APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Los …cityplanning.lacity.org/.../Appendix_D_Geotechnical_Investigation.pdf · File No.494-14-1 Page 2 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd

APPENDIX D – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

June 8, 2011 File No. 494-14-1

SM 10000 Property, LLC 2200 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33137 Attention: Chaim Elkoby Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

New Construction 10,000 Santa Monica Boulevard

Los Angeles, California Dear Mr. Elkoby: As requested, Feffer Geological Consultants performed a geotechnical investigation at the subject site. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the site in the areas of the proposed construction and to provide geotechnical parameters for design and construction. Based on our investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. This report should be reviewed in detail prior to proceeding further with the planned development. When final plans for the proposed construction become available, they should be forwarded to this office for review and comment. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, FEFFER GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING, INC. Joshua R. Feffer Jon A Irvine Principal Engineering Geologist Principal Engineer C.E.G. 2139 G.E. 2891 Distribution: Addressee– (4)

File No.494-14-1 Page 2 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An evaluation of the proposed construction of a 39-story residential building with an attached 5 to 9-story parking structure over one subterranean level was performed by this office. The evaluation consisted of historical aerial photographic research, review of geotechnical reports for surrounding buildings, an extensive subsurface investigation including laboratory testing, geologic analysis of seismic hazards, and soil engineering analysis of potential settlement and liquefaction effects on the proposed building. Based on our findings the site is free from hazards associated with landsliding, slippage, soil erosion, subsidence, faulting, and liquefaction. The Maximum Considered Earthquake and estimated peak ground acceleration for the site are typical for the area of Los Angeles. Affects from typical settlement or seismic hazards can be mitigated through appropriate foundation design. There are no known active faults located on the subject site. The Santa Monica Fault is located offsite, about ¼ mile north of the subject property. As such, the ground rupture hazard within the study area is considered nil. Heavy seepage was encountered at depths between 35 and 50 feet (227’ to 216’ elevation) below the ground surface and is likely representative of groundwater. The current design is for construction of one subterranean level at an elevation of 262’ and therefore dewatering or a foundation design for hydrostatic uplift will not be required. Depending upon final design considerations, foundations will consist of conventional foundations, mat foundations, or piles. Groundwater will not affect the capacity of the foundations and will not have adverse affects on the performance of the building.

File No.494-14-1 Page 3 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject site and to provide design and construction criteria for the construction of a residential tower of approximately thirty nine stories in height. An attached approximately, 5 to 9-story parking garage over one subterranean level will also be constructed adjacent to the main building. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of work performed during this investigation involved the following; • Research and review of available pertinent geotechnical literature; • Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation of eight borings (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8) and advancing four CPT’s (CPT1, CPT2, CPT3, CPT4); • Sampling and logging of the subsurface soils; • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples collected from the subsurface exploration to determine the engineering properties of the soil; • Engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data; and • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations for the proposed construction. 1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located in the City of Los Angeles just north of Beverly Hills High School at the southwest corner of Moreno Drive and Santa Monica Boulevard (Figure 1). An aerial photograph is included as Figure 2 and a topographic map is included as Figure 3. Figure 3 also shows the location of a storm drain line located along the east side of the property. Santa Monica Boulevard descends gently to the east and Moreno Drive descends to the south. From the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the property the site elevation varies by about 15 feet. Drainage is by sheet flow to the southeast corner of the property at Moreno. A site-specific topographic map is included within Appendix A. The site is currently vacant following demolition of the office building that previously existed on site.


Figure 1. Location map of the site.


Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of subject lot and surrounding area.


Figure 3. Topographic map of the subject site and surrounding area. The red star is located on the subject property. The location of the storm drain is shown by the blue line.

File No.494-14-1 Page 7 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. 1.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

It is our understanding that conceptually, site development will consist of construction of a 39-story residential building with an attached 5 to 9-story parking structure over one subterranean level. Foundation loads for the building are expected to be high. 1.5 PREVIOUS REPORTS Research at the Los Angeles City Building and Safety Department yielded geological and soil reports for several of the surrounding high-rise developments and for the subject property. The reports for the surrounding properties indicated that the natural alluvium is relatively uniform, dense, and can support high structural loads. The reports for the surrounding buildings indicate that they are all founded on foundations consisting of spread footings, driven piles, or cast-in-place caissons. The original soil and geology report prepared by Leroy Crandall and Associates for the subject property in 1958 was obtained. The report stated that old, dense, alluvium underlies the majority of the subject site except for the eastern side along Moreno Drive where 15 feet of loose fill was found. The old fill contained trash and oil saturated sand. The report stated that the older fill would be partially removed during excavation for a basement and recommended that the remaining fill be removed and new fill compacted during development. Conventional spread footings were recommended for the building foundation and caissons were used under the perimeter, property-line block wall. In 1960, a report was issued for the foundation of a proposed 14-story tower that was to be constructed along the north side of the property. Because the construction of the office building was already underway and grading for the tower foundation was not possible, cast-in-place caissons up to 48 feet in depth were reportedly going to be installed. However, the towers were never constructed and the pile clusters that were proposed were never constructed and were not found during the recent site demolition. A methane report included within the due diligence documents stated that groundwater was encountered 5 feet below the bottom of a probe drilled to 45 feet (no logs of the drilling were provided within the report); a call to the principal engineer for the project verified that groundwater was encountered at 50 feet below the ground surface. Feffer Geological Consulting performed a previous phase of subsurface investigation and laboratory testing in 2007 as part of a site evaluation for a previous owner. Site Demolition A site visit was conducted on May 26th, 2006. Discussion with the demolition contractor, Holcomb Engineering Contractors, Inc., revealed that no unusual subsurface conditions were encountered. Mr. Holcomb stated that the 14-story towers were never constructed and he has searched for but has not found any pile clusters.


2.0 INVESTIGATION

2.1 GENERAL

Our field investigation was performed on January 18-20, 2007 and April 21, 2011 and consisted of a review of site conditions and exploration involving drilling of eight hollow-stem borings, advancing four CPT soundings, and soil sampling. Our investigation also included laboratory testing of selected soil samples. A brief summary of these various tasks are provided below. 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface investigation performed at the site consisted of drilling eight borings by use of a hollow-stem auger drill rig and four electronic piezocone soundings (CPT). The purpose of the borings and CPT soundings was to determine the existing subsurface conditions and to collect subsurface soil in the areas of the proposed construction and throughout the site. The borings were excavated to a maximum depth of 100.5’ below the existing ground surface. The CPT’s were pushed to a maximum depth of 100.21’ below the existing ground surface. The soil materials encountered in Borings 1-8 consisted of fill over Older Alluvium. A review of geological maps1,2 indicates that the material underlying the subject site is comprised of Alluvium of Quaternary age (Figure 4). The borings were logged by our field geologist using both visual and tactile means. Both bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the attached site plan included in Appendix A. Detailed boring and CPT logs are presented in Appendix B. 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples obtained during our field exploration. Samples were tested for the purpose of estimating material properties for use in subsequent engineering evaluations. Testing included in-place moisture and density, maximum density, optimum moisture content, hydro-response-swell/collapse, and shear strength testing. A summary of the laboratory test results is included in Appendix C. The physical properties of the soils were tested at Soil Labworks, LLC. The undersigned geologist and engineer have reviewed the data and concur and accept it.

1 Dibblee, Thomas, 1991, Geologic Map of the Beverly Hills and Van Nuys (south ½) Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California Map #DF-31. 2Hoots, H.W., 1931, Geology of the eastern part of the Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County, California: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 165-C.


Figure 4. Portion of Dibblee Geologic Map. Site is designated by a red star.

