unit as “Older alluvium of gray to light brown pebble-gravel, sand, and silt-clay, elevated and dissected; in Baldwin Hills designated as Baldwin Hills sandy gravel by Weber et al., 1982.” Many significant fossils have been recovered from Older alluvium in Culver City. Therefore, it is assigned a High Potential for significant paleontological resources.
• Pleistocene marine sediments: These are not mapped in this area but clearly exist subsurface. The Dibblee and Minch (2007) map an outcrop of the San Pedro Formation a few blocks northwest of the Project. Many Pleistocene marine fossils were excavated a few hundred feet northwest of the Project.

Microvertebrate fossils often occur in such deposits. Therefore, these sediments are assigned a High Potential for significant paleontological resources.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Geologic mapping indicates that the surface of the Project Site is underlain by 2-5 feet of fill material, which has no potential for paleontological resources. Possibly beneath that is Paleosol of Baldwin Hills (Qop) which has a high potential to retain paleontological resources. The remainder of the sediments that are anticipated to be encountered are older alluvium (Qoa) which has a high potential for paleontological resources. The Qop and Qoa units will be monitored for paleontological resources since excavations for the Project are expected to extend to a maximum depth of 25 feet bgs, although building footings could extend to approximately 28 feet bgs. Therefore, as the Project could directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources, impacts on buried paleontological resources are considered potentially significant. As such, the following recommendations are provided below in order to reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level under CEQA.

1. Prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits, the Applicant shall retain a Qualified Paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards for a professional paleontologist. The Qualified Paleontologist shall provide technical and compliance oversight of all Summary of Findings and Recommendations

5757 Uplander Project 13 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
work as it relates to paleontological resources. The Qualified Paleontologist shall examine construction plans and oversee the preparation of a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (Plan). This Plan shall include geological and paleontological contextual information, methods for paleontological construction monitoring, protocols for inadvertent discoveries, methods for sediment sampling and screening, including requirements for the radiocarbon dating of specimens or other materials, and final reporting requirements. The Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee shall attend a pre-construction meeting to discuss the monitoring requirements to construction personnel and shall be responsible for overseeing paleontological monitors (meeting SVP standards) that will observe grading and excavation activities.

2. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during construction excavations into undisturbed older alluvial sediments, undisturbed Baldwin Hills Paleosol materials, and undisturbed Pleistocene marine sediments. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting and wet screening sediment samples of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. The Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee will regularly inspect the concentrate samples via a microscope or other appropriate means. If significant vertebrate fossils are found, the Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee will collect and process additional larger samples for screening, per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines from each geologic unit producing significant fossils. The Qualified Paleontologist shall determine the frequency of monitoring inspections and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and/or if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections, or ceased entirely, if determined adequate by the Qualified Paleontologist. If a potential fossil is found, the Qualified Paleontologist shall have authority to temporarily stop excavation activity or to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation of the discovery. The Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee shall establish an appropriate buffer area around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. At the Qualified Paleontologist’s discretion, and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock/sediment samples for initial processing and evaluation. If preservation in place is not feasible, the Qualified Paleontologist shall implement a paleontological salvage program to remove the resources from their location.

3. Any fossils recovered during Project-related excavations shall be prepared to the point of identification if possible. The residue from sediment samples shall be dried and sorted with a binocular dissecting microscope or other appropriate means. Both macrofossils and vertebrate microfossils shall be prepared to the point of identification if possible, identified, and curated into an accredited repository. The Qualified Paleontologist shall oversee the preparation of a final report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall accompany any specimens to the accredited repository. The report shall also be submitted by the Applicant to the City of Culver City to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and required mitigation measures.

References

5757 Uplander Project 14 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
References
Bandy, O. L., and L. Marinkovich, Jr. 1973. Rates of Late Cenozoic Uplift, Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles, California. Science 181:653-655.

Bell, Alyssa. 2024. Paleontological resources for the 5757 Uplander Project. Prepared for Environmental Science Associates by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

City of Culver City. 2024. Culver City General Plan.
https://www.culvercity.org/files/content/public/v/11/have-your-say/general-plan-2045/general-plan- 2045.pdf, accessed December 16, 2024.

Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2007, Geologic map of the Venice and Inglewood quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Foundation Map DF-322, scale 1:24000 Geotechnologies, Inc. 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Mixed Use Development 5757 Uplander Way, Culver City, California. Prepared for: Link Logistics, 333 Michelson Avenue, Suite 725, Irvine, CA 92612. Prepared by: Geotechnologies, Inc., 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201.

Ingersoll, R. V. and P. E. Rumelhart. 1999. Three-stage Basin Evolution of the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California. Geology 27: 593–596.

Jefferson, G.T. 1991a. A catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part One, Nonmarine Lower Vertebrate and Avian Taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 5.

Jefferson, G.T. 1991b. A catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two, Mammals.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 7.

Murphey, P. C., and D. Daitch. 2007. Paleontological overview of oil shale and tar sands areas in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Scale 1:500,000. U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management.

Murphey, P. C., G. E. Knauss, L. H. Fisk, T A. Deméré, and R. E. Reynolds. 2019. Best Practices in Mitigation Paleontology. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History no. 47.

Raum, J., G L. Aron, and R. E. Reynolds. 2014. Vertebrate Fossils from Desert Center, Chuckwalla Valley, California. Desert Symposium Proceedings 2014:68-70.

Scott, E. and K. Springer. 2003. CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. The Environmental Monitor.

Scott, E., K. Springer, and J. C. Sagebiel. 2004. Vertebrate paleontology in the Mojave Desert: the continuing importance of “follow-through” in preserving paleontologic resources. In The human journey and ancient life in California’s deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference.

Ridgecrest: Maturango Museum Publication 15: 65–70.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.

References

5757 Uplander Project 15 ESA / D202300668.00
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report March 2025
Stewart, J. D. 2018. Paleontological Resources Evaluation for the Upper Newport Bay East Bluff Drainage Repair Project. Prepared for: Orange County Parks Planning & Design, Irvine, CA.

Prepared by: AECOM, 999 W. Town and Country Road, Orange, CA. 92868. 16 p.

Stewart, J. D. 2024. Paleontological resource Evaluation for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for: City of Newport Beach, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Prepared by: Chambers Group, Inc., 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F208, Santa Ana, CA 92707.

Stewart, J. D., and M. E. Hakel. 2016. Pleistocene paleosol developed on ancestral Mojave River sediments near Hinkley, California. Paleobios 33 Supplement: 15.

Stewart, J. D., and M. Hakel. 2017. First Record of Vertebrate Fossils in the Searles Basin: In Another Desert Paleosol. California State University Desert Symposium Proceedings 2017:341.

Stewart, J. D., and M. E. Hakel. 2019. The First Pleistocene Paleosol Vertebrate Fossils in Ridgecrest, Kern County, CA. Desert Symposium Proceedings 2019:204-205.

Stewart, J. D., M. Williams, M. Hakel, and S. Musick. 2012. Was It Washed In? New Evidence for the Genesis of Pleistocene Fossil Vertebrate Remains in the Mojave Desert of Southern California.

California State University Desert Symposium Proceedings 2012:140-143.

Weber, F.H., Jr., editor, E. Y. Hsu, R. B. Saul, S. S. Tan, and J. A. Treiman.1982. Slope Stability and Geology of the Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 152:1-93.pg. 1, Geology of the Northern Baldwin Hills. Scale 1:48,000.

Yerkes, R. F., T. H. McCulloh, J. E. Schollhamer, and J. G. Vedder.1965. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin – an Introduction. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A.

Appendix A
Personnel Qualifications
J.D. Stewart, Ph.D.

Principal Paleontologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Dr. J.D. Stewart has more than 40 years’ experience in the field of paleontology, with 30 years’ experience in California. He has authored or co-authored 40 peer-reviewed articles for scientific journals and books. Within these, he has authored or co-authored descriptions of three new genera and three new species.

He is a recognized authority on fossil fishes of Cretaceous rocks of North America and Cenozoic rocks of the western coast of North America. As a result, Dr. Stewart is often called upon to identify paleontological and archaeological specimens. He has served as expert witness for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Dr. Stewart has extensive experience finding and excavating fossils for county, state, and provincial institutions. His field work includes projects in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Parks Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Navy, U.

S. Department of Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, California Energy Commission, Caltrans, and California State Parks. The Bureau of Land Management’s national website features one of his excavations from 2004. He has supervised monitoring of construction activity in numerous California counties and municipalities. In addition to fieldwork, he has experience in the supervision of preparators, surveyors, curatorial assistants, and excavators. He also has extensive experience preparing fossils, and has processed, recovered, and identified thousands of microvertebrate fossils.

