none, Geology Appeals, CorrespondenceAnton B. Weber
53 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, Ca 90274
December 4, 1971
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, Ca 90274
Attention: Mrs. Teena Clifton, Manager
Dear Teena:
I want to thank you on behalf of our group for all
of your efforts in helping us remove the "Slide Stigma"
from our property. Unless I hear from you to the con-
trary I will advise all the Owners comprising the group
that theirproperty has been completely cleared of the
previous restrictions.
At your earliest convenience will you please request
from the proper, County department their total unpaid
charges for their final review and work. I would like
to arrange a final and complete settlement with the
Owners for all the charges in excess of their original
payment. I do not want to do this until I am certain
that the City of Rolling Hills has received and passed
on to us for payment all related charges from the County
for the review work done relating to our project.
When things settle down after the Holidays I would like
to carry on further our discussions as to what can be
done by the City of Rolling Hills and the County Engi-
neering Department to prevent those in the slide area
who have not contributed to the cost of the work from
benefiting from it without first sharing in the cost.
Please bear in mind that in our (the Owner's) contract
with Mr. Lockwood we inserted a "Proprietary Clause"
which prevents him from using the proprietary data, i. e.,
our Reports, for anyone or for any purpose without our
consent. I hope the City and the County will also honor
our report as "Proprietary Data" of the Owners and re-
quire the non-contributing owners in the slide area to
furnish such data as required from us before clearance
and building permits are granted to the non -contributors.
Again, I want to thank you for all your many efforts in
our behalf.
Very truly yours,
e2
Anton B. Weber
ROBERT M. MOLLER
REGIONAL ENGINEER
1,. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
PALOS VERDES — CENTINELA VALLEY REGION
1823 WEST LOMITA BOULEVARD
LOMITA, CALIFORNIA 90717
326.3630
775.3178
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
November 23, 1971
Mrs. Teena Clifton
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
Dear Mrs. Clifton:
JOHN A. LAMBIE
COUNTY ENGINEER
On November 19, 1971, I forwarded to you a review of reports
on the Flying Triangle Landslide. My cover letter unfortunately
contains an erroneous statement indicating that a slide waiver
will still be required.
There have been two revisions of Section 308 b by the County
Board of Supervisors since the last County Building Laws were
adopted by reference by the City.
I am pleased to report that it was the intent of the Geology
Section to permit construction in the mapped Flying Triangle
ancient slide area without recordation of a slide waiver as
provided for by these revised County ordinances. To more
clearly define the conditions intended in this Section 308 b,
the City could adopt Los Angeles County Ordinance 9580 dated
June 5, 1968, by reference.
Although this section was again changed by Ordinance 9907 on
November 4, 1969, the City Engineer feels that the additional
changes in that ordinance do not lend themselves to inclusion
in the City of Rolling Hills Building Laws.
If you have any further question in this matter, please call.
Yours very truly,
Harvey T. Brandt
CITY E GINEER
Robert M. Mo ler
RMM-dm R-2 Deputy
ORDINANCE NO. 9580
An ordinance amending Section 308
of Ordinance No. 2225, the Building
Code, relating to work in areas of
geologic hazard.
The Board of Supervisors of the
County of Los Angeles do ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 303 of Ordi-
nance No. 2225 entitled "Building
Code," adopted March 20, 1933, is
amended by amending Subsection (b)
thereof to read:
SECTION 308 (b). Geologic Hazards.
1. No building or grading permit
shall be issued under the provisions of
this subsection when the County En-
gineer finds that property outside
the site of the proposed work could
be damaged by activation or accelera-
tion of a geologically hazardous condi-
tion and such activation or accelera-
tion could be attributed to the pro-
posed work on, or use of, the site for
which the permit is requested.
2. Work requiring a building or
grading permit by this code is not
permitted in an area determined by
the County Engineer to be subject
to hazard from landslide, settlement,
or slippage.
Subject to the conditions of Section
308(b) 1, permits may be issued in
the following cases:
I. When the hazard will be elimi-
nated to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer prior to the use or
occupancy of the land or structures
by modification of topography, reduc-
tion of subsurface water, buttressing,
a combination of these methods, or
by other means.