File No.494-14-1 Page 10 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, POTENTIAL HAZARDS 3.1 SITE GEOLOGY Regional geologic maps and the subsurface exploration indicated that the property is underlain by Quaternary Age Older Alluvium (Figure 4) overlain by variable amounts of fill. Descriptions of the materials encountered in our exploratory borings are described below. 3.2.1 Fill The fill consists of fine to coarse grained silty and gravelly sand with minor amounts of clay and occasional concrete fragments. The color consists of mottled light brown to brown, tan, orange, and green. The fill is medium dense, moist and contains occasional construction spoils. The fill on site varies is typically about 7.5 feet deep but varies from 5 feet to as deep as 13 feet in the southeast corner of the site. 3.2.2 Quaternary Alluvium The alluvium consists of admixtures of gravel, sands, silts and clays which vary from light to dark browns, grays, tan, greenish-gray, orange-brown, and occasional red-brown. The alluvium was moist (saturated below the ground water level), medium dense to dense, firm to stiff, containing caliche and mica. The alluvium is generally weakly horizontally layered with no significant structural planes. 3.2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered during the recent excavations and soundings at depths ranging from 35 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Historically, the highest groundwater in this area of Los Angeles is estimated to be about 25 feet below the ground surface Figure 5 (Plate 1.2, Historically Highest Groundwater Contours and Borehole Log Data Locations, Beverly Hills 7½ Minute Quadrangle in Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Burbank Quadrangle, SHZR-023).

Feffer Boring Designation

Elevation of Boring

Depth to Groundwater

Groundwater Elevation

B-1 272’ 50’ 222’ B-2 261’ 45’ 216’ B-3 262’ 35’ 227’ B-4 261’ 35’ 226’ B-5 262’ 42’ 220’ B-6 262’ 43’ 219’ B-7 262’ 40’ 222’ B-8 262’ 42’ 220’


File No.494-14-1 Page 12 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. A monitoring well/piezometer has been installed within Boring 4 so that groundwater levels can be monitored over time. A measurement taken on February 27, 2007 indicated that groundwater was 35’ below the surface level at B-4. A measurement of the water level on May 21, 2011 indicated that groundwater is at 36’ below the ground surface. 3.3 SEISMICITY A risk common to all areas of Southern California that should not be overlooked is the potential for damage resulting from seismic events (earthquakes). The site is located within a seismically active area, as is all of Southern California. Earthquakes generated on large regional faults such as the San Andreas, Newport Inglewood, Santa Monica, and Raymond Faults could affect the site. The closest known active faults to the site are the Newport-Inglewood and Santa Monica Faults. The Santa Monica Fault is located to the north of Santa Monica Boulevard within the golf course property about 0.25 km north of the site. The Newport-Inglewood Fault as located on state of California Special Studies Zone Earthquake Fault Maps is 4 km to the southeast of the site. The Santa Monica Fault is not zoned as an active Fault on the State of California Alquist-Priolo maps but several studies indicate that it is likely active and will likely soon be officially designated as an active fault. The Santa Monica Fault does not cross the subject property. Since no active faults cross the property, the surface rupture hazard at the site is very low to nil. Based on discussion with MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., the geotechnical firm performing geotechnical services for the Metro Rail Westside Subway Extension, ongoing evaluations of the fault hazard within the area surrounding the subject site is being performed. Specifically, hollow stem continuous core borings, CPT’s, and P and S wave seismic reflection survey lines are being done in the immediate surrounding area on Moreno Drive and within the High School property to the south of the site. Mactec will also drill one hollow stem continuous core boring, advance 2 CPT soundings, and perform a P and S wave seismic reflection survey line on the subject site as part of the evaluation but has yet to complete this work. The Metro Rail information, once released, will be incorporated into the report for the subject site. To date, no active faults have been found on the subject site. Due to the distance from the coastline the site is not susceptible to the effects of tsunamis and seiches. Based upon the Maximum Considered Earthquake for this area of Los Angeles and in conformance with ASCE 7-05, the Peak Ground Acceleration at the site was determined to be 0.45g Groundwater maps within the referenced report indicate that the historical highest groundwater is deeper than 25 feet. Current groundwater levels are as high as 36’ below the ground surface.

3.4 LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction is a process that occurs when saturated sediments are subjected to repeated strain reversals during an earthquake. The strain reversals cause increased pore water pressure such that the internal pore pressure approaches the overburden pressure and the shear strength approaches zero. Liquefied soils may be subject to flow or excessive strain, which can cause settlement. Liquefaction occurs in soils below the groundwater table. Soils commonly subject to liquefaction

File No.494-14-1 Page 13 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. include loose to medium dense sand and silty sand that are normally consolidated and Holocene in age. Predominantly fine-grained soils, such as silts and clay, are less susceptible to liquefaction. Generally, soils with a clay content of greater than 15 percent and/or a fines content (percent passing the 200 sieve) greater than 30 percent, are not considered subject to liquefaction. Over-consolidated soils and soils older than 12,000 years are not subject to liquefaction. The subject property is not included within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake liquefaction or seismic ground deformation. The site is underlain by over-consolidated, older alluvial deposits (Pleistocene age), which are not subject to liquefaction. Therefore, the liquefaction potential of the site is very low to nil. Similarly, hazards associated with liquefaction, such as lateral spreading, ground failure, and dynamic settlement are considered very low to nil. Mitigation of the liquefaction hazards are not indicated for the site. 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

Subsurface materials at the site consist of older alluvium below variable amounts of fill. On the subject property there was up to thirteen feet of fill over older alluvium. Laboratory testing indicates that the alluvium at the depth of the anticipated foundations has a moderate potential for consolidation and hydrocollapse under heavy loads. The alluvium at the subject site is competent and not subject to liquefaction or earthquake induced ground deformation. The following paragraph provides general discussions about settlement and expansive soil activity. 4.2 SETTLEMENT Our investigation indicated that the consolidation and hydrocollapse potential of the older alluvium at the depth of the proposed foundations is low. The bearing soils at the level of the foundations are subject to consolidation upon heavy loading. Recommendations are presented below to mitigate the settlement hazard associated with consolidation of the bearing soils. 4.3 EXPANSIVE SOIL

The on-site, near surface soil was found to possess low to moderate expansive characteristics based upon expansion index testing and field soil classifications.

File No.494-14-1 Page 14 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 BASIS

Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided, information gathered, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic evaluations, experience, and judgment. Recommendations contained herein should be considered minimums consistent with industry practice. More rigorous criteria could be adopted if lower risk of future problems is desired. Where alternatives are presented, regardless of what approach is taken, some risk will remain, as is always the case.

5.2 SITE SUITABILITY

The site is within an area including completed housing and building developments. Geotechnical exploration, analyses, experience, and judgment result in the conclusion that the proposed development is suitable from a geotechnical standpoint.

It is our opinion that the site can be improved without hazard of landslide, slippage, or settlement, and improvement can occur without similar adverse impact on adjoining properties. Realizing this expectation will require adherence to good construction practice, agency and code requirements, the recommendations in this report, and possible addendum recommendations made after plan review and at the time of construction. 5.3 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION It is not known if the proposed structures are going to be designed using dynamic or static analyses. Feffer Geological has not performed a site-specific seismic ground motion study or produced seismic response spectra. The following parameters are based upon the 2010 Building Code and ASCE 7-05 and may be used for the preliminary seismic design. ,The following parameters are based upon Section 1613 of the 2010 Building Code. The Site Class was determined by measuring the shear wave velocity of the soils to a depth of 100 feet in CPT 2. :

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: SS : 1.865g S1 : 0.632g

Site Class: D : Stiff Soil Site Coefficients: Fa : 1.0 Fv : 1.5 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters:

SMS : 1.865g


SM1 : 0.948g Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters:

SDS : 1.243g SD1 : 0.632g

It should be realized that the purpose of the seismic design utilizing the above parameters is to safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, but not to prevent damage altogether. Even if the structural engineer provides designs in accordance with the applicable codes for seismic design, the possibility of damage cannot be ruled out if moderate to strong shaking occurs as a result of a large earthquake. This is the case for essentially all structures in Southern California.