Relevant Experience
Salton Sea Mitigation Implementation Plan, Riverside and Imperial Counties, CA.

Paleontologist. ESA prepared an adaptive management and monitoring plan for the Salton Sea basin for the Salton Sea Management Program, which is a partnership between the California Natural Resources Agency, DWR, and CDFW. The monitoring plan will prioritize and guide monitoring for biological resources, including avian species, fish and invertebrates, as well as water quality, hydrology, air quality, and socioeconomics. The monitoring plan will inform status and trends of resources, as well as the implementation of future habitat and dust suppression projects. JD compiled the paleontological resource mitigation and monitoring plan and prepared the team for monitoring.

California Water Service Company, Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, Rolling Hills Estates, CA. Paleontologist. ESA provided a full suite of environmental services for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability project. The proposed project involves the construction of approximately seven miles of buried potable water pipelines and a new booster pump station to replace the current water distribution system serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The large 7-mile utility/infrastructure project, which crossed multiple jurisdictions, including the cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles. JD oversaw paleontological monitoring for reaches 3 and 4 and the pump station, coordinating finds, identifying fossils, and processing the fossils at the lab.

EDUCATION
PhD, Systematics &
Ecology, University of
Kansas
MA, Systematics and
Ecology, University of
Kansas
BA Degree, Biology,
University of Kansas
40 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
Meets Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology
definition of qualified
professional
paleontologist
Orange County Certified
Paleontologist

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology
Research Associate,
Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County
r- ESA
~
J.D. Stewart, Ph.D. (Continued)
Principal Paleontologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Syphon Reservoir Geotechnical Investigations Project IS/MND, Orange County, CA. Principal Paleontologist. IRWD implemented the Geotechnical Investigations Project to characterize the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the Syphon Reservoir site to support the potential development of a future reservoir expansion. The Project included a combination of exploratory test pits, borings, and geophysical surveys to characterize the subsurface conditions of the soil at the Syphon Reservoir site and verified the characteristics of the Center Valley Fault. ESA provided extensive biological surveys and cultural surveys, assisted IRWD with AB 52 process for Tribal consultation. Dr. Stewart supervised paleontological monitoring during geotechnical explorations (including borings, exploratory test pits, and abutment/seismic trenches) at the Syphon Reservoir, as the project is located within geologic formations (Silverado and Sespe/Vaqueros) that have a high paleontological potential for yielding paleontological resources. Sediment sampling was conducted to identify the presence/absence of microvertebrate fossils.

Goetz Road Potable Water Storage Tank and Pipeline Project EIR, Riverside, CA. Paleontologist. ESA prepared an EIR and conducted supporting biological, archaeological, and paleontological surveys, as well as prepared visual simulations and a shade and shadow report for the Goetz Road Potable Water Storage Tank and Pipeline project. The project would involve construction and operation of an 8-million-gallon potable water storage tank in the City of Perris. JD led the paleontology survey.

City of Menifee, On-Call Consulting and Peer Review Services, Menifee, CA. Paleontologist. For 5 years, ESA has provided on-call peer reviews of more than 30 applicant-prepared cultural resources technical reports. ESA has become a trusted advisor to the City. JD has provided peer review of paleontology sections and reports for the City.

Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Onyx Ranch South Fork Valley Water Project EIR, Kern County, CA.

Paleontologist. ESA prepared the EIR and associated technical studies to support the Onyx Ranch South Fork Valley Water Project. RRBWSD proposes to change the point of diversion and place of use for the water rights associated with Onyx Ranch and Smith Ranch on the South Fork of the Kern River. The intent of the project is to allow water to be delivered in the RRBWSD service area on the San Joaquin Valley floor and used for irrigation and groundwater recharge. The proposed project would assist the RRBWSD in meeting its sustainability goals under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. JD prepared the paleontology report to support the CEQA section.

Guild GC, 8777 Washington Boulevard MND, Culver City, CA. Paleontologist. ESA prepared an MND to address the proposed redevelopment of an approximately 1-acre property at 8777 Washington Boulevard north of the intersection at Washington Boulevard and National Boulevard in Culver City. The project is proposing a four-story building up to 56 feet.