II. When the applicant has sub-
mitted a geological and/or engineering
report or reports complying with the
provisions of Section 309 which report
or reports contain sufficient data to
show that the site appears to be in
no danger for the intended use and
the County Engineer so finds.
III. When the applicant has sub-
mitted a geological report complying
with the provisions of Section 309,
which report indicates that the site
appears to be geologically safe for
the proposed use but is located in an
area subject to a hazard of geological
nature and the County Engineer finds
that a thorough investigation has been
made and that the data of the re-
port justifies the conclusions therein.
Before a permit is issued the owner
first shall record in the office of the
County Recorder the finding of such
report or reports, and an agreement
relieving the county and all officers
and employees thereof of any liability
for any damage or loss which may
result from the issuance of such per-
mit. This agreement shall provide
that it is binding on all successors in
interest of the owner and shall con-
tinue in effect until the County Engi-
neer records in the office of the
County Recorder a statement that he
finds such hazard no longer exists.
IV. Work involving the alteration or
repair of existing structures for the
continuation of an established legal
use, or the replacement of such struc-
tures where the loss to be replaced
was due to causes other than land-
slide, settlement, or slippage. Before
a permit is issued, the owner shall
record in the office of the County
Recorder a statement that he is aware
that the records of the County Engi-
neer indicate that the property is sub-
ject to a physical hazard of a geo-
logical nature and an agreement re-
lieving the county and all officers
and employees thereof of any liability
for any damage or loss which may
result from issuance of such a per-
mit. This agreement shall provide that
it is binding on all successors in in-
terest of the owner and shall con-
tinue in effect until the County Engi-
neer records in the office of tha
County Recorder a statement that he
finds such hazard no longer exists.
V. An addition or additions to an
existing structure not involving a
change in use or occupancy provide
such work does not increase the area
of the structure more than 25 percent
of the area of the structure existing
on the effective date of this ordinance.
Before a permit is issued, the appli-
cant shall submit a geological and/or
engineering report or reports comply-
ing with the provisions of Section 309
which report or reports contain a
finding that the proposed increased
use of the site will not be geologically
unsafe, and the owner shall record in
the office of the County Recorder the
finding of such report or reports, and
an agreement relieving the county and
all officers and employees thereof of
any liability for any damage or loss
which may result from the issuance of
such a permit. This agreement shall
provide that it is binding on all suc-
cessors in interest of the owner and
shall continue in effect until the
County Engineer records in the office
of the County Recorder a statement
that he finds a hazard no longer
exists.
VI. A one-story, light frame ac-
cessory structure not intended or used
for human occupancy and not exceed-
ing 400 square feet in area nor 12
feet in height.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be
published in the Metropolitan News,
a newspaper printed and published in
the County of Los Angeles.
FRANK G. BONELLI, Chairman
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
JAMES S. MIZE,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Los Angeles.
I hereby certify that at its meeting
of June 5, 1968, the foregoing ordi-
nance was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of said County of Los An-
geles by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Supervisors
KENNETH HAHN,
ERNEST E. DEBS,
BURTON W. CHACE and
FRANK G. BONELLI
Noes: None.
JAMES S. MIZE,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Los Angeles.
(SEAL)
Effective date July 6, 1968.
25036 —825— June 14-1t
Reprint: Metropolitan News
Phone: MAdison 8-4384
I
ORDINANCE NO. 0580
An ordinance amending Section 308
of Ordinance No. 2225, the Building
Code, relating to work In areas of
geologic hazard.
The Board of Supervisors of the
County of Los Angeles do ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 308 of Ordi-
nance No. 2225 entitled "Building
Code," adopted March 20, 1933, is
amended by amending Subsection (b)
thereof to read:
SECTION 308 (b). Geologic Hazards.
1. No building or grading permit
shall be issued under the provisions of
this subsection when the County En-
gineer finds that property outside
the site of the proposed work could
be damaged by activation or accelera-
tion of a geologically hazardous condi-
tion and such activation or accelera-
tion could be attributed to the pro-
posed work on, or use of, the site for
which the permit is requested.
