Loading...
07 - Applicant’s Geologic StudiesAPPLICANT'S GEOLOGIC STUDIES 59 Category 4 P.N. 97082-1642A CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESPONSE REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: Date of Response: Consultant: Signed By: Prior Report Applicant Name Site Address: Lot/Tract No.: Proposed Project: February 17, 2015 February 10, 2015 Hamilton & Associates David T. Hamilton Michael F. Mills January 13, 2014 November 21, 2014 Kevin Chen C/o Envirotechno Architects 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, California Date Completed: Their Job No.: License/Expiration Date: Prior Review: Legend: February 23, 2015 14-1876 GE 2721 Exp 6/30/15 CEG 994 Exp 2/29/16 January 26, 2015 December 24, 2014 N =No Y =Yes NA = Not Applicable A.P.N.: New single family 1 and 2 story residence with associated retaining walls, swimming pool and on-site septic. Chaparral Lane access to be expanded by a caisson retaining wall. Prior Reviews by Others Consultant: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. Their Job No.: FC0907 Date of 7d' Response: October 5, 2011 Prior Reviews: October 27, 2011 Date of 6d' Response: September 15, 2011 October 4, 2011 Date of 5"' Response: February 1, 2011 February 17, 2011 Date of 4t' Response: December 29, 2010 January 27, 2011 Date of 3rd Response: July 28, 2010 August 5, 2010 Date of 2nd Response: December 18, 2009 January 25, 2010 Date of I" Response: September 15, 2008 October 2, 2008 Original Report: November 4, 2007 November 26, 2007 • Geotechnical Response: lN Responsive to checklist comments Grading/foundation plans changed as a result of response • Recommended Actions: Planning Department: _ In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes X *In Concept Approval for Open Space Hazard Relocation (see Comment 4) Building and Safety: Report Approved Conditional Approval (See Below) X Additional Input Required Items requiring response/further evaluation: 1. The proposed new residence will be served by an on-site septic system. The proposed septic system shall be determined to be acceptable by the Los Angeles County Heath Department. Consultant has agreed to provide confirmation to the city prior to approval of geotechnical documents. Once approved, the septic system including leach field (if any) shall be illustrated on all future maps for the project. 2. Consultant has acknowledged that prior to Building and Safety approval, the consultant shall provide a complete geotechnical grading/foundation plan review report based on an engineered plans for both the residence and associated retaining walls and improvements and the access road retaining wall. The results of subsurface investigation and laboratory testing should be included, along with detailed geologic cross sections depicting proposed structures, grading, temporary cuts, typical foundations, recommended setbacks, property lines, and adjacent structures. Additional Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): Note to City Staff. Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E./G.E.) have signed the final dated grading/foundation plans, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. 60 S:\vroiects\1997\97082\97082-1642A 3rd Review 2-15.doc 10 Chaparral Lane Category 4 P.N. 97082-1642A CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESPONSE REVIEW CHECKLIST 4. *The subject site is within an open space hazard zone. The consultant has demonstrated that the open space hazard limit line (OSHLL) may be relocated to allow for construction of the proposed improvements from a geotechnical perspective. The geotechnical consultant has provided a map illustrating the existing and proposed OSHLL for the project in their February 10, 2015 response. 5. The proposed new residence will be served by an on-site septic system. The proposed septic system shall be determined to be acceptable by the Los Angeles County Heath Department. Confirmation shall be provided to the city prior to approval of geotechnical documents. 6. A caisson wall is to be used to mitigate the landslide adjacent access road. This wall should be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. Based on proposed wall location, a major portion ofthe wall will be located on the adjacent property. City should confirm that all appropriate encroachment permits are obtained. 7. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report should include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. Limitations: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the otec ical consultant of record o�r(the �project designers or engineers. VM,. BY-ancaster, Jr., C. 1927 Expires 6/30/16 Dante P. D m�g .E. 57939 Expires 6/30/16 NSULTING G UP, INC. KLING CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 6 SAproiects\1997\97082\97082-1642A 3rd Review 2-15.doc 10 Chaparral Lane HAMILTON & Associates 1641 Border Avenue • Torrance, CA 90501 T 310 618 2190 888.618.2190 F 310 618 2191 W hanniltonassociates.net Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Chen RECEIVED c/o Envirotechno Architecture ' 13101 Washington Boulevard #40411)EC 092014 Los Angeles, CA 90066 5- Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Inv stigation Report, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chen, November 21, 2014 Project No. 14-1876 Proposed Residence, Presented herewith is our Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Report for the proposed residence to be constructed at the subject address. This work was conducted in accordance with our proposal dated September 26, 2014 and your subsequent authorization. The exploration was performed utilizing information provided by the Project Architect regarding the location and dimensions of the proposed construction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical and geological recommendations for the proposed construction. Our evaluation has concluded that the proposed construction is geotechnically and geologically feasible provided that the recommendations and design guidelines with respect to site grading and foundation construction presented in this report are incorporated in the project plans and design and implemented during construction. The results of the geotechnical field exploration and laboratory tests are also presented. We thank you for the opportunity of working with you on this project. We look forward to assisting you during construction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Hamilton & Associates, Inc. Geolechnical Engineering Construction Testing & Inspection Materials Laboratory Z Respectfully submitted, HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Alexander L. Wells Staff Engineer Michael F. Mills, Project GeologiE Gyr%EEF? p SL F,Cr Mt 4 L) No. CEG 994 Exp. 'ryE OF CA1.IF0% ALW/MFM/DTH/:rsm Distribution: (5) Addressee �Ra��ssrn�q „k,���•t`�`�f1ASco W a GE 2721 c) m oc Exp �prECHN�G L1F avid T. Hamilton, M.S., E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 O Page 2 HAMILTON & Associates 63 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 5 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................. 5 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................ 5 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND......................................................... 6 2.1 LOCATION.........................................................................................................6 2.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ................................................ ................6 2.3 UTILITIES.......................................................................................................... 6 2.4 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND REPORTS.......................................................... 6 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...................................... 7 3.1 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION ................................... 8 3. 1.1 Bucket Auger Borings.................................................................................. 8 3.1.2 Exploratory Test Pits................................................................................... 8 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................. 8 4.0 GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS............................................................................... 9 4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY...................................................................................... 9 4.2 LOCAL GEOLOGICAL / SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................... 9 4.2.1 Geomorphology........................................................................................... 9 4.2.2 Stratigraphy .........................o..................................................................... 10 4.2.3 Geologic Structure..................................................................................... 11 4.3 MAPPED LANDSLIDES................................................................................... 12 4.4 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING..................................................................... 13 4.5 REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMIC HAZARDS .......................................... 