The project is proposing approximately 128,000 square feet of office space on Levels 2 through 4 and 4,500 square feet of retail/food retail on the ground level. JD provided monitoring oversight, oversaw fossil discovery, and processed fossil samples.

I-805 Managed Lanes South Project, Caltrans District 11, San Diego County, CA. Paleontologist. Dr. Stewart supervised the pedestrian survey of the project footprint and wrote the Paleontological Resource Assessment.

I-805 North Corridor Project, Caltrans District 11, San Diego County, CA. Paleontologist. Dr. Stewart supervised the pedestrian survey of the project footprint and wrote the Paleontological Resource Assessment.

Crestavilla Retirement and Assisted Living Community Project, Laguna Niguel, CA. Principal Paleontologist. Dr.

Stewart supervised paleontological monitoring during the construction of a new 224‐unit retirement and assisted living facility and an approximately 1,870 square‐foot Spiritual Resource Center (Shepherd of the Hills Church) within a four‐ story structure located over a one‐level subterranean parking structure. The monitoring led to the identification of a r- ESA
~
J.D. Stewart, Ph.D. (Continued)
Principal Paleontologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
remarkable collection of vertebrate fossils, including the first record of a gulper shark (Centrophorus) from any Neogene sediments of coastal California and the first reported specimens of the cookie-cutter shark (Isistius) from the Capistrano Formation. Additionally, the project yielded the most complete fossil tuna ever found in California and it probably represents a species new to science.

Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA. Principal Paleontologist. Dr. Stewart supervised paleontological monitoring during construction of new potable water pipelines and a new booster pump station to replace the current water distribution system serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The monitoring led to the identification and salvage of numerous fossils from Altamira Shale deposits of the Monterey Formation, including fossils of leaf imprints, sardine scales, fish parts (vertebrae, dentary, mandible) and the fossil appendage (dactyl) of a type of Mantis shrimp (Stomatopod). The Mantis shrimp specimen is believed to be the only second known occurrence in southern California of Angelosquilla altamierensis, and the only one with a known precise locality and provenience.

Oaks at Monte Nido, Santa Monica Mountains, Unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA. Principal Paleontologist. Dr.

Stewart was in charge of the preparation of the Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, which included a pedestrian survey. The pedestrian survey yielded the identification of a sandstone boulder that contains a fossil impression of the skull of a small-toothed cetacean “dolphin” and the identification of fossilized shells of pelecypods (e.g., bivalves such as clams, mussels, oysters, and cockles) and gastropods (e.g., snails and slugs). The project proposes the development of 15 single-family residences on separate individual recorded parcels within the Monte Nido Community, along the scenic route of Piuma Road.

Heritage Fields/Great Park Paleontological Review, Orange County, CA. Principal Paleontologist. Dr. Stewart conducted Phase I and II paleontological assessments at the Heritage Fields / Great Park in Orange County, California where he and his team discovered significant portions of a Miocene-aged (15 million years ago) whale fossil, and a Pleistocene microvertebrate fauna dating to before 28,000 years ago.

Calnev Pipeline Project, San Bernardino County, CA, and Clark County, NV. Principal Paleontologist. Dr. Stewart directed paleontological survey of a 234-mile-long project area in San Bernardino County, California and Clark County, Nevada and wrote the paleontological assessment.
r- ESA
~
Kyle Garcia, MA, RPA
Principal Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Kyle Garcia has over 21 years of experience in the archaeology and prehistory of southern California, and meets and exceeds the Secretary of Interior Standards qualificaitons for a prehistoric and historic archaeolgoist. During his career, he has authored or contributed to more than 800 projects subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106 of the NHPA). He is well- versed in the archaeological resources of California’s coastal, interior, and island settings.

He is skilled in evaluation historic and prehistoric archaeological resources; agency and Native American consultation; pedestrian surveys, testing and evaluation excavations as well as archaeological and paleontological construction monitoring, and laboratory processing. During his tenure, he has authored or contributed to more than 400 technical reports and sections to support all levels of CEQA and NEPA documents. Kyle’s portfolio of projects includes energy, water, and transportation infrastructure as well as residential, commercial, mixed-use, institutional, and urban redevelopment serving public and private sector clients. Kyle has conducted archaeological work throughout California and is a certified archaeologist and paleontologist in Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Orange counties.