2. Work requiring a building or
grading permit by this code is not
permitted in an area determined by
the County Engineer to be subject
to hazard from landslide, settlement,
or slippage.
Subject to the conditions of Section
308(b) 1, permits may be issued in
the following cases:
I. When the hazard will be elimi-
nated to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer prior to the use or
occupancy of the land or structures
by modification of topography, reduc-
tion of subsurface water, buttressing.
a combination of these methods, or
by other means.
II. When the applicant has sub-
mitted a geological and/or engineering
report or reports complying with the
provisions of Section 309 which report
or reports contain sufficient data to
show that the site appears to be in
no danger for the intended use and
the County Engineer so finds.
III. When the applicant has sub-
mitted a geological report complying
with the provisions of Section 309,
which report indicates that the site
appears to be geologically safe for
the proposed use but is located in an
area subject to a hazard of geological
nature and the County Engineer finds
that a thorough investigation has been
made and that the data of the re-
port justifies the conclusions therein.
Before a permit is issued the owner
first shall record in the office of the
County Recorder the finding of such
report or reports, and an agreement
relieving the county and all officers
and employees thereof of any liability
for any damage or loss which may
result from the issuance of such per-
mit. This agreement shall provide
that it is binding on all successors in
interest of the owner and shall con-
tinue in effect until the County Engi-
neer records in the office of the
County Recorder a statement that he
finds such hazard no longer exists.
IV. Work involving the alteration or
repair of existing structures for the
continuation of an established legal
use, or the replacement of such struc-
tures where the loss to be replaced
was due to causes other than land-
slide, settlement, or slippage. Before
a permit is issued, the owner shall
record in the office of the County
Recorder a statement that he is awaro
that the records of the County Engi-
neer indicate that the property 1s sub-
ject to a physical hazard of a geo-
logical nature and an agreement re-
lieving the county and all officers
and employees thereof of any liability
for any damage or loss which may
result from issuance of such a per-
mit. This agreement shall provide that
It is binding on all successors in in-
terest of the owner and shall con-
tinuo in effect until the County Engi-
neer records in the office of tht.
County Recorder a statement that he
finds such hazard no longer exists.
V. An addition or additions to an
existing structure not involving a
change in use or occupancy provide
such work does not increase the area
of the structure more than 25 percent
of the area of the structure existing
on the effective (late of this ordinance.
Before a permit is issued, the appli-
cant shall submit a geological and/or
engineering report or reports comply-
ing with the provisions of Section 309
which report or reports contain a
finding that the proposed increased
use of the site will not be geologically
unsafe, and the owner shall record in
the office of the County Recorder the
finding of such report or reports, and
an agreement relieving the county and
all officers and employees thereof of
any liability for any damage or loss
which may result from the issuance of
such a permit. This agreement shall
provide that it is binding on all suc-
cessors in interest of the owner and
shall continue in effect until the
County Engineer records in the office
of the County Recorder a statement
that he finds a hazard no longer
exists.
VI. A one-story, light frame ac-
cessory structure not intended or used
for human occupancy and not exceed-
ing 400 square feet in area nor 12
feet in height.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be
published in the Metropolitan News.
a newspaper printed and published in
the County of Los Angeles.
FRANK G. BONELLI, Chairman
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
JAMES S. MIZE,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Los Angeles.
I hereby certify that at its meeting
of June 5, 1968, the foregoing ordi-
nance was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of said County of Los An-
geles by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Supervisors
KENNETH HAHN,
ERNEST E. I>EBS,
BURTON W. CIIACE and
FRANK G. BONELLI
Noes: None.
JAMES S. MIZE,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Los Angeles.
(SEAL)
Effective date July G, 1968.
2503G —825— Juno 14-It
Reprint: Metropolitan News
Phone: MAdison 8.4384
DAILY TIME SHEET
YEAR MAIN
MONTH TO INCL, SOUTH CRENSHAW
DATE ON DUTY OFFICER OFF DUTY REMARKS
EASTFIELD
Anton i . Weber
53 Portuguese fiend Road
Jlc�l� a nc Hillso Calif ° 90274
November 200 1971
City of Rolling Hills
I`3o° 2 Portuguese Bend Road
i'r;i;.jng Dillon Ca 90274
Attention: Mrs° Tema Cliften0 r:anager
Dear Tema:
Please co not take any action that vould put on record
with the City of Rol/ing Mils or the Association the
contents of the latter from the County vhhich youread
to re last Frida:,o Now -mbar 19th.
