Loading...
781, """As built"" parking are and , Studies & Reports• • Dist. Office 12.02 Sheet 1 of 1 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works DISTRIBUTION GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION 1 Dist. Office GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET 1 Geologist 900 So. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 Soils Engineer TEL. (626) 458-4925 1 GMED File Tract / Parcel Map Lot(s) Parent Tract Location City of Rolling Hills Site Address 60 Eastfield Drive APN 7567-004-041 Geologist Western Laboratories Developer/Owner Wolfender Soils Engineer Western Laboratories Engineer/Arch. Bolton Engineering Corp. Review of: ROUGH GRADING AND FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS Geologic Report(s) Dated Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated Geology and Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated 10/16/09 References: Grading P.C. No. 0104180001 For: Pads for addition and stable Building P.C. No. Action: Based on the above referenced reports, rough grading is recommended for approval from a geologic standpoint for the issuance of building permits, with conditions below: 1. The above report(s) contains recommendations that must be enforced. 2. Do not submit building plans to the Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division for structures on the pads created by the subject grading, provided code requirements and the consultant's recommendations are followed. 3. Foundation excavations must be inspected and approved by the consulting soils engineer prior to the placing of steel or concrete. 4. The Soils Engineering review dated 3/31/10 is attached. Prepared by Charles Nestle Reviewed by Date 3/31/10 Please complete a Customer Service Survey at htto://dow.Iacountv.aov/ao/amedsurvev, P:\GmepublGeology Review\Forms\Form07.doc 8/30/07 Address: Telephone: Fax: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 (626) 458-4925 (626) 458-4913 Additions and Stables Pads Location Developer/Owner Engineer/Architect Soils Engineer Geologist 60 Eastfield Drive, City of Rolling Hills Wolfender Bolton Engineering Corp. Western Laboratories (98-2621) Same as above Rough Grading (Grading Plan Check No. 01041800011 Review of: Soils Engineering Report Dated 10/16/09 (re -submitted with CDR Previous Review Sheet Dated 2/10/10 ACTION: Rough Grading is recommended for approval. NOTE(S) TO THE PLAN CHECKER/BUILDING AND SAFETY ENGINEER: A. ON -SITE SOILS HAVE HIGH TO MEDIUM EXPANSION POTENTIAL. B. ON -SITE SOILS ARE MODERATELY CORROSIVE TO FERROUS METALS. Reviewed by � 1,. • shi _ �," `''t''i'il'� �► Please complete a Customer Service Survey at http://dpw.1/unty.gov/g 1/ W d3A10O% NOTICE: Public safety, relative to geotechnical subsurface e doration, shal ' prove. - . • •rdance with current codes for excavations, inclusive of the Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the State of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. P:\Yosh\60 Eastfield Dr, City of Rolling Hills, FGR-A_2 District Office Job Number Sheet 1 of 1 . 12.02 GMPH DISTRIBUTION: _ Drainage _ Grading Geo/Soils Central File _ District Engineer _ Geologist _ Soils Engineer Engineer/Architect Date 3/31/10 • Dist. Office 12.02 Sheet 1 of 1 Co .y of Los Angeles Department of Public .rks DISTRIBUTION GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION 1 Dist. Office GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET 1 Geologist 900 So. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 Soils Engineer TEL. (626) 458.4925 1 GMED File Tract / Parcel Map Lot(s) Parent Tract Location City of Rolling Hills Site Address 60 Eastfield Drive APN 7567-004-041 Geologist Western Laboratories Developer/Owner Wolfender Soils Engineer Westem Laboratories Engineer/Arch. Bolton Engineering Corp. Review of: ROUGH GRADING AND FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS Geologic Report(s) Dated Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated Geology and Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated 10/16/09 References: Grading P.C. No. 0104180001 For: Pads for addition and stable Building P.C. No. Action: Rough grading is not recommended for approval for reasons below. 1. Provide two original reports, referenced above, with wet stamps and signatures, and bound by the consultants. 