Relevant Experience
Archaeological/Paleontological Monitoring. Kyle has managed more than 120 archaeological and/or paleontological construction monitoring projects in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. He has a commanding knowledge of the procedures to implement in the event of an inadvertent discovery during construction, and how to navigate an applicant or lead agency though that process to ensure compliance with the project’s mitigation measures or conditions of approval and to reach consensus on treatment of the discovery, especially if the discovery is Native American in origin.

Paleontology. In addition to his archaeological work, Kyle has been cross-trained in paleontological mitigation monitoring and assisted in the excavations of a Miocene whale fossil near Irvine and a new species of extinct tuna in Laguna Niguel, California. Kyle has also managed or conducted more than 200 paleontological assessments and 40 paleontological monitoring projects throughout southern California. He has assisted ESA’s paleontologists with the preparation of paleontological reports in compliance with CEQA and local paleontological guidelines, including guidelines for the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology.

Project Experience
Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring for the LAX Crossfield Taxiway Improvements, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager/Archaeological Monitor. Between 2009- 2010, Kyle performed archaeological and paleontological monitoring services during

EDUCATION
MA, Anthropology
(Archaeology Option),
California State University
Los Angeles
BA, Anthropology,
(Physical/ Biological
Emphasis), University of
California, Santa Barbara
21 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
Registered Professional
Archaeologist, #4587
Secretary of Interior-
Qualified Archaeologist
Riverside County
Registered Archaeologist
#202 and Paleontologist
Orange County Certified
Archaeologist
Orange County Certified
Paleontologist
Santa Barbara County-
Certified Archaeologist
40-Hour HAZWOPER
Training – Update, 2023

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for American
Archaeology
Society for California
Archaeology
Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society
r- ESA
~
Kyle Garcia, MA, RPA (Continued)
Principal Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
earthmoving operations associated with the development of the Crossfield Taxiway project in accordance with established mitigation measures from the LAX Crossfield Taxiway Project (CFTP) EIR. PCR conducted archaeological and paleontological field visits, paleontological sediment sampling, and monitoring of earthmoving operations associated with the construction of CFTP until activities requiring monitoring ended. These operations included excavations for filter boxes, water pipeline installation, and the realignment of World Way West. In addition to monitoring, Kyle performed an archaeology and paleontology training session for appropriate project personnel involved with construction of the project. The training session focused on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event. No resources were identified during the monitoring effort and these findings were summarized in a report that was submitted to Los Angeles World Airports. Kyle served as project director/manager, crew chief, monitor, and co-author of the final report.

University High School Beautification Project, Los Angeles, CA. Archaeologist. Kyle performed archaeological monitoring during earth-moving activities on the campus. The archaeological monitoring program ensured the protection of the village site and springs, and resulted in the discovery of remains of the original portico of the Administration Building which was destroyed by the Long Beach Earthquake of 1933.

Rancho Campana High School and Performing Arts Center Construction Monitoring, Camarillo, CA. Project Manager.

Kyle led the archaeological and paleontological monitoring for the project as a part of ESA’s on-call contract with Oxnard Union High School. He managed and coordinated the effort and prepared the associated report. ESA identified two archaeological resources (56-001512/CA-VEN-1512 and 56-001513/CA-VEN-1513H) during monitoring efforts and several paleontological localities during the monitoring and sediment screening activities and worked together with the Ventureño Chumash regarding treatment for the archaeological resources. Although several archaeological and paleontological resources were encountered during the construction monitoring efforts, the resources were treated in accordance with the mitigation measures and, as a result, the impacts to the resources were reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the CEQA.

Citron (Stella Park) Townhome Development, Escondido, CA: Project Manager. Kyle served as the project manager responsible for overseeing the archaeological and Native American monitoring at the project in accordance with the Conditions of Approval. The project included the construction of a 65-unit townhome development on a vacant 2.29- acre site in the City of Escondido.