5.4 EARTHWORK 5.4.1 General Demolition of the previous structures disturbed the upper five to thirteen feet of existing fill and

alluvium; all building and parking foundations should be founded on firm undisturbed older alluvium below the fill at an elevation of approximately 252’. Light structures such as planter and screen walls, landscaping, etc. can be placed on either alluvium or newly compacted fill. If it is anticipated that the proposed construction may require grading of the site, it should be done in accordance with good construction practice, minimum code requirements and recommendations to follow. Grading criteria are included within Appendix E.

5.4.2 Site Preparation and Grading Based on our understanding of the proposed development, we recommend that footings be founded

in firm older alluvium for the main building and parking structures and firm alluvium or a newly compacted fill cap for light structures. Prior to the start of grading operations, utility lines within the project area, if any, should be located and marked in the field so they can be rerouted or protected during site development. All debris and perishable material should be removed from the site. No permanent cut and fill slopes should be constructed steeper than a 2:1 gradient.

If fill is to be placed the upper six to eight inches of surface exposed by the excavation should be scarified; moisture conditioned to two to four percent over optimum moisture content, and compacted to 95 percent relative compaction3. If localized areas of relatively loose soils prevent proper compaction, over-excavation and re-compaction will be necessary. 5.5 FOUNDATION SUPPORT 5.5.1 New Structures All proposed footings for the building and parking structures shall be embedded within approved firm older alluvium, in accordance with the recommendations below.

3 Relative compaction refers to the ratio of the in-place dry density of soil to the maximum dry density of the same material as obtained by the "modified proctor" (ASTM D1557) test procedure.

File No.494-14-1 Page 16 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. Formal design parameters, such as the anticipated structural loads have not been provided. Foundations loads for the residential building are anticipated to be very high. Foundation loads for perimeter retaining walls and parking structure are expected to be moderate to high. All foundations are required to extend into the underlying alluvium below an elevation of approximately 252’. Based on the anticipation of high structural loads conventional foundations and slabs are not considered feasible for the residential tower. Pile foundations are recommended to support the high foundation loads. Deepened Foundations - Cast-in-place Concrete Piles Cast-in-place concrete piles are recommended to support the structures in order to control settlement. Piles should be embedded at least 10 feet into older alluvium. Capacities of 12 through 30 inch piles are shown on the Pile Capacity chart included within Appendix D. It is assumed that groups of piles with a reinforced concrete cap will be required to support the heavier columns. Higher capacities are possible, but will require full scale field testing of the piles before construction. Foundation Settlement Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Total settlements under static conditions are expected to be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement under static loads should not exceed ½ inch.

5.5.2 Mat Foundations

Where loads are moderate, a mat foundation may be used to distribute concentrated loads to the bearing soils to mitigate differential settlement. The thickness of the mat should be determined by the structural engineer. For capacity of the mat, a net dead-plus-live load pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot may be assumed for the native alluvium at the base of the mat. A ⅓ increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. For bearing calculations, the weight of the concrete in the footing may be neglected.

A coefficient of subgrade reaction of 335 kips per cubic foot may be used for the mat to compute deflections. The recommended subgrade modulus has already been factored to reflect the anticipated size. 5.5.3 Conventional Foundations The structural foundations for the light structures shall be embedded within alluvium or approved compacted fill. Conventional foundations may be appropriate. Allowable design parameters for foundations are provided below.

Minimum depth for interior and exterior footing (Measured from lowest adjacent grade)............................................................2 feet


Minimum width………………………………………………………………1.5 feet Bearing pressure a. Sustained loads for Alluvium or Compacted Fill (lbs. per square foot) 1,500 psf

Resistance to lateral loads

a. Passive soil resistance (lbs. per cubic ft.) Within Alluvium or Approved Compacted Fill .............................. 250 pcf Maximum allowable ..................................................................... 4,500 psf

b. Coefficient of sliding friction...................................................................... 0.30 The allowable bearing pressures are for dead plus long-term live loads. Increases in the bearing value of the alluvium are allowable at a rate of 300 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of footing width or depth to a maximum of 4,500 pounds per square foot. For bearing calculations, the weight of the concrete in the footing may be neglected. The bearing value shown above is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third. All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars; two placed near the top and two near the bottom of the footings. Footing excavations should be cleaned of all loose soil, moistened, free of shrinkage cracks and approved by the geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to placing forms, steel or concrete. Footings designed and constructed in accordance with the foregoing criteria are expected to settle less than 3/4 inch. Differential settlement of approximately half of the total settlement is expected. 5.6 RETAINING WALL AND SHORING

Retaining Wall

Cantilevered retaining walls up to 12 feet high that support older alluvium and approved retaining wall backfill, may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (calculations included within Appendix D). Restrained basement walls that are pinned at the top by a non-yielding floor should be designed for 60 pounds per cubic foot. Retaining walls should be provided with a subdrain or weepholes covered with a minimum of 12 inches of ¾ inch crushed gravel. Basement retaining walls surcharged by existing foundations or vehicular traffic should be designed to withstand the surcharge. Feffer Geologic can assist the structural engineer in evaluating the magnitude of the surcharge pressure and the point of application.


Backfill

Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557-09. Where access between the retaining wall and the temporary excavation prevents the use of compaction equipment, retaining walls should be backfilled with ¾ inch crushed gravel to within 2 feet of the ground surface. Where the area between the wall and the excavation exceeds 18 inches, the gravel must be vibrated or wheel-rolled, and tested for compaction. The upper 2 feet of backfill above the gravel should consist of a compacted fill blanket to the surface. Retaining wall backfill should be capped with a paved surface drain or a concrete slab.

It should be pointed out that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining walls can result in excess wall movement and/or soil loadings exceeding design values. In this regard, care should be taken during backfilling operations. Waterproofing Special consideration should be given to waterproofing the walls to prevent damage to the building interior. Unless dampness is acceptable on exterior wall faces, waterproofing should also be incorporated into the exterior retaining wall design. Although the project architect is the party who should provide actual waterproofing details, it is suggested the waterproofing consist of a multi-layered system such as an initial generously applied layer of hot-mopped asphalt over which a layer of construction felt could be applied, then thoroughly mopped again with hot asphalt. In the case of all retaining walls, it is suggested that a layer of 10-mil Visqueen be placed as a finish layer. The multi-layered system should be covered with protective foam board, or similar, to prevent damage during the backfilling operation.

Extreme care should be exercised in sealing walls against water and water vapor migration. Where retaining walls are planned against interior space, continuity should be provided between the aforementioned wall moisture-proofing on the back of the retaining wall and the moisture barrier typically placed under slab areas. This waterproofing is necessary to prevent the foundation concrete from acting as a wick through which moisture migrates to the interior space despite wall moisture proofing. As aforementioned, the architect or structural engineer should develop the actual waterproofing details. 5.6.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

Depending on the type of foundation system determined for the site, temporary excavations may be required to construct the subterranean portions of the development and possible mat slabs. Depending upon final design excavations up to 20 feet in height may occur and will expose scattered fill over Older Alluvium. Where not surcharged by existing footings or structures, the Older Alluvium and existing fill is capable of maintaining vertical excavations up to 5 feet. Where vertical excavations in the Older Alluvium and fill exceed 5 feet in height, the upper portion should be trimmed to 1:1 (45 degrees). Vertical excavations removing lateral or vertical support from existing structures or the public right-of-way will require the use of temporary shoring. Any excavation that

File No.494-14-1 Page 19 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. encroaches within a 1:1 plane projected downward from the edge of the footing is considered to remove lateral support from the footing.