2. Effective August 1, 2006, all geotechnical reports submitted for review must include an electronic copy of the report on a CD in Adobe® Portable Document Format (PDF). The electronic version shall include an electronically generated representation of the licensee's seal, signature, and date of sealing or signing. This project cannot be approved until this requirement has been met. The submittal in response to this review must include a CD containing an electronic version of the original report and the supplemental report in response to this review. 3. Depict the location of all subdrains and subdrain outlets on the as -built plan. 4. The Soils Engineering review dated Prepared by Charles Nestle is attached. Reviewed by Date 2/10/10 Please complete a Customer Service Survey at htto://dow.lacountv.aov/ao/amedsurvev P:\Gmepub\Geotogy Review\Forms\Form07.doc 8/30/07 Address: Telephone: Fax: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 (626) 458-4925 (626) 458-4913 Additions and Stables Location Developer/Owner Engineer/Architect Soils Engineer Geologist 60 Eastfield Drive, City of Rolling Hills Wolfender Bolton Engineering Corp. Westem Laboratories (98-2621) Same as above Rough Grading (Grading Plan Check No. 0104180001) Review of: Soils Engineering Report Dated 10/16/09 Previous Review Sheet Dated 11/21/01 ACTION: Rough Grading is not recommended for approval. REMARKS: 1. Requirements of the Geology Section are attached. 2. Include a copy of this review sheet with your response. NOTE(S) TO THE PLAN CHECKER/BUILDING AND SAFETY ENGINEER:, A. ON -SITE SOILS HAVE HIGH TO MEDIUM EXPANSION POTENTIAL. B. ON -SITE SOILS ARE MODERATELY CORROSIVE TO FERROUS METALS. Reviewed by Please complete a Customer Service Survey at http://dpw..Jounty.gov • NOTICE: Public safety, relative to geotechnical subsurface exploration, shall be Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the State of California, Title 8, Construction P:1Yosh180 Eastfield Dr, City of Rolling Hills, FGR-NA 1 District Office Job Number Sheet 1 of 1 12.02 GMPH DISTRIBUTION: _ Drainage _ Grading _ Geo/Soils Central File _ District Engineer _ Geologist _ Soils Engineer Engineer/Architect Date 2/10/10 rdance with current codes for excavations, inclusive of the Los ety Orders. Sheet 1 of 2 REVIEWER CALLING HOURS 8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Mon.-Thurs. 40 • Co of Los Angeles Department of Public Wor'-, 9 p LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 TEL. (626) 458-4925 Tract/PM Parent Tract Site Address #60 Eastfield Drive Geologist Rav Eastman Soils Engineer Westem Laboratories Lot(s) Location Rollina Developer/Owner Engineer/Arch. Hills R.T. Wolfenden Co. Bolton Engineering Review of: Grading P.C. No. 0104180001 For: SFR & Stable Geology and Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated 7/21/00 Geology Report by Ray Eastman Dated 7/14/01.9/29/01 Soils Report by Westem Laboratories dated 8/15/01. 10/22/01 Action: Plan is recommended for approval with conditions below. Remarks/Conditions: Dist. Office 12.02 F X NF DISTRIBUTION 1 Dist. Office 1 Geologist 1 Soils Engr: 1 Section File _ Grading Sect. 1 Proc. Ctr. 1. All recommendations of the consulting geologist and soils engineer must be followed. 2. In -grading inspections must be made by the consulting geologist and soils engineer. 3. Rough grading must be approved by a final geology and soils engineering report prior to approval by the Geology and Soils Section. An As -Built Geologic Map must be included in the final geology report. Submit report for approval for issuance of building permit. Provide a final report statement that verifies work was done in accordance with report recommendations and code provisions (Section 7021-3). The reports must include a final statement in accordance with Section 111 of the Los Angeles County Building Code. 4. Foundation, wall, and pool excavations must be inspected and approved by the consulting geologist and soils engineer prior to the placing of steel or concrete. 5. Any excavation for sewage disposal must be inspected and approved by the consulting engineering geologist prior to the placement of any gravel, brick or pipe. 6. The "back cut" for the proposed buttress must be thoroughly mapped by the consulting engineering geologist and results included in the final geology report. See item 3 above. 