Archaeological Monitoring, Test Excavations, and Data Recovery Excavations During Construction of the Crystal Geyser Roxane Cabin Bar Ranch Water Bottling Facility, Olancha, Inyo County, CA. Principal Investigator/Project Director/Manager/Crew Chief. Kyle managed/directed archaeological construction monitoring services in accordance with the Cultural Resources mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the EIR for the project. During initial clearing and grubbing activities associated with the project, five prehistoric archeological resources were encountered. Kyle assisted the Applicant in developing a cultural resources treatment plan to address identify, evaluate, and mitigate project impacts to these resources to a less than significant level. Pursuant to the MMRP, this treatment plan was developed in coordination with ESA (Kyle), the County, CG Roxane, and the Lone-Pine Pauite- Shoshone Reservation. The treatment plan included measures for resource avoidance, additional survey, and the excavation of nine controlled excavation units and multiple mechanical backhoe trenches across the project site. More than a 1,000 artifacts have been recovered from this project. This project began in 2015 and continues today. r- ESA
~
Fatima Clark
Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Fatima has 16 years of hands-on archaeological experience and is practiced in project management and cl ient a nd agency co ordination. H e r f ield ex perience is c o mplimented b
y the course study an d p a rticipation i n numerous archaeological excavations in California, Ar izona, and P e ru. F a tima h a s w r itte n California Environmental Qu ality A c t (
CEQA)-level technical reports, En vironmental Impact R ep ort (E IR) sections, In itia l Study sections, archaeological pe er rev iews, a rch aeological mo n itoring reports, and r e ports p
ursuant to California Dep artment o f Tr ansportation (C a ltrans) requirements. S he is als o ex
perienced in performing ar chaeological testing, si te recordation, l a boratory analysis, p
edestrian surveys, rec ords s ea rches t hrough several California Hi storical Resources In
formation Sy stems -In formation Centers, a n d mo nitoring for a wi de v ariety of pro jects, including mi xed -use, residential, an d ener gy, w a ter, a n d r o ad i n frastructure projects. I n addition to he r archaeology background, F a tima h as been cross-trained in conducting p
aleontological su rveys a nd monitoring and ha s c o-a uthored and manage d associated r
eports.

Relevant Experience
Lo
s Angeles Department of Water and Power, Fort Ind ependence Travel Plaza Power Project, Independence (Owens Valley), CA. Project Ma nager . Fat ima is i n the pr ocess o f p
reparing the cultural resources as sessment in co mpliance with NEPA, S ection 10 6, a nd CEQA. LADWP pr oposes t o install 13 new temporary pol es, on e (1 ) anchor, an d r ep lace one (1) ex isting p ole for a 34.5 kV line extension to provide power during co nstruction o f a new T
ravel Ce nter a t 14 1 N . Highway 39 5 in Fort I nd ependence, I nyo Cou nty, C a lifor n ia.

Landify ECT Corporation, Lo wer S w eetwater P ark Pro ject, Ci t y o f Ch ula V ista, CA.

Project Manager. Fa tima h as prepared a cultural resources as sessment i n co mplianc e with CEQA. The Project pr oposes t o redevelop the existing 21.3 acre Project Si te with sports facilities wi thin the City of Ch ula V is ta .

County of Los Angeles, Department of Pu blic Works, Wh ittier B o ulevard U n derground U
tility Project, Lo s Angeles County, CA. Project Co -Manager. Fatima pre pared the c
ultural resources as sessment in support of a Cl ass 2 Categorical Exemption. The project c
onsists of the removal of uti lity p ol es and o verhead lines, and the excavation fo r underground uti lity l i nes a long Wh ittier B oulevard right-of-way. On e historical resource, t
he early-to-m id 2 0 th century L o s An geles Ra ilway (o r Yellow Cars), wa s i dentified in the p
roject are a a s a res ult o f arc hival re s earch a nd geo technical i n vestigations. Fatima also ma
naged the archaeological monitoring of con struction activities and p r epared th e mo
nitoring report.

City of Carson, Avocet En ergy S t orage S ystem Project, Cit y of Ca rson, CA.

Archaeologist. Fatima ma naged t he preparation of th e archaeologica l and pa leontological r
esources as sessment r ep orts in compliance w it h CEQA . The proposed Pr oject includes t
he development of an ap proximately 2 0 0 -megawatt battery en ergy s tor age s ystem on a E

DUCATION
BA, Anthropology,
California State
University, Fullerton
16 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
Orange County Certified
Archaeologist
HAZWOPER Certified

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for California
Archaeology
r- ESA
~
Fatima Clark (Continued)
Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com

6.96-acre site (BESS site), improvements and upgrades to the existing SCE Hinson Substation (SCE Hinson Substation site), the construction of a gen-tie line to connect to substation to the BESS site (proposed gen-tie line route), and other associated improvements. The proposed gen-tie route would cross three jurisdictions including: the City of Carson, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Long Beach.

