596B, Redo existing driveway and wal, Studies & ReportsSheet 1 of 2
REVIEWER CALLING HOURS
8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Mon.-Thurs.
Tract/PM
Parent Tract
Site Address #60 Eastfield Drive
Geologist Rav Eastman
Soils Engineer Western Laboratories
of Los Angeles Department of Public' -.-
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET
900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803
TEL. (626) 458-4925
Lot(s)
Location Rolling Hills
Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co.
Engineer/Arch. 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 Western 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.
71 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
prior to the placing of steel or concrete.
5. Any excavation for sewage disposal must be inspected and approved
to the placement of any gravel, brick or pipe.
6. The "back cut" for the proposed buttress must be thoroughly mapped
results included in the final geology report. See item 3 above.
7. The Soils Engineering review dated 11/21/®attached.
Prepared by
Mich A. Montgomery
by the consulting geologist and soils engineer
by the consulting engineering geologist prior
by the consulting engineering geologist and
eviewed by Date 10/31/01
NOTICE: Public safety, reta4lve to geotechnical 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 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:\ldpubnew\geology reviewlforms\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. 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:
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:
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
1. 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.
2. Submit all in -progress reports to the Soils Section for verification that the completed work complies with County
codes and policies.
3. Submit a rough grading report to the Soils Section for verification that the completed work complies with County
codes and policies.
4. 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.
pip SSOO,y9
Q
No. C48738
Prepared by rls - ', �. \ op. 43004 Date 11 /21 /01
A ' Alam 4if�`i\- .1is E���\j
Li
NOTICE: Public safety, relativ o geotechnical subsurface exploration, sha 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
•OUfl4'
Sheet 1 of 1
REVIEWER CALLING HOURS
8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Mon.-Thurs.
Tract/PM
Parent Tract
Site Address #60 Eastfield Drive
Geologist Ray Eastman
Soils Engineer Westem Laboratories
-if Los Angeles Department of Public/Ike-
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET
900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803
TEL. (626) 458.4925
Lot(s)
Location Rolling Hills
Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co.
Engineer/Arch. 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
Soils Report by Western 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 Dibbiee", 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)
Pre • • _ • p, �/ :/ // ed by Date 9/6/01
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 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/manuat.pdf
p:ijdpubnewlgeology reviewlforms\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 Rollins Hills
Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co.
Engineer/Architect Bolton Engineerina
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 stabilitywill 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. Citv of Rollino 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(S) TO THE PLAN CHECKER/BUILDING AND SAFETY DISTRICT ENGINEER:
ON SITE SOILS HAVE A MEDIUM TO HIGH EXPANSION POTENTIAL.
fd:74‘ ,:, v :. A
; tip. C48738 1. .,
e... Eta. �•,uloy ,�...,,1
Prepared by .1�,% Date 09/19/01
,t'r,k( Alam , ,fir . t.; .A �
NOTICE: Public safety, relative t6 geotechnical subsurface exploration, shall be provided to 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:80a
Sheet 1 of 1
REVIEWER CALLING HOURS
8-9 a.m. & 3-4 p.m. Mon.-Thurs.
Cou - of Los Angeles Department of Public Garr3 Dist. Office 12.02
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION F X NF,
Tract/PM
Parent Tract
Site Address 60 Eastfield Drive
Geologist Westem Laboratories
Soils Engineer Westem Laboratories
GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET
900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803
TEL. (626) 458-4925
Lot(s)
Location Rolllna Hills
Developer/Owner R.T. Wolfenden Co.
Engineer/Arch. Bolton Enaineerina
DISTRIBUTION
1 Dist. Office
Geologist
1 Soils Engr.
1 Section File
Grading Sect.
1 Proc. Ctr.
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:
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. qn. the, su.r a, ce., ..This„ reviewers
lettaflo'the consulting engirteerin'g'geokogisf derdd"'10/1"8/00 sefs'our standards foe the cross sections. The submitted
'crosssections-do-not•tneet these staaitlef •5: -"
,M.
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 slope
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
f 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 1124e1 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 grading _plans and geologic map, the location of the recommended subdrain in the area of the
buttress. See page S-tetwob'rfifffetfireport.
13. Provide this office with two sets of revised grading plans.
Date 6/14/01
is A. "ntgomery
NOTICE: Public safety ative to geotechnical subsurface exploratlo II be provided In accordance with current codes for excavations, Inclusive
of the Los les County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the - of California, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders.
The "Manual for Preparation of Oeotechnical 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/manuaipdf
p:lldpubnewlgeology review1forms\Form_6
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. Citv 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 Rolling 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.
/O QpOF ESS/pN��
r�• cP \
�% ''� No. C48738
.r :� ..1/fif o \-3( Exp. 9.24 ptl
/Mir M. Ala rgfF OF C 1
NOTICE: Public safety, relative to geotechnical subsurface expiorafltm; s—ffd'n 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.
Prepared by
AMIR:60
rn;
*1/ Date 07/02/01