13 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY............................................................................................13 5.1 GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS..................................................................... 14 5.2 LANDSLIDE STABILITY ANALYSIS (ACCESS ROAD) .................................. 14 5.3 SURFICIAL STABILITY ANALYSIS................................................................. 15 6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................16 6.1 SITE PREPARATION..................................................................... ............... 17 6.1.1 Existing Improvements........................................................................1.111. 17 6.1.2 Underground Utilities................................................................................. 17 6.2 SITE GRADING............................................................................................. 18 6.2.1 Remedial Grading...................................................................................... 18 6.2.2 Temporary Excavation Procedures........................................................... 18 6.2.3 Imported Soils............................................................................................ 19 6.2.4 Backfilling and Compaction Requirements ................................................ 19 6.2.5 Tests and Observations............................................................................. 19 6.2.6 Interior/Exterior Concrete Flatwork Support ............................................... 20 6.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN...................................................................................20 6.3.1 Foundation Capacity and Embedment...................................................... 20 Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 3 HAMILTON 6.3.2 Foundation Setback................................................................................... 21 6.3.3 Active Lateral Loads on Piles................................................................... 21 6.3.4 Lateral Resistance..................................................................................... 21 6.3.5 Settlements/Displacements....................................................................... 21 6.3.6 Foundation Observation............................................................................ 22 6.5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS..................................................................22 6.6 EXPANSIVE SOILS......................................................................................... 22 6.7 RETAINING WALLS........................................................................................ 23 6.8 SOIL CORROSIVITY....................................................................................... 24 6.8.1 Concrete Corrosion ................................... ................... — ............. ............. 24 6.8.2 Metal Corrosion......................................................................................... 24 6.9 SITE DRAINAGE............................................................................................. 25 6.10 PLAN REVIEW, OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING.........................................25 7.0 CLOSURE...........................................................................................................26 8.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................28 Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 4 HAMILTON 65 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical and geological exploration for the proposed work to be conducted at 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The purpose of the exploration was to evaluate the general soil, bedrock and geologic conditions at the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed project. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following information provided by you is currently understood to apply to this project. It is our understanding that the proposed project will involve construction of a single-family residential development at the subject vacant hillside lot. The development includes a 1- to 2 -level residence, retaining walls, swimming pool, onsite septic system and improving a portion of Chaparral Lane with a caisson supported retaining wall. The proposed residential development is shown on the Geotechnical Site Plan, Plate A-1. 