Storm Properties, Inc. Storm Hill Lane Project, Rolling Hills, CA. Project Manager . Fatima managed the day-to-day coordination for the monitoring and preparation of the archaeological /paleontological monitoring report pursuant to CEQA. As a result of the monitoring, several fossils were identified and these are currently being analyzed. The Project requires the reconstruction and expansion of Storm Hill Lane from the currently addressed and developed lot at 4 Storm Hill Lane to the three undeveloped lots.

Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., Ballona Wetlands Sequence 1 & 2 Restoration , Culver City, CA. Project Manager.

Fatima managed the coordination for the monitoring with the archaeological and biological monitors, as well as coordination with the client. ESA’s monitors were present during trenching and grading within portions of Ballona Creek in Culver City.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2024 Connect SoCal Program PEIR, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Imperial and Ventura, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the PEIR Sections (cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources), as well as coordinated the Native American consultation efforts. Connect SoCal 2024 is a long-range comprehensive plan for the region’s multi-modal transportation system.

Preparing the Plan is one of SCAG’s primary statutory responsibilities under federal and state law. A regional transportation plan (RTP) is the mechanism used in California by both metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies to conduct long-range (at least 20-year) planning in their regions. SCAG must adopt an RTP and update it every four years, or more frequently, if the region is to receive federal and state transportation dollars for public transit, streets/roads, and bicycle and pedestrian improvemen ts.

Culver City, Crossings Campus (Culver City & City of Los Angeles, CA). Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the archaeological resources report and coordinated the preparation of the paleontological resources report. Fatima also led the preparation of the EIR sections (cultural, paleo, tribal). Culver Crossings Properties LLC, the Applicant, proposes to develop an office project (Project) on an approximately 4.46-acre site (Project Site) comprised of two properties: one 1.63-acre parcel is located in the City of Culver City (City), while the second 2.83-acre parcel is located in the City of Los Angeles.

County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, Sweetwater Campground Geotech Boring Monitoring , San Diego County, CA. Project Co- Manager. Fatima co-managed the archaeological monitoring and coordinated with Red Tail for Native American monitoring and the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation during Geotech borings for the Project.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, East San Gabriel Valley Area Plan (ESGVAP) Program EIR, Eastern Portion of Los Angeles County, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima managed the preparation of the PEIR Sections (cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources). The ESGVAP is part of the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan, which will require an amendment. The ESGVAP is a long-range policy document developed to guide long-term growth of the area through development of a guiding vision, goals, policies, and implem entation actions for the unincorporated communities in the East San Gabriel Valley. The ESGVAP’s planning area consists of 24 unincorporated islands and communities and encompasses a total land area of 210.5 square miles . r- ESA
~
Fatima Clark (Continued)
Archaeologist
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County 2045 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update and PEIR, Los Angeles County, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima managed the preparation of the PEIR Sections (cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources). The County adopted the Unincorporated Los Angeles County Community Climate Action Plan 2020 (2020 CCAP) in 2015 as a component of the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. The 2020 CCAP aligned with General Plan goals, policies, and programs, as well as several other existing programs in Los Angeles County. The 2020 CCAP was the first attempt to set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals in Los Angeles County. Although the targets for the 2020 CCAP were ultimately not fully met, the plan provided a road map for implementing the County’s GHG reduction measures. The 2020 CCAP actions were implemented through County Code amendments and programs related to climate action. The Draft 2045 CAP builds on previous work and defines new reduction targets beyond the year 2020.

Eastern Municipal Water District, San Jacinto Valley Groundwater Treatment Facility Project, San Jacinto, CA.

Archaeologist. Fatima assisted with the Phase II archaeological testing for the Project. The site was the location of the region’s first trading post/general store, established ca. 1868. It later became the Palma Hotel, constructed by Henry T.

Hewitt. The hotel was also used as a Riverside County hospital before it was destroyed in an earthqua ke in 1899.

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Sand Canyon Flood Control Permitting Project, San Bernardino County, CA.

Archaeologist. Fatima was in charge of preparing the cultural resources assessment in compliance with Section 106.

Fatima also conducted the pedestrian survey. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians is considering taking over operation and maintenance of a concrete-lined channel and debris basin (known as Sand Creek) along Sand Canyon, within unincorporated San Bernardino County.