7. The Soils Engineering review dated 11/21/gattached. Prepared by Mich A. Montgomery eviewed by Date 10/31/01 NOTICE: Public safety, r dive to geotechnlcal subsurface exploration, shall be provided in accordance with current codes for excavations, Inclusive of the Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the State of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. The "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnlcal Reports" prepared by County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works is available on the Internet at the following address: http://dpw.co.la.ca.us/med/manual.pdf p:\Idpubnew\geoiogy review\forms\Form 6 5/15/01 • Address: Telephone: Fax: Calling hours COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave. Alhambra, CA 91803 (626) 458-4925 (626) 458-4913 - Monday through Thursday 8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Single Family Residence & Stable Location 60 Eastfield. Citv of Rollina Hills Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co. Engineer/Architect Bolton Enaineerina Soils Engineer Western Laboratories Geologist Same as above Grading Plan Check No. 0104180001 Review of: Grading Plan Dated by Processing Center 10/29/01 Soils Engineering Report Dated 10/22/01 Geologic Report Dated 09/29/01 Previous review sheet dated 09/19/01 ACTION: Plan is recommended for approval, subject to conditions below: REMARKS: 1. 2. 3. 4. District Office 12.02 Job No. B372001 Sheet 1 of 1 DISTRIBUTION: _ Drainage _ Grading 1 Geo/Soils Central File 1 District Engineer 1 Geologist 1 Soils Engineer 1 Engineer/Architect The Soils Engineer of record must review the grading plans and sign and stamp the plans in verification of his recommendations. Original manual signature and wet stamp are required. Submit all in -progress reports to the Soils Section for verification that the completed work complies with County codes and policies. Submit a rough grading report to the Soils Section for verification that the completed work complies with County codes and policies. At rough grading stage, provide chemical test results (sulfate, chloride, resistivity, etc.) for the on -site soils to address the presence of chemicals deleterious to concrete and ferrous materials. The tests must be in accordance with California Test Methods, Department of Transportation, or equivalent (aqueous solution tests, such as EPA Tests or similar methods are not acceptable for determination of resistivity). NOTE(S) TO THE PLAN CHECKER/BUILDING AND SAFETY DISTRICT ENGINEER: 1. ON SITE SOILS HAVE A MEDIUM TO HIGH EXPANSION POTENTIAL. 2. ONLY THE SOILS/FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS — -. D ON THE PLANS ARE APPROVED. ,x)EESS/4 csi m Prepared by AlAlam Date 11/21/01 NOTICE: Public safety, relativfo geotechnical subsurface exploration, shag in accordance with current codes for excavations, inclusive of the Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the State of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. AMIR:60b Sheet 1 of1 REVIEWER CALLING HOURS 8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Mon.-Thurs. 111)Counr if Los Angeles Department of Public Wor' LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 TEL. (626) 458-4925 Tract/PM Parent Tract Site Address #60 Eastfield Drive Geologist Rav Eastman Solis Engineer Western Laboratories Lot(s) Location Rollino Hills Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co. Engineer/Arch. Bolton Enoineerino Review of: Grading P.C. No. 0104180001 For: SFR & Stable Geology and Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated 7/21/00 Geology Report by Ray Eastman Dated 7/14/01 Soils Report by Westem Laboratories dated 8/15/01 Dist. Office 12.02 F X NF DISTRIBUTION 1 Dist. Office Geologist 1 Soils Engr. 1 Section File • Grading Sect. 1 Proc. Ctr. Action: Plan is not recommended for approval for reasons below. Remarks/Conditions:The submitted engineering geology reports do not meet the minimum standard established in our "Manual for the Preparation of Geotechnical Reports" dated May 8, 2001 and my letter to Mr. Eastman dated 10/18/00. The conclusions/recommendations section of the report represents a "cook book" approach and does not specifically address the geologic conditions and the proposed grading. 1. The data depicted on the geologic cross sections inadequately supports the interpretations. For example the location of .the hinge point between shallow and steeply dipping strata is not supported by data depicted on geologic cross section A -A'. The exact location of this hinge point is critical and is unsupported by the data collected.. 2. The consulting engineering geologist has stated that steeply dipping joint sets are present in the subsurface (page 4, report dated 7/14/01). The submitted geologic cross sections and trench logs do not depict these joint sets AND the geotechnical engineer has not incorporated these surfaces into his evaluation of the stability of the slopes. 