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK Our geotechnical exploration and evaluation of the subject site included the performance of the following tasks: A. Review of available project data and preparation of an exploration program. B. Field exploration consisting of excavating and logging six (6) test pits and one (1) boring to depths ranging from 3 feet to 74 feet below existing grades, and soil and bedrock sampling. All exploratory excavations were logged by a certified engineering geologist with our firm. C. Laboratory testing of selected soil and bedrock samples to aid in the classification of the earth materials and to determine their engineering properties. D. Interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of the data obtained. E. Preparation of this report providing the results of exploration and recommendations for site grading, and foundation design criteria. The results of field exploration and laboratory testing upon which our evaluation and recommendations are based are presented in the Appendix to this report. This investigation did not include any evaluation or assessment of hazardous or toxic materials, which may or may not exist on or beneath the site. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 Page 5 HAMILTON & Associates 66 TOPOi map printed on 11/03/14 from "Cahfornia.tpo" and 'unutled.tpg" 118.35000° w 118,333330 w WGs84 118.31667° W 1! - �.yq� - Il�llf 33 ;lop "'r ��t �✓ Ir 4 ;.., ,i l- { Y -. F. Pal's r.eh r'M7 LK 'i 'w � e"Y"F u +�0tv,Ey rr, IV R f y $A Istat ' . �L Ccw. �SivaS,' f� I aJr �1 •'4��' a� n �r o . .l . .Yl�� yr `S� � � qtr+ •r. �..I 711 APPROXIMATE T SITE LOCATION ul +D � A•n I l l • !� 1 ! 5 D .r" ¢,..--.,� ��Y,. .�,�.� _ � � }..�` � nom• - 1 li 5� i r 1 yi • � r i �- - 14 ` r n ;• ` .,Ff o". rid, Ln , .w� i* ,5' rn '•'Al. � �� �} �sa� �� {�� � �r � hai.•..W.Itis dr r 5 `' � 4,V�- r.� 118.35000" W 118.33333' W WGS84 118.31667" W ILn r ja- o.�- :.-1au411 o ,ate 'iM�__,-_,�CIro M1•Cirng 1sp cfaslcd suh .0, OeS'c2CL- AaCm _L G.�_ra}1_i....zt. zrw.ivaLcrraph•; ccm tcpo! Chen Residence SITE LOCATION MAP P.N. 14-1876 FIGURE 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 LOCATION The subject site is located at 10 Chaparral Lane in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The site is located at approximately 33.766 degrees latitude and -118.335 longitude (see Figure 1). The following information pertaining to site conditions was obtained during the course of performing field work for this project. 2.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The site currently consists of a vacant lot at the end of Chaparral Lane consisting of a graded building pad cut into a relatively steep hillside. A site plan of the existing property is shown on the appended Plate A-1. 2.3 UTILITIES No overhead or underground utilities were encountered during the course of our field work for this project. 2.4 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND REPORTS The following consultants' geotechnical and geological report and addendums pertinent to development of the subject property were obtained from the Project Architect and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Building and Safety and were reviewed in the course of our investigation: • "Geotechnical/Geologic Report, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California," by Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Project Number: FC0907, dated November 4, 2007, with approximately seven(7) city reviews and consultant responses. The above report concludes that the site may be developed for structures, and requires deep caisson foundations. Following five (5) City reviews and consultant addendums, the report was approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on February 17, 2011 for one single-family residence with associated retaining walls, driveway, drainage structures, and a landslide to be mitigated by use of a caisson retaining wall at the toe of the slope. The City geologic review was reopened in October 2011, following a sixth addendum to adjust the proposed caisson retaining wall design. For reference, geotechnical and geological data from previous investigations is provided in Appendix C of this report and includes; Test Pit Logs, Boring Logs, and Laboratory Test data. A summary of accumulated exploratory data (including Hamilton and Associates' current exploration) is shown on the Geotechnical Site Plan, Plate A-1. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 M Page 6 HAMILTON //�� �f�11 & Associates 6 8 Additionally, we reviewed Geologic Inspection and Third Party Geological Review reports of the subject lot, which were prepared by neighbor's consultants including; • "Geologic Inspection for Feasibility of Purchase (authored by Steven Jacobs, CEG and Dick Brown, CEG), 2 -acre vacant parcel 26 of Lot 21, Tract No. 22946, Rancho Palos Verdes, California" by U.S. Geological Services, Project Number: 05001, dated January 29, 2005. • "Third Party Geological Review" (authored by Steven Jacobs, CEG and Dick Brown, CEG), No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Project No. 12002, April 4, 2012. The 2005 report prepared by the neighbor's geologists (Jacobs and Brown) concludes that the lot is satisfactory for limited use, however probably not economically feasible for structures, as they would require deep foundations into the very hard Catalina Schist bedrock. Furthermore, that incipient landslides and unfavorable geology in the pad vicinity would preclude satisfactory stabilization of colluvial and landslide soils above and below the graded pad. Other items include slope erosion and that the old pad may have not been graded with proper benching and compaction, therefore would not be suitable for modern construction. Jacobs and Browns' 2012 third party review of the 2007 Professional Engineers Consulting report reiterates their previous geological issues and further emphasizes that the site is shown on a 2007 landslide inventory map, that Jacobs and Brown reinterpret some materials in the boring logs to be landslide debris, and that the proposed caisson retaining wall may limit future development at the offsite lot and possibly cause the landslide to fail. The final recommendation by Jacobs and Brown in their 2012 review is that the City should deny approval for construction at the subject lot until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported on by qualified and certified engineering geologists, under in-depth oversight by the city geologist. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING The Hamilton & Associates' field exploration consisted of drilling, logging, and soil sampling of one (1) exploratory boring by bucket auger as well as five (5) exploratory test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Geotechnical Site Plan, Plate A-1. Descriptions of the earth materials encountered, as well as sample depths, are presented in the Logs of Borings attached in Appendix A. Information regarding the depth of samples, field density and field moisture contents and other geotechnical laboratory tests are provided in the following sections. The soils were classified in the field by visual and tactile examination and these classifications were supplemented by obtaining bulk soil samples for future examination Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 1" Page 7 HAMILTON & Associates 69 in the laboratory. Relatively undisturbed samples of soils were extracted in a barrel sampler lined with 2.416 -inch I.D. by one -inch high rings. All samples were secured in moisture -resistant bags as soon as taken to minimize the loss of field moisture while being transported to the laboratory for testing. Upon completion of explorations, the borings and test pits were backfilled with excavated materials and compacted by a compaction wheel and rubber tires of excavation equipment. Description of the earth materials encountered in the explorations are provided on the Logs of Exploratory Test Pits and Borings, Plates B-1 through B-6. 3.1 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION 3.1.1 Bucket Auger Borings On October 20, 2014, Discovery Drilling, Inc., under subcontract to Hamilton & Associates, Inc., drilled one (1) test boring, using a truck mounted bucket auger drill rig, equipped with 24 -inch diameter bucket auger. Boring B-1 was advanced to a depth of approximately 74 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) and was down -hole logged by our Engineering Geologist. Relatively undisturbed Modified California Ring and bulk samples were retrieved from the exploratory boring for subsequent laboratory testing and analysis. 3.1.2 Exploratory Test Pits On October 10, 2014, five (5) test pits were excavated by means of a backhoe, to a maximum total depth of 16.0 feet, at the locations shown on Plate A-1. The approximate locations of the test pits were determined by tape measurement from existing property boundaries and temporary landmarks such as trees and foliage and should thus be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. A continuous record of the subsurface materials encountered during the excavating was made by our Engineering Geologist, and is presented on Plates B-2 through B-6, Exploratory Test Pit Logs. The lines designating the interface between materials on the Test Pit Logs represent approximate boundaries. The actual transition between materials was gradual. Undisturbed and bulk samples were secured at frequent intervals from the test pits for laboratory testing. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING Selected specimens were further inspected in Hamilton & Associates', Inc. geotechnical laboratory for subsequent confirmatory soil classification and engineering property testing. This testing included corrosivity suite, in-situ moisture content (ASTM D2216), dry unit weight (ASTM D2937), maximum density (ASTM D1557), consolidation (ASTM D2435), direct shear (ASTM D3080), and expansion potential (ASTM D4829). Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 8 HAMILTON & Associates 70 4.0 GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 10 Chaparral Lane occupies a part of the terraced and dissected northeast slope of the Palos Verdes Hills, California that form the southwest margin of the Los Angeles basin (Dibblee, 1999, Figure 2, herein). The hills are composed of an elevated core of Jurassic (?) metamorphic rock (Catalina Schist that underlies the site) mantled by marine and non -marine Miocene through Quaternary sedimentary rocks. The Palos Verdes Hills are a structural high formed by transpressional deformation along the regional, active Palos Verdes fault zone that is about 1-3/4 miles to the northeast. Most investigators (Woodring and others, 1946; Cleveland, 1976; Dibblee, 1999) portray the hills as an anticlinorium composed of many smaller folds generally trending northwest, with local variations. Figure 2 depicts the regional geology as mapped by Dibblee (1999). Within the core is the Catalina Schist that only crops out in George F. Canyon, near the main anticlinal axis (Dibblee, 1999). 4.2 LOCAL GEOLOGICAL / SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.2.1 Geomorphology The characteristic topographic form on the geomorphically complex slopes of the Palos Verdes Hills is a flight of 13 wave -cut marine terraces that formed during varying stands of sea level through the last million of years or so (for example, Dibblee, 1999; Cleveland, 1976; Woodring, and others, 1946). The youngest being the current shoreline. A combination of uplift of the Palos Verdes Hills along the Palos Verdes fault (about 1-3/4 miles to the northeast; Figure 3, herein) and episodic sea level decline has elevated the terraces, giving the local slopes their classic "stair -step" profile, except where locally disrupted by past and current landsliding. On-going incision of streams into the terrace surfaces and the underlying bedrock has carved a series of seemingly resistant northeast -trending ridges separated by steep, V-shaped canyons that drain easterly onto the Los Angeles Plain and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean (Plates A-1 and A-2; Figures 1 and 2). Among the high -order intervening canyons is the characteristic and largest George F. Canyon on which the site sits (Figures 2 and 4). The canyon wall slope at the site descends about 300 feet northerly to the floor of George F Canyon. At about midslope is a flat partially graded pad that is planned to accommodate the proposed structure (Plates A-1 and A-2). At the proposed site, the canyon slope descends at about a 2:1 ratio to the canyon floor; and the slope above the pad rises at about a 2.5:1 ratio. As interpreted by Haydon (2003; Figure 5, herein) are a series of landslides along the south wall of George F. Canyon. These to great degree are seemingly based on topographic expression and vary from currently active to dormant to inactive. Their mapped presence initiated this and earlier investigations regarding Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 9 HAMILTON 71 REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP 8 rs l7 r' l vs 5 F8' Ql]8t 14 Tma t f [, fi Do$. 1 r nsf .v..�' r1i Tm9 Tar%= Ting ��'`'�,.©I i ;• � � t it r �`r � � of ti— I .<., ` x (]06 ; �� SITE r t _ TM "p, pig 40 7 mad Tmnca 1 -- 25 M b25 - 1a 1 � � Tmat to 4- _ t' t �;U I �.. av Yse r"T - Tmsd .�' t t�"Q!8 FIs 1 5 sc �iars ���Y � 'T4. me�t4 � r I 't as Be "• ��Tmel Tmal y . F'' �1 �D i 'i mxd�l d Rai as to SC' Tmal r..wt'� X "� Vii'_ to 1 Ef, I 1 ... 05, 30 LEGEND q�� i� .OlDn SUMC1AL 11waffMB Oft � ifa� & 1O � drblf land — nmt&r urm"oftied Rea• %tW sand 006 ff" low d 19a ndy ism � Manny May. Whudee sand iuld poftle Va'`r1 in Pabe WAW tft WM pebbbs dedNrd RVW hom Miocene hard & aam Nab and ft#Ww^ ks irdas Peke Vw dse Sand of %bmft at at., 1848, nor dW*w*aned on blas map Ola Landslide debria; rnasbly of Monterey Shale A MONTEREY FORMATION (equivalent to lower P4Cnte t'ormalion, north of Palos Verdes Fault) dCep marine biog*eni[„ elastic and volcanic sediments• early middle to TMv lctfc Mio[enragcs d, seribcIf below is descending strptigrpphi[order T. vatmorda Diatomite • aof1, wh+te, purr y lamrr,Rted d aPGRhi4iPtlirs shale and mudstone, in places up to 125 In black; Mohnian Stage (Rowell, 1882) M13 Approx Scale I'= 2000" Tmod datomhe In