City of Long Beach, 615 E. Ocean Boulevard Project, Long Beach, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the cultural and paleontological resources reports in support of an addendum to the Certified City of Long Beach Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. The Project would develop a 21 -story high-rise residential building on an approximately 0.4-acre site located at 615 East Ocean Boulevard within the City’s limits (Project site).

City of Long Beach Department of Development Services, Planning Bureau, 7250 Carson Street Project, City of Long Beach, CA. Deputy Project Manager. Fatima led the preparation of the cultural and paleontological resources reports in compliance with CEQA. The Project Applicant proposes to subdivide a 20-acre parcel into two parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B). Other than the approval of the tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing parcel, no proposed improvements or development for Parcel A are included a s part of the Project. Development of Parcel B (Project Site) would include the development of two fast-food restaurants and parking spaces.

City of Diamond Bar, Crooked Creek Residential Subdivision Project, Los Angeles County, CA. Archaeologist. Fatima conducted the archaeological and paleontological resources assessments in compliance with CEQA and the City of Diamond Bar General Plan Policy RC-P-42. The studies included records searches, pedestrian survey, and subsurface sensitivity assessments. No cultural resources were identified in the project site, but the area was found to have the potential to contain subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources and paleontological resources. The project consisted of the development of seven single-family residences and associated infrastructure on approximately 2.5 acres. The project required approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Conditional U se Permit, Tree Permit, and Development Review.
r- ESA
~

Appendix B
NHMLAC Records Search
(Confidential)

Appendix G
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment

Report Date: June 13, 2022
Site Assessment Date: May 19, 2022; June 3, 2022

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Property Information:

Seller’s Bldg #03047 - Culver City/Uplander
5751-5769 Uplander Way; 5801-5819 Uplander Way; 5834A-5859 Uplander Way; 5800-5860 Hannum Avenue
Culver City, Los Angeles County, California 90230
Project Information:

AEI Project No. 462158
Prepared For:

Link Logistics Real Estate
602 West Office Center Drive Suite 200
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034
Prepared By:

AEI Consultants
20 Gibson Place, Suite 310
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
AEI Main Contact: Peg Muller-Conti
National Presence
Regional ~ocus
Local Solutions
Environmental
Due Diligence
Building Assessments
Site Investigation
& Remediation
Energy Performance
& Benchmarking
Industrial Hygiene
Construction
Risk Management
Zoning Analysis
Reports & AL TA
Surveys
June 13, 2022
Christina Springrose
Link Logistics Real Estate
602 West Office Center Drive Suite 200
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
5751-5769 Uplander Way; 5801-5819 Uplander Way; 5834A-5859 Uplander Way; 5800-5860 Hannum Avenue
Culver City, California 90230
AEI Project No. 462158
Client Reference No. N/A
Client Reference Name: Seller’s Bldg #03047 - Culver City/Uplander Dear MS. Springrose:

AEI Consultants is pleased to provide the
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the
above
referenced property. This assessment was authorized and performed in accordance with the scope of services engaged.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide services to you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact me at (408) 559-7600 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Peg Muller-Conti
Business Development Manager
AEI Consultants
,,-~, AE I
Consultants
National Presence • Regional Focus • Local Solutions
www.aeiconsultants.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.1 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3 Significant Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.4 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.5 Limiting Conditions/Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.6 Data Failure and Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.7 Reliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.0 SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.1 Site Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.2 On-Site Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3 Site and Vicinity Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4 Physical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1 Aerial Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.3 City Directories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4 Historical Topographic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.5 Chain of Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.0 REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.1 Local Environmental Health Department and/or State Environmental Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.2 Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.3 Building Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.4 Planning Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.5 Assessor's Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.6 Other Agencies Searched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.7 Oil and Gas Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.8 Oil and Gas Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.9 State Environmental Superliens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.10 State Property Transfer Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5.0 REGULATORY DATABASE RECORDS REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.1 Records Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.2 Vapor Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6.0 INTERVIEWS AND USER PROVIDED INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6.2 User Provided Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6.3 Previous Reports and Other Provided Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

7.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7.1 Subject Property Reconnaissance Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7.2 Adjoining Property Reconnaissance Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8.0 NON-ASTM SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

8.1 Asbestos-Containing Building Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

8.2 Lead-Based Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8.3 Radon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8.4 Drinking Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

8.5 Mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

9.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

9.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Project No. 462158
June 13, 2022