3. The consulting engineering geologist has stated that "the site topography and firm, moderately to highly folded characteristics of the shale bedrock are favorable for gross stability" (page 3, report dated 7/14/01). This statement is not only unsupported by the data but also is misleading. Please refer to the submitted geotechnical engineering report for slope stability analyses. 4. Provide this office with a detailed geologic cross section down the south facing slope. 5. In -lieu of adequately determining the stratigraphy of the site it has been assumed that bentonitic materials are present. A shear value of 12.5 degrees and 400psf was utilized in the slope stability analyses. Data on file at this office indicates that values as low as 6 degrees and 100 psf have been obtained from testing of these materials ("A Day in the Field with Tom Dibblee", 6/17/00, pages 121 and 141). The stratigraphy of the site has not been adequately determined and the assumptions made are not supported by reference data . 6. The consulting engineering geologist has failed to recognize that the east facing descending slope is potentially unstable and that an accurate depiction of the geologic conditions is critical to the successful completion of the proposed project. 7. The geologist has not adequately addressed the proposed grading, potential hazards, mitigation measures required and the destabilizing impact the grading will have on site stability. 8. Geologic cross section A -A' indicates that the proposed grading will tend to destabilize the east facing slope below the proposed structure. The Af in the area of TP-5 loads the slope that the proposed cut in the area of TP-3 destabilizes. This is poor engineering practice. The geotechnical consultants must work together in designing a project that account for the geologic conditions. 9. The geologic map submitted is vague and highly inaccurate due to the size of the geologic symbols used. Revise and resubmit. 10. Clearly show the location of the proposed project on CDMG Map Sheet 27 by George Cleveland, 1976. 11. The Soils Engineering Units review sheet is attached (dated 9/19/01) Mi ' ael A. Montgomery NOTICE: Public safe relative to geotechnical subsurface exp ration, shall be provided In accordance with current codes for excavations, Inclusive of the Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and e State of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. The "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports" prepared by County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works is available on the Internet et the following address: http:l/dpw.co.la.ca.us/med/manual.pdf p:Vdpubnewlgeology reviewlfomistForm 6 5/15/01 ed by Date 9/6/01 Address: Telephone: Fax: Calling hours COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave. Alhambra, CA 91803 (626) 458-4925 (626) 458-4913 - Monday through Thursday 8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Single Family Residence & Stable Location 60 Eastfield. City of Rollina Hills Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co. Engineer/Architect Bolton Enaineerina Soils Engineer Western Laboratories Geologist Same as above Grading Plan Check No. 0104180001 Review of: Soils Engineering Report Dated 08/15/01 Geologic Report Dated 07/14/01 Previous review sheet dated 07/02/01 ACTION: Plan is not recommended for approval. REMARKS: District Office 12.02 Job No. B372001 Sheet 1 of 2 DISTRIBUTION: Drainage __ Grading 1 Geo/Soils Central File 1 District Engineer 1 Geologist 1 Soils Engineer 1 Engineer/Architect 1. Requirements of the Geology Section are attached. 2. Additional slope stability analysis may be required and a complete review of all slope stability will be conducted when the geology of the site is conclusively determined. 3. Specifically address whether any tuff beds are present at the site, submit all substantiating data. Establish and utilize appropriate shear strength parameters for any weak tuff beds present. Provide substantiating direct shear test data, as necessary. 4. Provide static, seismic and surficial slope stability analyses for the south facing descending slope. Also, provide a geotechnical cross section, for each section analyzed, showing the critical failure plane used in the analyses. Indicate the various shear strength parameters used in the analyses, in the appropriate segments of each failure plane. Show locations of the cross sections used in slope stability analyses on the geotechnical map. Recommend mitigation if factors of safety are below County minimum standards. 