San Pedro area - Rlhdoglcally vary elrWW to valmorne Tri DialavNte,'4" probably equwalanr In age to umm" ,Parr of WWI TUN, T T1. Allm/ra Shale - upper part: wNto-we0wrinrg, thtn•bed ed.90reors t fns! p and phoW-dc shale wkh kaerbeds of limestone and siltstone. locally organic and dafamaceous; 40 In tilde wAh cherry and porcelanems shale at base, up to b 15 In thick (Conrad and ENkg, 1948); Reklian(7) - Mohnian Stages (Rowell, 18d2) Tmf Fbint Fermin Svdatone member- fight gray, bedded, Indt"ted sand- Wone, contains abundant grains, pebbles and cobbles of biueschIst few of quartzite and basaltic rocks; *40 m thick; early Mohnlan Stte (Sloan, 1987) From; "Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity, Redondo Beach, Torrance and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, "by Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr., 1999 PROJECT: Chen Residence PROJECT NO: 14-1876 DATE: November 2014 M Hamilton & Associates FIGURE 2 72 REGIONAL FAULT MAP LEGEND: A Approx Scale V= Miles From: "Fault Activity Map of California, " compiled by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant, California Geological Survey, Map No. 6, California Geologic Data Map Series, 2010 PROJECT: Chen Residence PROJECT NO: 14-1876 1 DATE: November 2014 M Hamilton & Associates FIGURE 3 73 Years DESCRIPTION Geologic Before Fault Recency Time Scale Present (Approx) Symbol of Movement ON LAND OFFSHORE { tireoueemw 4 m&ewer®amow,+remoov .--- — M Rne a Mel. d 4�#otww agm - 11.700 I Faula cMamg ahael� of F.0 eae e W d L&. J Rwahc.awal dwbp �E! Plahmcwle eae j QlatomxlY Oim m - —700,000 JI UUn&,WW Ou tb Ia/b - I lauft h aW ®ngay'r— a dN8p4C!^w^I tluMq F.A c-M—y age y C' –y 3Y uw ea.i' .gog am y.a. wl wu<+� amW.o [ona a — un�RwenOaW vm vtia+cw W Wa — F.U" MU -1 re gNzeE Oualemvy 620-1 m 1.i/1.+,a• W MJ d V.{Y=�, : daa. ag. Vi.� ivi U,nwn.vp tlrw Nb n.ca.aafty rwClm d u a` 45.1., From: "Fault Activity Map of California, " compiled by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant, California Geological Survey, Map No. 6, California Geologic Data Map Series, 2010 PROJECT: Chen Residence PROJECT NO: 14-1876 1 DATE: November 2014 M Hamilton & Associates FIGURE 3 73 i SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP Palos Verdes f�1, Reservoir I ✓ , �+� 4 Y60 - SITEt�N -you j �1 1 1 _ l i II I tII PROJECT: Chen Residence PROJECT NO: 14-1876 DATE: November 2014 a Hamilton & Associates FIGURE 4 74 MAP EXPLANATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Zones of Required Investigation: SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES Dead In Compliance with Chapter 8, Olvlson 2 2 Cfehe California public Resourtas Code Liquefaction Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, 4'`� (Seeislsmic Hazards Mapping Act) �] geotechnical and groundwater conditions Indicate potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required, TORRANCE QUADRANGLE Earthquake -Induced landslides Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement; or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions OFFICIAL MAP Indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mltigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693{c} would Released: March 25,1999 be required. PROJECT: Chen Residence PROJECT NO: 14-1876 DATE: November 2014 a Hamilton & Associates FIGURE 4 74 REGIONAL FAULT MAP 0 P�} f 6. �.• el vm� U .� 474 :Y4 (\ M1i (iol l s �, I �.�• ,�� w,p" ` •! A� fir"' PA4f75 Vl NO IA # A", 720 j 8dt J �' r }}' .. ;r �"� �"• fir,^,. \� I cl► ha+r t, 4 _ llfl'' •`r�` F I9' ea°� U y,,• lA��w Sdr Flying Triangle •� % �t ,� a , I Landslide"+ • ```• �+ 1`^ ;� h'. _ 555• 4 � ",;s�. .'� �: i ;� ;,,�,.— "-•� 11�-s r- { Wc�18t `irn�� � Palos Verd00, FTE*0 F s •,,� , i � Bsnpt � a o�. .�� ` •` LEGEND: or HISTORIC: DEFINITE: CDACTIVE The landsllde shows evidence of very recent movement (at the time the Landslide exhibits many of the diagnostic landforms, including, but not aerial photograph was taken or field observation occurred) or records limited to, prominent scarps, open cracks, rounded toes, offset show movement within historic time. streams, well-defined mid -slope benches, closed depressions, springs, and irregular or hummocky topography; or has clear records of CDORMANT: D The observed landforms related to the landslide are generally subdued prehistoric, historic t ongoing activity fiom reports, aerial photography or instrumental monitoring by erosion and covered by vegetation, and there is no evidence of historic movement. PROBABLE: I DORMANT -OLD: _ Landslide exhibits several of the diagnostic landforms commonly The observed landforms related to the landslide have been greatly associated with landslides These landforms may be