Eleven Owners in the Plying Trianr_z o section Santo spent
four years of time and effort and y2O0O0O.O0 to remove
the stigma From our arc not to si n a statement agree-
ing that a. hazard en sts vhen we have proved boycnc a
doubt twat the conditions which misted thousands and
thousands of years ago have long Mince been stabilized
by mother Nature° Our area now is one of the enfoct on
the s e insu1
Nr0 Lockvood has done everything r e 4ucn tc:"s by the Countyo
and has proved a ";`actor of Safety" for our a rc€a far
greater than that :7equirnde
Please send a copy of the letter received by you to Ur,
I . Pruco Lockwood and a copy to i.^c cis at this point ve
10 not know if the v i o (�. hin♦you mentioned a r0
Y'scoro) rnde a mistake or vhat0 'When r2r, Lammend receives
a copy he will teen be able to decide what to do under
tiro tc*ipryc7 �r,/syytancets ° /� hazard ry }� Y/�±� }���� ♦ y�
We have o proved that no the
4:F'ii�sts in our a#�cr end e
e::pect completeremoval of the present restrictions by
the County and he City.
Very truly yours),
Anton Rio Ueber
cc; ni0 R0 £ uce Locf-w'co
113C Wilshire Blv` °
Los Angclesb Ca 90017
ROBERT M. MOLLER
REGIONAL ENGINEER
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
PALOS VERDES — CENTINELA VALLEY REGION
1823 WEST LOMITA BOULEVARD
LOMITA, CALIFORNIA 90717
326-3630
775-3178
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
November 19, 1971
Mrs. Teena Clifton
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
Dear Mrs. Clifton:
FLYING TRIANGLE LANDSLIDE
JOHN A. LAMBIE
COUNTY ENGINEER
We have completed the review of the Geologic Investigation
Reports of the Flying Triangle Landslide prepared by Maurseth-
Howe-Lockwood and Associates. We are pleased to inform you
that the.area appears to be safe for the intended use in
accordance with Section 308 (b) of the City Building Laws.
As a result of these reports the owners of vacant property
in the area will be permitted to build new dwellings utiliz-
ing a private disposal system by recording a slide waiver as
outlined in Section 308 (b) 2.
A copy of the findings of our Engineering Geology section is
enclosed. If you have any question, please call.
Yours very truly,
Harvey T. Brandt
CITY ENGINEER
14d7f/
Robert M. Moller
Deputy
RMM-dm R-2
Enc.
GEOLOGIC REVIEW OF REPORTS ON
FLYING TRIANGLE LANDSLIDE
PALOS VERDES HILLS, CALIFORNIA
A thorough review has been completed of a series of engi-
neering geologic and landslide stability reports conducted
by Maurseth-Howe-Lockwood and Associates. Office and field
meetings and many telephone conversations supplemented the
review which began in November, 1968.
The following Lockwood geologic reports of sites on the Fly-
ing Triangle Landslide have been reviewed by personnel of
the Engineering Geology Section:
1. "Report on Geology and
Flying Triangle Area,
dated Nov. 11, 1968.
2. "Report on Geology and
Flying Triangle Area,
June 11, 1970.
3. "Flying Triangle -Phase
1971.
Soil Investigation -Phase I.,
City of Rolling Hills, Calif.",
Soil Investigation -Phase II,
City of Rolling Hills, Calif.",
II Report Supplement", May 20,
4. "Flying Triangle -Phase II, Supplement II", Oct. 29,
1971.
5. "Engineering Geologic Investigation, Jackson Property,
67 Portuguese Bend Road, Lot 21 Flying Triangle Area,
Rolling Hills, Calif.", March 18, 1966.
6. "Geologic Opinion Report, Parcel 22, Flying Triangle
Subdivision, No. 1 Running Brand Road; Rolling Hills,
Calif.", June 15, 1970.