5. Show the following on the grading plans: a. b. c. Detail of recommended buttress and subdrains. Location of private sewage disposal system(s). All recommended mitigation measures. 6. The Soils Engineer of record must review the grading plans and sign and stamp the plans in verification of his recommendations. Original manual signature and wet stamp are required. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET Location 60 Eastfield. City of Rollins Hills REMARKS (cont.): 7. Submit two sets of grading plans to the Soils Section for verification of compliance with County codes and policies. 8. At rough grading stage, provide chemical test results (sulfate, chloride, resistivity, etc.) for the on -site soils to address the presence of chemicals deleterious to concrete and ferrous materials. The tests must be in accordance with California Test Methods, Department of Transportation, or equivalent (aqueous solution tests, such as EPA Tests or similar methods are not acceptable for determination of resistivity). 9. Include a copy of this review sheet with your response. . NOTE(SI TO THE PLAN CHECKER/BUILDING AND SAFETY DISTRICT ENGINEER; ON SITE SOILS HAVE A MEDIUM TO HIGH EXPANSION POTENTIAL e11 fia C48733 1. i £.5.4}oy VII NOTICE: Public safety, relative • geotechnical subsurface exploration, shall be provrdedin accordance with current codes for excavations, inclusive of the Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the State of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. AMIR:60a Prepared by A clo(. Alam Date 09/19/01 Sheet 1 of 1 REVIEWER CALLING HOURS 8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Mon.-Thurs. C• ou • ' of Los Angeles Department of Public Wr g P LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 TEL. (626) 458-4925 Tract/PM Parent Tract Site Address 60 Eastfield Drive Geologist Western Laboratories Soils Engineer Westem Laboratories Lot(s) Location Rolling Hills Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co. Engineer/Arch. Bolton Enaineerina Review of: Grading P.C. No. 0104180001 For: SFR & Stable Geology and Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated 7/21/00 Action: Plan is not recommended for approval for reasons below. Remarks/Conditions: Dist. Office 12.02 F X NF, DISTRIBUTION 1 Dist. Office _ Geologist 1 Soils Engr. 1 Section File Grading Sect. 1 Proc. Ctr. 1. The submitted engineering geology report does not meet the minimum standard established in our "Manual for the Preparation of Geotechnical Reports" dated May 8, 2001. Revise and resubmit. 2. As previously requested, utilize the full scale grading plans as a base for geologic mapping, cross sections, etc. Extend all cross sections from Eastfield Drive to the bottom of the adjacent canyons. 3. On the geologic cross sections depict the structural data collected in the trenches and on, the suffege., .This. reviewers cross•sections•do-notthese standaards:_' .�. ��':..-• ,�..^ '. ,, •w n le -WV -the engrneefin'gTafo 'fsf•'dated'10/18/00`sets'our standords„for, the ,cross sections. The submiit?d 4. The interpretations of the geologic conditions (structural) presented in the cross sections are not supported by the data collected. The undulations in the bedrock depicted appears to be based upon shallow data which may be subject to the forces of weathering. Generally, the structure in the upper weathered zone Is highly disrupted. The submitted scope stability analyses reach depths of 60 feet! How can you predict the geologic conditions at depth with the shallow pits? 5. The submitted geologic map indicates that structural data was collected 200 feet west of the "TANK". Discuss the origin of this data. 6. The structural data collected in trench T 7 does not conform with the rest of the data collected. Provide this office with additional, deeper data which supports the low angle dips reported. The structural data at depth may be more representative of the overall geologic conditions. Again, generally the structure in the upper weathered zone is highly disrupted. 7. The Altamira Shale is known to contain at least 2 lenses of weak tuff beds. How does the exploration program eliminate the presence of these units? 8. Page 7 of the submitted report indicates that safety factors of the slopes exceed County minimum standards yet portions of geologic cross section A -A' do not meet our standards . It appears as if the slope fails below the corral the proposed grading could be negatively impacted. Please discuss in detail and provide conclusions and recommendations. i 9. Provide data on the possible adverse impact of the private sewage disposal system relative to site stability and r adjacent properties. Discuss the path of migration of effluent and whether daylighting of the effluent will occur. Stability calculations must consider the effect on groundwater. Show on geologic cross section(s) the anticipated path and saturation from the effluent based on hydrogeology of the site. 10. The Soils Engineering review dated 712401 Is attached. 