Shoring

Shoring may consist of drilled, cast-in-place concrete piles with wood lagging. Shoring piles should be a minimum of 24 inches in diameter and a minimum of 8 feet into native soils below the base of the excavation. Piles may be assumed fixed at 3 feet below the base of the excavation. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile, which is below the planned excavated level, should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. Cantilevered shoring up to a height of 20 feet may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. The recommended design pressure on shoring in excess of 20 feet is 40 pcf. For the vertical forces, piles may be designed for a skin friction of 200 pounds per square foot for that portion of pile in contact with the soil. Soldier piles should be spaced a maximum of 8 feet on center. Due to arching on the soils, the design fluid pressure should be multiplied by the pile spacing.

The recommended soil pressures do not include surcharge pressures from traffic or existing structures. The shoring engineer should add appropriate surcharge pressures to account for existing structures, property line retaining walls and vehicular traffic. Feffer Geological can assist the shoring engineer in determining the surcharge pressure and the point of application.

Lateral Design of Shoring

The friction value is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by passive earth pressure within the Older Alluvium below the base of the excavation.

Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot. The maximum allowable earth pressure is 6,000 pounds per square foot. For design of isolated piles, the allowable passive and maximum earth pressures may be increased by 100 percent. Piles spaced more than 2½ pile diameters on center may be considered isolated.

Lagging Lagging is required between shoring piles. The lagging should be designed for a maximum pressure of 400 pounds per square foot.

Earth Anchors

Earth anchors (tie backs) may be employed to assist the shoring system. Pressure grouted friction anchors are recommended. For design purposes, it is assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 30 degrees with the vertical through the bottom excavation. Friction anchors should extend at least 10 feet beyond the potential active wedge, or to a greater

File No.494-14-1 Page 20 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. length if necessary to develop the desired capacities. The capacities of the anchors should be determined by testing of the initial anchors as outlined in a following section.

For shallow conventional, straight-shaft friction anchors (less than 15 feet of over-burden) the estimated skin friction is 300 pounds per square foot. Post-grouted anchors are expected to achieve capacities of 3 to 4 kips/ft, depending on the depth. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least six feet on center, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action.

The anchors may be installed at angles of 20 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. Caving and sloughing of the anchor hole should be anticipated and provisions made to minimize such caving and sloughing. To minimize chances of caving and sloughing, that portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge should be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The sand backfill should be placed by pumping; the sand may contain a small amount of cement to facilitate pumping.

The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting a portion of the downward component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as 0.25. (This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean-mix concrete and between the lean-mix concrete and the retained earth). In addition, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. The downward frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 300 pounds per square foot. All of the anchors should be tested following the recommendations of the shoring engineer and in conformance with City of Los Angeles Guidelines. The testing criteria should include 200 percent of design tests to verify the skin friction and soil adhesion values assumed for design. The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by a deputy grading inspector under the direction of the geotechnical engineer.

Deflection Monitoring

Some deflection is expected for a well designed and constructed shoring system. Where offsite structures or the public right-of-way are located within 10 feet of the shored excavation, it is recommended that the deflection be limited to ½ inch or less. Where offsite structures and the public right-of-way are located within more than 10 feet of the shored excavation, it is recommended that the deflection be limited to 1 inch or less.

Prior to construction and excavation for the subterranean levels, it is recommended that the existing conditions along the property line be documented and surveyed. Documentation should include photographs and descriptions of the offsite structures and conditions. Survey monuments should be affixed to representative structures and to points along the property line and offsite. The survey points should be measured prior to construction to form a baseline for determining settlement or

File No.494-14-1 Page 21 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. deformation. Upon installation of the soldier piles, survey monuments should be affixed to the tops of representative piles so that deflection can be measured.

The shored excavation and offsite structures should be visually inspected every day. Survey monuments should be measured once a month during the construction process. Should the surveys reveal offsite deformation or excessive deflection of the shoring system, the shoring engineer and geotechnical engineer should be notified. Excessive deflection may require additional anchors, post-grouting and re-tensioning or internal bracing to restrain the shoring system. Excavation Characteristics

The borings and CPT soundings did not encounter hard, cemented bedrock. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 35 to 50 feet and should be anticipated for drilled shafts and deep excavations. Drilled foundations and anchors below the groundwater level may be subject to caving and casing, drilling muds or special drilling techniques may be required. Water should be pumped from foundation excavations prior to placing concrete. As an alternative, water may be displaced from drilled foundation shafts by placing the concrete from the bottom up. The compressive strength of concrete placed below the water table should be increased by 1,000 psi over the design strength. Based on our understanding of the proposed development it is not anticipated that the groundwater table will necessitate lowering. However, if it is deemed necessary, a dewatering consultant should be retained to evaluate the feasibility of lowering the groundwater table to facilitate construction.

5.7 EXTERIOR FLATWORK

Exterior flatwork should be placed over alluvium or approved compacted fill. Any existing fill should be removed to alluvium and replaced as approved compacted fill where slabs are proposed. Alternatively, slabs should be structurally designed to span the fill between deepened foundation elements. Five inch net sections with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c.e.w. are also advised. Control joints should be planned at not more than twelve foot spacing for larger concrete areas. Narrower areas of flatwork such as walkways should have control joints planned at not greater than 1.5 times the width of the walkway. Recommendations provided above for interior slabs can also be used for exterior flatwork, but without a sand layer or Visqueen moisture barrier. Additionally, it is also recommended that at least 12-inch deepened footings be constructed along the edges of larger concrete areas. Movement of slabs adjacent to structures can be mitigated by doweling slabs to perimeter footings. Doweling should consist of No. 4 bars bent around exterior footing reinforcement. Dowels should be extended at least two feet into planned exterior slabs. Doweling should be spaced consistent with the reinforcement schedule for the slab. With doweling, 3/8-inch minimum thickness expansion joint material should be provided. Where expansion joint material is provided, it should be held down about 3/8 inch below the surface. The expansion joints should be finished with a color matched, flowing, flexible sealer (e.g., pool deck compound) sanded to add mortar-like texture. As an option to doweling, an architectural separation could be provided between the main structures and abutting appurtenant improvements.

File No.494-14-1 Page 22 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. 5.8 CONCRETE

Based on our experience soils at the site have low levels of sulfates. As such, no special sulfate resistant cure mix design is required for the project. However, we recommend that the low permeable concrete be utilized at the site to limit moisture transmission through slab and foundation. For this purpose, the water/cement ratio to be used at the site should be limited to 0.5 (0.45 preferred). Limited use (subject to approval of mix designs) of a water reducing agent may be included to increase workability. The concrete should be properly cured to minimize risk of shrinkage cracking. The code dictates at least seven days of moist curing. Two to three weeks is preferred to minimize cracking. One-inch hard rock mixes should be provided. Pea gravel mixes are specifically not recommended but could be utilized for relatively non-critical improvements (e.g., flatwork) and other improvements provided the mix designs consider limiting shrinkage. Contractors/other designers should take care in all aspects of designing mixes, detailing, placing, finishing, and curing concrete. The mix designers and contractor are advised to consider all available steps to reduce cracking. The use of shrinkage compensating cement or fiber reinforcing should be considered. Mix designs proposed by the contractor should be considered subject to review by the project engineer.