7. "Engineering Geologic Report, Parcel 27; 73 Portuguese
Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Calif.", July 16, 1963.
8. "Engineering Geologic Report, Lot 28, Portuguese Bend
Road; Rolling Hills, Calif.", April 30, 1964.
9. "Engineering Geologic Memorandum, Swimming Pool Feasi-
bility, No. 1 Pinto Road, Parcel 36; Rolling Hills,
Calif.", June 25, 1968.
10. "Engineering Geologic Report, Parcel 38, Rolling Hills,
Calif.", July 15, 1963.
On the basis of in-depth reviews of the above -referenced
reports, the Engineering Geology Section arrives at the
following conclusions:
1. Mr. Lockwood has performed a comprehensive geologic
evaluation of the geologic structure, the geologic
rock units, and the historic sequence of geologic
events. The abundant geologic field data has been
presented on a geologic map and in ten geologic sec-
tions.
2. The extent of the consultants' mapping, subsurface
exploration program, and evaluation of long-term
gross stability appears adequate to justify his re-
port conclusions.
3. Mr. Lockwood has demonstrated that the southern
boundary of the Flying Triangle Landslide is several
hundred feet north of the boundary established by the
U. S. Geological Survey in Professional Paper 207,
"Geology and Paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills, Cali-
fornia" which was published in 1946. The boundaries
of the Flying Triangle Landslide are shown on Plate B
of the Oct. 29, 1971 report.
4. A factor of safety of 1.5 against long-term gross
failure meets County requirements for future devel-
opment of the site. Also, the consultant has demon-
strated that the area appears to be in no danger for
the intended use in accordance with Section 308(b) of
the Los Angeles Building Laws.
Reviewed by 777,
Richard M. Ramirez
Approved by GC/l ..el.�.�..--
Arthur G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
4-
Anton B. Weber
53 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
November 20, 1968 90274
Report of a meeting held at the County Engineering Offices,
108 West Second Street, Los Angeles, California at 9:45 A.M.
on November 19, 1968.
Present for the County of Los Angeles:
Mr. Arthur G. Keene, Head Engineering Geologist
Mr. Glenn Martin, Supervisor, Civil. Engineer
.Mr, Richard Ramirez, Engineering Geologist
Dr. Bing Yen, Soil Engineer, Consultant for the County
Later, at the meeting, appeared:
Mr. Robert M. Moller, Regional Engineer
Mr. John Maulding, City- County Coordinator
Present for the Owners:
Mr. R. Bruce Lockwood, Engineering Geologist
Dr. Awtar Singh, R.C.E. 17727, Engineering Geologist
Mr. Warren C. McDermid
Mr. Anton B. Weber
Mr. Lockwood reviewed, in general, the Phase I work he had done,
discussed the maps, drillings and the results of his findings
with the County Engineers present.
Dr. Singh and Dr. Yen discussed certain phases of the technical
work, the tests result and certain soil testing procedures..
Mr. Keene asked us what the purpose was for the meeting, i.e.,
did we want them to review the report and findings and rule on
the matter, or just what was it that we wanted to accomplish?
Mr. McDermid explained our project and that we, the owners, hoped
to prove the area stable; that the report covered Phase I, and
that before we proceeded with Phase II, we were hoping for an
expression from the County Engineer as to whether or not the test-
ing methods used so far and the results obtained in Phase I would
be accepted by the County Engineering Department if we proceeded
with Phase II along the same line, only expanding the drilling and
testing operation over a larger area. We further explained we did
not want to proceed with Phase II without first obtaining their
help and their suggestions as to what test data they would need
in order to evaluate the factor -of -safety for the area. Also, if
it were evident to them that certain desired testing techniques
were missing, that they would tell us now, so that such techniques
could be included in Phase II rather than later find that addition-
al expensive rework was necessary after we had thought Phase II
completed.
Mr. Keene stated that they would be happy to study the report in
depth and have Dr. Yen discuss the technical aspects with Dr. Singh.
However he further stated that in as much as the area discussed
was in the City of Rolling Hills they would not be able to proceed
without proper authority from the City of Rolling Hills as the
latter would be chrged for their time which they estimated some-
where around 200.00. y:r. Keene further indicated the City of
-2- Anton B. Weber
Meeting held November 19,
1968 with County Engineers.