11. Clearly show on the grading plans and geologic map the location of any new and existing private sewage disposal systems. 12. Clearly show, on the gradin lans and geologic map, the location of the recommended subdrain in the area of the buttress. See page s • iiiitiftrieport. 13. Provide this office with two sets of revised grading plans. Date 6/14/01 A. • ntgomery NOTICE: Public safety ative to geotechnlcal subsurface exploratio . all be provided In accordance with current codes for excavations, inclusive of the Loa les County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. The "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports" prepared by County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works Is available on the Internet at the following address: http://dpw.co.la.ca,us/med/manual.pdf p:11dpubnewlgeology review\forms\Form_0 5/15/01 Address: Telephone: Fax: Calling hours COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave. Alhambra, CA 91803 (626) 458-4925 (626) 458-4913 - Monday through Thursday 8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Single Family Residence & Stable Location 60 Eastfield. City of Rollins Hills Developer/Owner R,T. Wolfenden Co. Engineer/Architect Bolton Enaineerina Soils Engineer Western Laboratories Geologist Same as above Grading Plan Check No. 0104180001 Review of: Grading Plan Dated By Processing Center 05/31/01 Soils Engineering Report Dated 07/21/00 Geologic Report Dated 07/21/00 ACTION: Plan is not recommended for approval. REMARKS: District Office 12.02 Job No. B372001 Sheet 1 of 2 DISTRIBUTION: • _ Drainage _ Grading 1 Geo/Soils Central File 1 District Engineer 1 Geologist 1 Soils Engineer 1 Engineer/Architect 1. Requirements of the Geology Section are attached. 2. Additional slope stability analysis may be required when the geology of the site is conclusively determined. 3. The slope stability analyses contained in Appendix C of the report indicates factors of safety below County minimum standards. Recommend mitigation along with substantiating slope stability analyses to establish that the site meets County minimum standards for slope stability. 4. Establish and utilize appropriate shear strength parameters for any weak tuff beds present. Provide substantiating direct shear test data, as necessary. 5. Provide data on the possible adverse impact of the private sewage disposal system(s) relative to site stability and adjacent properties. Discuss the path of migration of the effluent and whether ponding or daylighting of the effluent will occur. Stability calculations must consider the effect of ponding/perched groundwater. 6. Provide chemical test results (sulfate, chloride, resistivity, etc.) for the on -site soils to address the presence of chemicals deleterious to concrete and ferrous materials. The tests must be in accordance with California Test Methods, Department of Transportation, or equivalent (aqueous solution tests, such as EPATests or similar methods are not acceptable for determination of resistivity). COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET Location 60 Eastfield. City of Rollino Hills REMARKS (cont.): 7. Show the following on the geotechnical grading plans: a. Detail of recommended buttress and subdrains. b. Location of private sewage disposal system(s). c. All recommended mitigation measures. 8. The Soils Engineer of record must review the grading plans and sign and stamp the plans in verification of his recommendations. Original manual signature and wet stamp are required. 9. Submit two sets of grading plans to the Soils Section for verification of compliance with County codes and policies. 10. Include a copy of this review sheet with your response. NOTE(S) TO THE PLAN CHECKER/BUILDING AND SAFETY DISTRICT ENGINEER: ON SITE SOILS HAVE A MEDIUM TO HIGH EXPANSION POTENTIAL. �C No. C4373,3 Prepared by s.;; ..6,6... �� 1\*\ Exu. s:la by * Date 07/02/01 /i t it M. Ala 4, C/Vit. 0-? .(F CAt1 - NOTICE: Public safety, relative to geotechnical subsurface explora be provided In accordance with current codes for excavations, inclusive of the Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the State of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. AMIR:60