5.9 DRAINAGE

Drainage should be directed away from structures via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas. The Project Civil Engineer is responsible for design of the system and should adhere to current code requirements.

5.10 PLAN REVIEW

When detailed grading and structural plans are developed, they should be forwarded to this office for review and comment.

5.11 AGENCY REVIEW All soil, geologic, and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable.

5.12 SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTING

During construction, a number of reviews by this office are recommended to verify site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the intentions of the recommendations for construction. Although not all possible geotechnical observation and testing services are required by the governing agencies,

File No.494-14-1 Page 23 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. the more site reviews requested, the lower the risk of future site problems. The following site reviews are advised, some of which will probably be required by the agencies. Preconstruction/pregrading meeting ................................................ Advised Continuous observation and testing during any grading.................Required Shoring Observation .......................................................................Required Reinforcement for all foundations ................................................... Advised Slab subgrade moisture barrier membrane ...................................... Advised Slab subgrade rock placement ......................................................... Advised Presaturation checks for all slabs in primary structure areas..........Required Presaturation checks for all slabs for appurtenant structures........... Advised Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures............... Advised Compaction of utility trench backfill ............................................... Advised

Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, all supplemental consulting services will be provided on an as-needed, time-and-expense, fee schedule basis.

5.13 PROJECT SAFETY The contractor is the party responsible for providing a safe site. This consultant will not direct the contractor's operations and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than his own representatives on site. The contractor should notify the owner if he is aware of and/or anticipates unsafe conditions. If the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction considers conditions unsafe, the contractor, as well as the owner's representative, will be notified. Within this report the terminology safe or safely may have been utilized. The intent of such use is to imply low risk. Some risk will remain, however, as is always the case.

File No.494-14-1 Page 24 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. 6.0 REMARKS Only a portion of subsurface conditions have been reviewed and evaluated. Conclusions, recommendations and other information contained in this report are based upon the assumptions that subsurface conditions do not vary appreciably between and adjacent to observation points. Although no significant variation is anticipated, it must be recognized that variations can occur. This report has been prepared for the sole use and benefit of our client. The intent of the report is to advise our client on geotechnical matters involving the proposed improvements. It should be understood that the geotechnical consulting provided and the contents of this report are not perfect. Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report, and/or any other geotechnical aspect of the project, should be reported to this office in a timely fashion. The client is the only party intended by this office to directly receive the advice. Subsequent use of this report can only be authorized by the client. Any transferring of information or other directed use by the client should be considered "advice by the client." Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty. Geotechnical engineering is often described as an inexact science or art. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are partly based upon the evaluations of technical information gathered, partly on experience, and partly on professional judgment. The conclusions and recommendations presented should be considered "advice." Other consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. Typically, "minimum" recommendations have been presented. Although some risk will always remain, lower risk of future problems would usually result if more restrictive criteria were adopted. Final decisions on matters presented are the responsibility of the client and/or the governing agencies. No warranties in any respect are made as to the performance of the project.

File No.494-14-1 Page 25 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. REFERENCES

1. Blake, T., 2000, EQFault, Version 3.00b, Program for Deterministic Estimation of Peak Acceleration from Digitized Faults.

2. Blake, T., 2000, EQSearch, Version 3.00b, Program for Estimation of Peak Acceleration from California Earthquake Catalogs.

3. Blake, T., 2000, UBCSEIS, Version 1.03, Program for Computation of 1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Design Parameters.

4. Jennings, C.W., 1994, “Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,” Scale – 1:750,000, California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Map Data Series.

5. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zone Mapping, 1998, Beverly Hills Quadrangle.

APPENDIX ‘A’

Site Plan

CPT-1B-1

B-2 CPT-2

B-3CPT-3

B-4

CPT-4

FILL OVER OLDER ALLUVIUM

B-7

B-6

B-8

B-5

LEGEND

B-8 LOCATION OF BORING

CPT-4 LOCATION OF CPT

JB: NAME: BY:

DATE: SCALE: SITE:

REF:

SITE PLAN

494-04-01CRESCENT

HEIGHTS YHREVISED 5/17/11

3/24/07 1”=40’10,000 SANTA MONICA

BOULEVARD

FROM SURVEY

APPENDIX ‘B’

Boring Logs &

CPT Logs

R

R

R

R

LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

Job Number: B No:oring

Project: Boring Location:

Date Performed: Drill Type:

Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figurer GeologicalFeffe Consulting

Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 3

Bedrock/ Soil Description

Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

8/9/11

4/7/11

10/12/16

4/5/8

7/12/14

7/11/14

17/20/22

Medium

dense

Dense

Dense to firm

Dense

SPT

SPT

SPT

1See Site Plan for locationSun Cal Co

1/20/07 8” Hollow Stem Rig

494-64

Fill:

Silty fine grained sand

Silty medium to coarse grained sand with

gravel

Alluvium:

Silty fine to medium grained sand, with

gravel, clay binder

Silty fine grained sand to clay sand

Fine grained sandy silt

Interbedded silty fine grained sand and silty clay

Silty fine to medium grained sand,

with gravel

Clayey silt

Brown

Brown

Mottled orange,

brown

greenish-gray

Orange

gray-brown

Brown

red-brown

Mottled

brown, gray

Slightly

moist

Moist

Moist

R

R

R

R


Job Number: 494-64 B No: 1oring

Project: Sun Cal Company Boring Location: See site plan for location

Date Performed: 1/20/2007 Drill Type: 8” Hollow Stem

Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Sample

Type

Sheet 2 of 3


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80

Dense

Medium dense

Medium dense

to dense

Stiff

Dense

Moist

Saturated

Moist

SPT

SPT

SPT

40 SPT Brown

Mottled brown

green-brown

Brown,

red-brown

Brown

Gray

Mottled

orange-brown,

gray-brown

Mottled brown,

gray-green

Silty medium to coarse grained sand, with clay

binder

Silty clay to clay silt

Interbeded gravelly medium to fine grained sand

and silty sand

Gravelly coarse grained sand, cohesionless

Interbeded silty fine grained sand, and gravelly

coarse sand, gravelly sand is cohesionless

Sandy clay, caliche

Silty fine to medium grained sand to sandy silt, with

occasional gravel, caliche

Silty fine grained sand to sandy silt, caliche

Water At 50’

6/9/10

16/22/25

6/10/11

4/5/8

5/8/13

22/50

5/10/13

21/27/30

R

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

85

90

95

100

105

110

115


Sample

Type

Sheet 3 of 3


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

120

Interbeded fine graiend sandy clay and sand,

caliche

25/50

Dense Moist

13/15/17

7/8/15

Clay, poor recovery Brown

Silty clay

SPT

SPT



494-64

80 12/15/22SPT BrownSandy silt to silty fine grained sand, caliche

Gray-brown

Mottled

gray-green

brown,

End at 100’ Fill to 10’, Water at 50’, No Caving

22/50

Sandy silt, caliche

Stiff

R

R

R

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 3


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

Interbedded sandy silt and silty fine to medium

grained sand with gravel, clay binder

10/15/17

Brown,

gray brown,

green brown

Dense Moist

Silty clay Firm to stiff5/6/9

9/12/15

4/5/7

8/12/15

14/18/30

20/22/28

Silty fine grained sand, clay binderMottled

orange-brown

greenish-gray

brown

Dense

Fine grained sandy silt Medium

dense

Fine grained sandy silt to clayey silt, occasional

gravel & slate chips

SPT

Dense

Silty medium grained sand grades into

gravelly coarse grained sand, gravel up to 1/2”Brown

Silty fine grained sand to sandy silt, occasional

gravel

SPT

SPT



494-64

Brown

orange-brown

Fill:

Alluvium:

Silty fine grained sand

Brown Slightly

moist

R

R

R

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Sample

Type

Sheet 2 of 3


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80

No recovery

14/20/28

Dense Moist

Gravelly coarse grained sand,rock fragments

up to 1”

50 for

6”

23/30

15/18/25

25/55

10/15/19

20/23/28

Gravelly medium grained sand, grades into sandy

clay

Green-gray Dense to firm

Silty fine to medium grained sand to clay sand

Dense

Gravelly coarse grained sand, clay binder, slate

chips up to 3/4”

SPT

Silty medium to coarse grained sand with gravel

slate chips, calicheBrown

Silty sand to clay sand with gravel up to 1/16”,

caliche

SPT

SPT



494-64

40 6/8/11 SPT Mottled

orange-brown

gray-green

brown

Clayey silt, occasional gravel

Brown

red-brownSaturated

Moist

Mottled

green-gray

red-brown

brown

Red-brown

gray-brown

brown

Dense to stiff

Water At 45’

R

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

85

90

95

100

105

110

115


Sample

Type

Sheet 3 of 3


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

120

Silty fine to medium grained sand17/20/23

Dense Moist

Silty fine to medium grained sand, clachie,

occasional gravel

12/14/19

29/50

Silty fine grained sand to sandy silt Mottled

green-gray

brown

Interbeded silty fine grained sand, and gravelly

coarse grained sand

SPT

SPT



494-64

80 13/19/20SPT Brown

green-brownSandy silt to silty fine grained sand, clay binder

Mottled

orange-brown

gray-green

brown

Brown Saturated

End at 100’ Fill to 5’, Water at 45’, No Caving

R

R

R

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 2


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

Gravelly coarse grained sand, gravel up to ½”

26/55

Orange-brown

gray, brown

Dense Moist

Interbeded clayey sand and silty sand15/17/19

10/12/15

13/15/17

17/19/20

14/17/18

20/21/23

Silty clay,with occasional gravelMottled

orange-brown

green-brown

gray

Silty clay

Clayey silt to silty clay

Silty fine to medium grained sand to sandy silt, with

gravel up to 3/4”

Mottled

red-brown

black, gray

Gravely medium to coarse grained sand,

clay binder, gravel up to 3/4”



494-64

Brown

red-brown

R

R

R

Fill:

Silty sand with gravel

Mottled

orange-brown

brown

Green-gray

Dense

Saturated

Brown Firm to dense

Alluvium:

Firm to stiff

Water At 35’

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Sample

Type

Sheet 2 of 2


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80

Gravely coarse grained sand, clay inclusions,

gravel up to ½”no recovery,9/15/18

Dense Saturated

Clayey coarse grained sand with gravel14/16/20



494-64

40 21/24/28 Gravely coarse grained sand, clay inclusions,

gravel up to 1/2” BrownR

REnd at 50’, Fill to 5’, Water at 35’, No Caving

Dense to stiff

R

R

R

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 2


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

Gravelly coarse grained sand, cohesionless14/15/17 Brown, tan Dense Moist

Gravelly coarse grained sand, cohesionless,

concrete debris

26/50

12/14/17

14/15/16

8/10/11

7/12/14

17/23/28

Silty medium to coarse grained sand, with gravel

Light brown

gray

Fine grained sandy silt, with clay binder

Clayey siltDense

to firm


cohesionless, clay inclusions

Brown black

orange


cohesionless, gravel up to 1/4”



494-64

Brown

R

R

R

Fill:

Silty sand with gravel

Alluvium: Slightly

moist to

moist

Mottled orange

brown

gray brown

Moist

Greenish

gray-brown

Dense

Saturated

Water At 35’

R

R





Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Sample

Type

Sheet 2 of 2


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80

Gravely coarse grained sand, cohesionless, poor

recovery in rings, bag sample only

9/15/18

Dense Saturated

Gravely coarse grained sand, cohesionless, clay

inclusions, poor recovery in rings, bag

sample only

14/16/20

14/17/22

14/15/19

Gravelly medium to coarse grained sand, clay

inclusions

Gravelly sand, medium to coarse grained, clay

inclusions



494-64

40 21/24/28 Gravely medium to coarse grained sand,

cohesionless, gravel up to 1/4” BrownR

R

R

End at 60’, Fill to 15’, Water at 35’, No Caving



Project: 10,000 Santa Monica Blvd Boring Location: 10,000 Santa Monica Blvd

Soil covered vacant lot

Date Performed: 4/21/11 Drill Type: 8” Hollowstem

Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure

r GeologicalFeffe Consulting

Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 1


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

Fill:

Clayey silt with concrete fragments

Alluvium:

Clayey fine grained sandy silt

Slightly sandy silt, little clay

Some sub-angular pebbles mainly 1/16” but few

to 1/4’ clayey sandy silt

Slightly clayey sandy silt some coarse grained

sand intervals angular fines to ½”at back of

sample at 31.5’

Seep at 39’ Coarse grained sand interval

5/10/19

6/7/11

13/27/38

10/11/12

13/21/32

6/9/5

15/22/34

7/9/12

7/12/17

6/9/15

16/19/27

4/7/11

12/22/37

10/14/23

Mottled brown,

black

Olive gray, brown

with orange

Less olive more

red-brown but

still some olive

Olive-gray

with orange

Soft

Firm

Dense

Firm

Slightly firm

Firm

Moist

Moist

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Figure


Sample

Type


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80






Sheet 1 of 2

Fine grained sandy silt, some clayey layers and

coarse grained layers, horizontal laminations

End At 49.5’, Fill To 7’, Water At 42’ No Caving

7/27/30

8/9/13

21/21/25

4/7/15

Olive-gray, brown

with orangeFirm MoistR

SPT

R

SPT

40






Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure


Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 1


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

Fill:

Silty clay and sand, asphalt and concrete fragments

Alluvium:

Slightly clayey sandy silt

Slightly clayier

Slightly more coarse grained

Clayey silt

Some 1/4” angular rock fragments

Coarse grained sandy, rocky interval 33-33.35’

some angular rocks to 1” in cuttings

Clayey silty coarse grained sand and clayey sandy

silt

Seep at 38.5’

Angular gravel and coarse grained sand

12/19/22

3/3/3

5/6/6

3/5/9

8/15/21

4/8/9

8/13/15

5/6/10

7/19/24

7/11/15

12/47/32

9/13/17

12/27/42

15/18/24

Mottled brown

Olive gray, brown

with orange

Red-brown,

some olive

Orange,

olive-brown,

slightly red

Soft

Slightly firm

Slightly soft

to slightly firm

Firm to dense

Dry to

slightly

moist

Moist

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Figure


Sample

Type


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80






Sheet 1 of 2

Coarse grained gravelly sand, sub-rounded and

angular gravel

Sandy clay grades into sandy to gravelly clay

Sandy clay some gravel

Sand clay binder grades into to clayey sand

No recovery

End At 49.5’, Fill To 10.5’, Water At 43’ No Caving

21/28/25

6/7/11

10/18/31

13/16/17

19/42/45

Brown to

dark brown

Mottled brown to

red-brown,green

Mottled red-bown,

brown, orange

Mottled

green-gray,

orange, brown

Dense

Dense to stiff

Dense to stiff

Dense

Very moist

to wet

Moist

Moist

Moist

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

40






Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure


Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 1


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

Fill:

Silty sand clay binder

Clay to sandy clay

Silty sand to sandy silt


Clayey sand

Silty to clayey fine to medium grained sand,

occasional sub-rounded gravel

Sandy clay to clayey sand, carbon

Sandy clay, carbon

Silty sand, clay binder, occasional gravel

Clayey sand, minor gravel

Gravelly fine to medium grained sand, sub-rounded

gravel

Sandy clay

Gravelly clayey sand to sandy clay, sub-rounded

gravel up to 1.5”

Silty sand minor clay binder

Silty sand clay binder

Alluvium:

5/8/11

4/6/10

12/18/24

10/15/22

13/24/21

7/9/5

13/23/33

10/15/22

16/21/32

7/9/15

9/16/25

5/7/11

17/25/33

16/14/16

Brown

Mottled gray-brown

green-brown

Gray,

orange, brown

Orange

green

Orange,

olive-brown

Olive-brown

Orange,

olive-brown

Mottled, orange,

olive-green, black

Orange, olive-green

Red-brown

Orange to red-brown

Gray to olive-green

Brown, orange

Brown, orange

Mottled orange-

brown,

green-brown

Dense

Stiff

Dense

Dense

Dense to firm

Dense to stiff

Dense to stiff

Dense to stiff

Dense to firm

Dense to firm

Dense to firm

Stiff

Dense to stiff

Dense

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Figure


Sample

Type


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80






Sheet 1 of 2

Water At 40’

Gravelly sand, sub-rounded to angular gravel

up to 1”

Sandy clay, occasional sub-rounded gravel

Silty sand, clay binder occasional sub-rounded

gravel

Gravelly sand grades into silty to sandy clay

Silty clay


12/45/49

5/8/11

8/15/27

10/16/17

13/20/36

Dark brown

Orange to

red-brown,

olive-green

Red-brown,

some olive-green

Brown sand,

red-brown clay

Medium brown

Very dense

Stiff

Dense

Dense

Stiff

Very moist

to wet

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

40


Job Number: 494-14 B No:8oring




Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure


Sample

Type

Sheet 1 of 1


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

40

Fill:

Sandy clay

Sandy clay

Sandy silt


Silty sand

Sandy silt

Clayey silt to clayey sand, carbon, occasional

sub-rouned gravel

Clayey silt to clayey sand, some 1/4” sub-rounded

to angular gravel

Gravelly sand, minor clay binder,

Gravelly sand, gravel up to 3/4”

Gravely coarse grained sand,

Sandy clay

Alluvium:

Sandy silt

sub-rounded

to angular gravel up to 1/4”

Gravely coarse grained sand, sub-rounded to

angular gravel up to 1.5”

sub-rounded to

angular gravel up to 1”

Gravely coarse grained sand, sub-rounded to

angular gravel up to 1”

13/25/28

7/8/10

9/11/16

7/9/13

17/25/47

7/9/13

13/17/20

7/8/15

13/23/34

7/10/15

36 for 5”

9/20/27

33

50 for 6”

17/18/20

Brown

Gray-brown,

some orange

Orange,

olive-brown

Orange,

medium-brown

Orange, gray

Gray-brown to

olive-brown some

orange

Orange, Gray

Orange to

red-brown, brown

Orange and brown

Red-brown, gray

Orange to

red-brown, gray

Brown

Brown to

dark-brown

Brown

Brown

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Very dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Very moist

Moist

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

SPT

Din

Fe

et

ep

th

Blo

ws

pe

r6

Inch

es

Un

dis

turb

ed

Bu

lk

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Figure


Sample

Type


Colo

r

Density

Mo

istu

re

80






Sheet 1 of 2

Sandy clay

Sandy clay with gravel, rounded to sub-rounded

gravel up to 1”

Silty sand, minor clay binder

Clayey sand with gravel,

Clayey silty sand


Water At 42’

sub-rounded gravel up to

1.5”

12/45/49

5/8/11

8/15/27

10/16/17

13/20/36

Brown orange

mottling

Brown

Brown

Brown

Brown,

orange-brown

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Dense

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

Moist

R

SPT

R

SPT

R

40

Maximum depth: 100.09 (ft)

Page 1 of 3

Kehoe Testing & EngineeringOffice: (714) 901-7270Fax: (714) [email protected]

CPT Data 30 ton rig Customer: Feffer GeologicalJob Site: Vacant Lot

Date: 18/Jan/2007Test ID: CPT-1Project: LosAngeles

Test ID: CPT-1

File: Z18J0707C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

Sand Mix

Silt Mix

Clay

Organics

Clay

Silt Mix

Clay

Sand Mix

Silt Mix

Clay

Silty Clay

Clay

Silty Clay

Silt Mix

Interbedded

De

pth

(f

t)

0 0

10 10

20 20

30 30

40 40

50 50


Page 2 of 3




Test ID: CPT-1

File: Z18J0707C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

Silt Mix

Silty Sand

Sand

Sandy Silt

Silt MixVS Fine Gr

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

VS Fine Gr

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

De

pth

(f

t)

50 50

60 60

70 70

80 80

90 90

100 100


Page 3 of 3




Test ID: CPT-1

File: Z18J0707C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

De

pth

(f

t)

100 100

110 110

120 120

130 130

140 140

150 150


Page 1 of 3




Test ID: CPT-2

File: Z18J0703C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

Silt Mix

Clay

Silty Clay

Sandy Silt

Silty Clay

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

Silty Clay

Silt Mix

Silty Clay

Silt Mix

Silty Clay

Clay

Silt Mix

Clay

Silt Mix

Silty Clay

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Gr Sand

Sandy Silt

Sand

Interbedded

De

pth

(f

t)

0 0

10 10

20 20

30 30

40 40

50 50


Page 2 of 3




Test ID: CPT-2

File: Z18J0703C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

Sand

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

VS Fine Gr

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

De

pth

(f

t)

50 50

60 60

70 70

80 80

90 90

100 100


Page 3 of 3




Test ID: CPT-2

File: Z18J0703C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

De

pth

(f

t)

100 100

110 110

120 120

130 130

140 140

150 150


Page 1 of 3




Test ID: CPT-3

File: Z18J0705C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

Sand

Sandy Silt

Clay

Sand MixSilty Clay

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silty Clay

Silty Clay

Silt Mix

Silty Clay

Silty Sand

Sandy Silt

Silty Clay

Silt Mix

Clay

Silty Clay

Clay

Sand Mix

Silty Sand

Sand Mix

Silty Sand

Clay

Silt Mix

De

pth

(f

t)

0 0

10 10

20 20

30 30

40 40

50 50


Page 2 of 3




Test ID: CPT-3

File: Z18J0705C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

Silt Mix

Sand

VS Fine Gr

Clay

Sand

VS - Sandy

Silty Sand

Gr SandSand

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

De

pth

(f

t)

50 50

60 60

70 70

80 80

90 90

100 100


Page 3 of 3




Test ID: CPT-3

File: Z18J0705C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

De

pth

(f

t)

100 100

110 110

120 120

130 130

140 140

150 150


Page 1 of 3




Test ID: CPT-4

File: Z18J0706C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

Silt Mix

Clay

Silty Clay

Sand Mix

VS - Sandy

VS Fine Gr

Silty Clay

Clay

VS Fine Gr

Silty Sand

Sand Mix

VS - Sandy

VS Fine Gr

VS - Sandy

Silty Sand

VS Fine Gr

Silty SandVS Fine Gr

De

pth

(f

t)

0 0

10 10

20 20

30 30

40 40

50 50


Page 2 of 3




Test ID: CPT-4

File: Z18J0706C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

VS Fine Gr

Silty Sand

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

VS Fine Gr

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

Sandy Silt

Silt Mix

De

pth

(f

t)