Rolling Hills would in all probability want to be reimbursed by
the project participants.
Mr. McDermid and I asked them to proceed with the matter, to con-
tact Mrs. Teena Clifton, Manager of the City of Rolling Hills
for the proper authority to make their study and evaluation of
Phase I report and to make their suggestions as to what should be
done regarding Phase II. The City of Rolling Hills will probably
want the 12 participants to share the study cost which has been
estimated will be around $200.00.
We will proceed along these lines and will advise you of future
progress made. Mr. Keene commented that we were proceeding in the
proper direction.
Mr. McDermid and I both believe our meeting will greatly help our
project to an eventual successful conclusion.
Anton B. Weber
cc: All nresent at the meeting for the County
All present at the meeting for. the Owners
'ors. Teena Clifton, Manager, City of at. H.
All narticinating Owners
MAIN OFFICE
1636.M EAST EDINGER STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 • (7141 543.3411
1198 WILSHIRE BLVD.. 1 OS ANGELES 90017 • 213 • 681.3990 540 EAST THOMPSON BLVD.. VENTURA CALIFORNIA 93001
94.901 FARRINGTON HIGHWAY, WAIPAHU. HAWAII 96797
MAURSETH • HOWE • LOCKWOOD & ASSOCIATES
A CORPORATION
Consulting Foundation Engineers and Geologists
RAY O. MAURSETH, C.E.
JOHN B. HOWE, G.E.
ROBERT D. COUSINEAU
CHARLES S. HOWE JR., C.E.
R. BRUCE LOCKWOOD, GEOL..P.E.
RICHARD A. MARTIN. P.E.
ALBERT BACA
RICHARD P. COUSINEAU, R.E.G.
Anton B. Weber, et al
53 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
SUBJECT: Flying Triangle - Phase II
Supplement II
Los Angeles, California
October 29, 1971
Project 4487-FG
(805) 643.3438
(BOB) 677.0345
Gentlemen:
The following information is submitted in response to questions
set forth in the letter from Mr. A. G. Keene, Chief Engineering Geologist,
Department of County Engineer, requesting additional information concern-
ing the Flying Triangle area following the review by the County of the Flying
Triangle Phase II report Supplement issued by this facility on May 20, 1971.
Specifically, the items, for further clarification were:
1. Determine the precise southerly location of the toe of the
Flying Triangle landslide by means of test trenching.
• 2. Revise the Geologic Map in the vicinity of Parcels 30, 31
and 33 to bring it into conformance with the geologic cross -
sections.
Flying Triangle
Project 4487-FG -2-
On October 8, 1971 a test trench was excavated on the Peistor
property, which comprises Parcel 20 of the Flying Triangle subdivision.
The trench was oriented in a N 48° E direction at a location approximately
parallel and adjacent to the south-easterly boundary of Parcel 20. The
location which is designated as Trest Trench No. 1 on the revised Geologic
Map, Plate B, was positioned to transect the south-westerly toe of the
slide area. The total length of the test trench was approximately 100 feet
with a maximum depth of 12 feet. The trench exposed near -flat lying
Altamira strata at the south-westerly end of the trench and slide debris
to the northeast. The contact between the slide debris and underlying
bedrock sloped north-easterly at an angle of approximately 30 degrees
where exposed in the deepest portion of the trench.
Two photographs are included with this report. Photograph No. 1
shows the near -horizontal bedrock strata in the south-westerly end of the
trench. These strata are obviously undisturbed by past landslide movements.
Photograph No. 2 shows an overall view of the trench taken in a south-
westerly direction and delineating the contact between the bedrock and
slide debris to the northeast. The location of the observed slide boundary
was coincident within approximately 10 feet of the location as previously
delineated on the Geologic Map. It is the writer's conclusion that the
geologic interpretations previously presented have been conclusively
demonstrated by the geologic conditions exposed by trenching.