50 50

60 60

70 70

80 80

90 90

100 100


Page 3 of 3




Test ID: CPT-4

File: Z18J0706C.ECP

0 700

Tip Stress COR

(tsf) 0 10

Sleeve Stress

(tsf) -1 30

Pore Pressure

(tsf) 0 8

Ratio COR

(%) 2 12

SBT FR

(Rob. 1986)

De

pth

(f

t)

100 100

110 110

120 120

130 130

140 140

150 150

APPENDIX ‘C’

Laboratory Testing

APPENDIX ‘D’

Engineering Calculations

IC: 494-14-1 CONSULT: JAICLIENT: FEFFER/SM 10000 Property, LLC

CORRELATION SHEET # 1

CPT/SPT BLOW COUNT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

BLO

W C

OU

NTS

(N60

)

DEPTH (feet)

SPT N60 BLOW COUNT CORRELATION

CPT-1Boring 1


CORRELATION SHEET # 2

CPT/SPT BLOW COUNT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

BLO

W C

OU

NTS

(N60

)

DEPTH (feet)

SPT N60 BLOW COUNT CORRELATION

CPT-2Boring 2

JN: 494-14-1 CONSULT: JFCLIENT: FEFFER/SM 10000 Property, LLC

GRAPH #

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

0 20 40 60 80 100

S-W

AVE

VEL

OC

ITY

(ft/s

ec)

DEPTH (feet)

INTERNAL SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY

CPT-2 - SEISMIC

SOIL PROFILE TYPE SD

SOIL PROFILE TYPE SC

SOIL PROFILE TYPE SE

SOIL PROFILE TYPE SD


GRAPH # 1

24.073 1.492 0.47128.675 2.861 1.42624.334 2.26 1.82514.66 1.019 2.562

13.211 0.678 3.41310.214 0.433 3.4212.815 0.485 3.73413.529 0.599 4.024

69.104 1.432 3.758101.477 0.449 -3.528

NAVFAC DENSITY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

N60

BLO

W C

OU

NTS

(blo

ws/

ft)

VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (tsf)

ESTIMATED COMPACTNESS FROM SPT BLOW COUNTSMODIFIED FROM NAVFAC FIG. 1 7.1-14

CPT-1

CPT-2

CPT-3

CPT-4

VERY DENSE

DENSE

MEDIUM

LOOSE

VERY LOOSE

30 F

EET

40 F

EET


CALCULATION SHEET #

PILE CAPACITY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

ALL

OW

AB

LE P

ILE

CA

PAC

ITY

(KIP

S)

EMBEDMENT DEPTH (feet)

ALLOWABLE PILE CAPACITIESCONCRETE PILES

12" Pile-Compression




APPENDIX ‘E’

Grading Specifications

STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations performed under

our supervision.

GENERAL

1) The Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the developer's representative on the project.

2) All clearing, site preparation or earth work performed on the project shall be conducted by the contractor

under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer.

3) It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of

the Geotechnical Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the

specifications of the Geotechnical Engineer. The contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory

by the Geotechnical Engineer.

4) It is the contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to

handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion

of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the contractor, with due consideration for the

fill material, rate of placement and time of year.

5) A final report shall be issued by our firm outlining the contractor's conformance with these

specifications.

SITE PREPARATION

1) All vegetation and deleterious materials such as rubbish shall be disposed of off-site. Soil, alluvium or

rock materials determined by the Geotechnical Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall

be removed and wasted from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by

the Geotechnical Engineer.

Page 2

Standard Grading Specifications

Feffer Geological Consulting

2) The Engineer shall locate all houses, sheds, sewage disposal systems, large trees or structures on the site

or on the grading plan to the best of his knowledge prior to preparing the ground surface.

Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe

lines, or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical

Engineer.

3) After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced or bladed by the

contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks or other uneven features which may prevent

uniform compaction.

The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted

as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve inches (12") in depth, the excess shall be removed and

placed in lifts restricted to six inches (6").

Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested and approved by the

Geotechnical Engineer.

PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIALS

1) The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which when compacted shall not exceed six inches

(6") in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to insure

uniformity of material and moisture of each layer.

2) Where the moisture content of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Geotechnical

Engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as required to assure thorough bonding and thorough

compaction.

3) Where the moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Geotechnical

Engineer, the fill materials shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is

adequate.

Page 3



COMPACTED FILLS

1) Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material

has been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Roots, tree branches or other matter missed

during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer.

2) Rock fragments less than six inches (6") in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:

a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets.

b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks.

c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Geotechnical Engineer.

3) Rocks greater than six inches (6") in diameter shall be taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the

recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Details for rock

disposal such as location, moisture control, percentage of rock placed, will be referred to in the "Conclusions and

Recommendations" section of the geotechnical report.

If the rocks greater than six inches (6") in diameter were not anticipated in the preliminary geotechnical and

geology report, rock disposal recommendations may not have been made in the "Conclusions and

Recommendations" section. In this case, the contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer if rocks greater than

six inches (6') in diameter are encountered. The Geotechnical Engineer will than prepare a rock disposal

recommendation or request that such rocks be taken off-site.

4) Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory

by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any materials other than that previously

tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical

Engineer as soon as possible.

Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the

compacted fill.

5) Each layer shall be compacted to ninety percent (90%) of the maximum density in compliance with the

testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency (ASTM D-1557-02).

Page 4



If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a

specific land use or expansive soil conditions, the area to receive fill compacted to less than ninety percent (90%)

shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the geotechnical report.

6) Compaction shall be by sheeps foot roller, multi-wheeled pneumatic tire roller, or other types of

acceptable rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.

Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. The final surface of the lot

areas to receive slabs-on-grade should be rolled to a smooth, firm surface.

7) Field density tests shall be made by the Geotechnical Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill.

Density tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed two feet (2') of fill height provided all layers are tested. Where

the sheeps foot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches and density readings shall be

taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate the density of any layer

of fill or portion thereof is below the required ninety percent (90%) density, the particular layer or portion shall be

reworked until the required density has been obtained.

8) Buildings shall not span from cut to fill. Cut areas shall be over excavated and compacted to provide a

fill mat of three feet (3').

FILL SLOPES

1) All fills shall be keyed and benched through all top soil, colluvium, alluvium, or creep material into

sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five (5) horizontal to one (1) vertical,

in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer.

2) The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15') within bedrock or firm materials, unless

otherwise specified in the geotechnical report.

3) Drainage terraces and subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the

controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer.

4) The Contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of ninety percent (90%) out to

the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over-building

Page 5



the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment,

or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.

5) All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by methods specified in the geotechnical

report and by the governing agency.

6) Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium, or creep material into rock or

firm materials. The transition zone shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill.

CUT SLOPES

1) The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes excavated in rock, lithified, or formation material

at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet (10').

2) If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or

confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints, or fault planes, are encountered

during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer; and

recommendations shall be made to treat these problems.

3) Cut slope that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by

a non-erosive interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.

4) Unless otherwise specified in the geological and geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated

higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies.

5) Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental

agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist.

GRADING CONTROL

1) Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer during the progress of

grading.

2) In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet (2') of fill height or every

five hundred (500) cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of

the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction

is being achieved.

Page 6



3) Density tests should also be made on the surface materials to receive fill as required by the Geotechnical

Engineer.

4) All clean-out, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposal must be

inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's

responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

1) Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior

to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.

2) Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Geotechnical Engineer, no further

filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other

features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist.

3) Care shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces,

interceptor swales, or other devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.

Documents

APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Los …cityplanning.lacity.org/.../Appendix_D_Geotechnical_Investigation.pdf · File No.494-14-1 Page 2 June 8, 2011 10000 Santa Monica Blvd