Flying Triangle
Project 4487-FG
-3-
The inadvertent error on the geologic map, Plate B, which accom-
panied Phase II supplement report, has been corrected on the revised
map included herewith. A conclusion of the Phase. II report supplement
was that the southerly boundary of the slide mass in the vicinity of Parcels
30 and 31 was indistinct owing to the interfingering with the thick terrace
deposits. It was the conclusion that movement of this portion of the slide
was occasioned by undercutting due to marine erosion and that slide move-
ments were contemporaneous with terrace development.
Insofar as the writer knows, the information included herewith
completes the information required by the County necessary for approval
of the Flying Triangle area.
Very truly yours,
• MAURSETH, HOWE, LOCKWOOD
& ASSOCIATES
RBL/RDC/fmb R,
Distribution:
(11)Anton Weber
(2) County of Los Angeles
Dept. of County Engineer
Attention: Mr. Arthur G. Keene
Head Engineering Geologist
ruce Lockwood, EG 204
Photograph No. 1
•. f
t
• 9 •
;'r'
�• .,,•`'u":�.. .a ,, ;�i;\4C,t..,aAnl....aww.t.a, ��
:r•i,.+.f.....asY�
C'oMrAc 7—
View - westerly, •showing slide debris in foreground and light
colored Altamira bedrock at far end of trench. Peistor house
on right, Jackson on left.
Photograph No. 2
•
.
L—.. •1
View - northerly at west end of trench showing undisturbed, near-
• horizontal stratified Altamira bedrocks. exposure. Dip 8° toward
camera.
Flying Triangle
LO-8-71
Project 4487-FG •
Mr. A. G. Keene, Chief
County of Los Angeles
108 West Second Street
Los Angele, California
Dear Mr. Keene:
Engineering
90012
ANTON B. WEBER
53 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
August 30, 1971
•
Geologist
Re: Flying Triangle, Phase II and Supple-
mentary Report
The substance of your letter dated August 26, 1971, addressed
to Mr. Bruce Lockwood was related to me by both Mrs. Teena
Clifton and Mr. Lockwood. I want to take this opportunity to
thank you for reviewing the Supplementary Report as you had
promised.
Mr. Lockwood discussed with me the two items listed in your
letter which you want done before you will have the County's
records changed, removing the present restrictions, so that
the Flying Triangle Area will no longer be indicated a poten-
tial geologic hazard. When these two items are completed to
your satisfaction, I understand the area will be freed for
further development, but that the maximum number of homes
allowed on the area termed "landslide proper" will be limited
to eighty (80).
As you probably know, Mr. Lockwood just started his vacation
on August 28th and will not return until September 14th. He
promised, upon his return, that he would discuss Item 1 in
your letter with you as soon as possible regarding the selec-
tion of a site for the trenching work you want done, so that
it will meet with your requirements and be to your satisfaction.
It will also have to be on a site where permission can be ob-
tained from the owner of the property. Mr. Lockwood also told
me that he would look into Item 2 of your letter and would make
the revision you requested in the Geologic Map.
Again I want to thank you for reviewing the data submitted,
and to assure you that every effort will be made to get the
two remaining items done soon, so that the present restrictions
will be removed from the County's records in the very near
future.
Very truly yours,
Anton B. Weber •
cc:
Mrs. Teena Clifton, City Manager of Rolling Hills,
Mr. Bruce Lockwood, Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood & Asso.
JOHN A. LAMBIE_
COUNTY ENGINEER
HARVEY T. BRANDT
CHIEF DEPUTY
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
DESIGN DIVISION
108 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
629.4747
August 26, 1971
CARROLL D. SMITH
DIVISION ENGINEER
KENNETH R. KVAMMEN
ASSISTANT DIVISION ENGINEER
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT REVIEW
On May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross -
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the.
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my -office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
Your very truly,
j
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cc: Teena Clifton, City Mgr.,Rolling Hills
JOHN A. LAMBIE
COUNTY ENGINEER
HARVEY T. BRANDT
. CHIEF DEPUTY
i ii
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
DESIGN DIVISION
108 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 20012
829.4747
August 26, 1971
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPP P4!NTAL REPORT REVIEW
CARROLL D. SMITH
DIVISION ENGINEER
KENNETH R. KVAMMEN
ASSISTANT DIVISION ENGINEER
On May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross-
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
Yours very truly,
/
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cot Teena Clifton, City Mgr.,Rolling Hills
JT
IY
—, - - A17;11•
�... �.. ., 1 .. v .- A,1, , r. , .� .ti. - L./
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
DESIGN DIVISION
100 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012
629.4747
August 26, 1971
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT REVIEW
rn VISIOtt Et1GINt1 R
I<ZNNETH R. I<VAPIMCN
ASSISTANT DIVISION EN0114r'C11
On May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross -
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
Your: very truly,
a !`i / ..t'.�✓y ,o,R
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cc: Teena Clifton, City Mgro,Rolling Hills
l'
'%%NDT
1 a
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
DIVISION
KENNETH R. KVAMMEN
Cell'+' 06I vrY ASSISTANT DIVISION ENGINEER
DESIGN DIVISION
108 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
629-4747
August 26, 1971
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPP Di( NTAL REPORT REVIEW
On May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross -
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
You= very truly,
i . /vi,
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cc: Teena Clifton, City Mgre,Rolling Hills
}In,. ,7FtiI:JT
c �1 rfY
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINLER
DESIGN DIVISION
108 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
629.4747
August 26, 1971
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPP aIiNTAL REPORT REVIEW
�.n l;r� Iltl
DIVISI('I t.11 •.0 I_11
KENNETH R. KVAMMEN
ASSISTANT DIVISION ENOINEEfi
On May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross -
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
Your very truly,
//
`. /,/: fi .GLW:i—
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cc: Teena Clifton, City Ngre,Rolling Hills
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEERZ
DESIGN DIVISION
108 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
629-4747
August 26, 1971
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPP NTAL REPORT REVIEW
DIVISION ENI. I• - n
KENNETH R. KVAMMEN
ASSISTANT DIVISION ENGINEER
0n May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross -
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
Your very truly,
67.444-
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cc: Teena Clifton, City Mgro,Rolling Hills
1-4n• r. cjh..t4OT
V_ A -AA. v I• '� v..A....0
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEE,I
DESIGN DIVISION
109 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012
629.4747
August 26, 1971
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT REVIEW
C.ARR^ _.. 1` 14,1
Dtvl&IUI. EI.•. 1 R
KENNETH R. KVAMMEN
ASSISTANT DIVISION ENGINEER
On May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross -
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
Youra very truly,
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cc: Teena Clifton, City Mgro,Rolling Hills
DIVISION
CI11:' Y
DEPARTMENT OF COU' TY ENGINEER
DESIGN DIVISION
1O8 WEST SECOND STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
629-4747
August 26, 1971
Mr. Bruce Lockwood
1138 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Lockwood:
FLYING TRIANGLE, PHASE II
SUPP NTAL REPORT REVIEW
KENNETH R. KVi\IJ
ASSISTANT DIVISION ENGINEER
On May 25, 1971, the Geology Section received your Phase II
Supplementary Report in response to the Section's written
review of the Phase II Report dated December 14, 1970. In
your Supplementary Report, additional data requested by the
Geology Section was presented to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, with a few exceptions as listed below. It
is our hope that when these remaining points are clarified
the Flying Triangle slide can be shown to be no longer a
potential geologic hazard, thus freeing the area for further
limited development.
Items that must be further clarified are:
1. The exact southerly toe of the Flying Triangle Land-
slide still remains to be defined by trenching in the
near vicinity of geologic borings. It must be noted
the consultant was notified at a meeting on November
19, 1968, that the exact toe needed to be defined by
trenching. Subsequent letters have also related the
need of defining the toe accurately.
2. The Geologic Map must be revised in the vicinity of
Parcels 30,31 and 33 to agree with the geologic cross -
sections.
It is to be noted that the data submitted on the effects of
additional water via seepage pits appears reasonable with the
condition that the maximum number of homes allowed on the land-
slide proper be limited to 80.
Please call my office at your convenience if any questions arise
regarding this review.
Your very truly,
e 7. - /}
A. G. Keene
Chief Engineering Geologist
AGK:jf 7
cc: Teena Clifton, City Mgre,Rolling Hills