modified by eroded, including significant gullies or canyons cut into the landslide erosion or obscured by vegetation such that other explanations are possible However, the prepondernnca of evidence strongly suggests mass and/or main scarp by small streams. that a landslide does exist. ROCK SLIDE A landslide involving bedrock in which the rock that moves remains largely intact for at least a portion of the movement. Rock slides can QUESTIONABLE: Landslide exhibits only one or a few of the diagnostic landforms range in size from small and thin to very large and thick, and are subject associated with landslides. The landforms may be heavily modified by to a wide range of triggering mechanisms. The sliding occurs at the erosion, altered by grading, obscured by dense vegetation, or formed base of the rock mass along one to several relatively thin zones of by other geologic processes such as differential erosion of lithologic weakness, which are variably referred to in engineering geology reports and structural features in the underlying bedrock. and literature as "slide planes," "shear surfaces," "slip surfaces," "rupture surfaces," or "failure surfaces." The sliding surface may be curved or planar in shape. Rock slides with curved sliding surfaces are commonly BOUNDARY OF USGS QUADRANGLES called "slumps" or "rotational slides," while those with planar failure surfaces are commonly called "translational slides," "block slides," or "block glides." Rock slides that occur on intersecting planar surfaces are commonly called "wedge failures." PROJECT: Chen Residence PROJECT NO: 14-1876 DATE: November 2014 L—Ifl] Hamilton & Associates FIGURE 5 75 their presence, size and activity -level relative to placement of single family residences. 4.2.2 Stratigraphy Artificial Fill: Test Pit H&A-5 and boring H&A-1 penetrated undocumented fill sections up to a maximum of 16.0 feet thick. This fill was likely generated in the past during grading of pads/slopes to accommodate a proposed residence on the site. Generally the fill is about 4- feet thick, with local deeper sections and is likely ubiquitous in graded areas, particularly along the northern downslope edges of the building pad. The pad, as well as the western part of Chaparral Road, are typical cut -fill operations where rock/soil is removed from the upslope and deposited on the downslope. Tan brown to gray gravelly clayey sand and silt typifies the artificial fill. Abundant locally derived Catalina Schist shards compose the gravel within the fill. The fill is dense to very dense and is very difficult to obtain samples utilizing hand equipment owing the gravel fraction. The engineering characteristics of the fill are set forth in the appendix. Surficial Soils: Shallow soils cover much of the ungraded parts of the site. Where observed in test pits and natural exposures, these soils consist of weathered parent rock. These soils are generally tan to brown, dry to damp, generally soft to medium stiff, and contain few vegetative roots. The depth of the natural soils is approximately 6 feet below ground surface as indicated from our excavation of H&A-3. The difference in hardness and presence of roots make the difference between surficial soil and fill relatively clear. Colluvium: Based on the current investigation and those of previous investigators, colluvial deposits are near ubiquitous over the site. The term "colluvium" is quite inclusive of surficial hillslope deposits that have been washed or crept some distances downslope. In this report, H&A includes colluvium in two depositional environments. The first group is the soil -like deposits that occur on the hillslopes and at their toes. These are mainly the products of sheet -wash of dislodged and weathered soil and rock debris and, of small mudflows and soil flows. These colluvial deposits are deemed to be generally shallow upslope areas and thicken at the toe slopes. Another kind of colluvial deposits included within the mapped colluvium is the material in the scar of the mapped landslide on the east property margin in the draw above Chaparral Road (Plates A-1 and A-2). Based on exploration trenches by this firm and others, outside of the mapped landslide remnant, soil and rock debris mapped as colluvium likely emanated from the landslide scar. These are similar in engineering properties to those observed elsewhere on site, but have a different origin. The trenches and aerial photographic assessment strongly suggest that these deposits are shallow and are likely results from progressive Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 1n Page 10 HAMILTON 76 shallow failures rather than deep-seated failures in the landslide scar. Aerial photographs display ledges coincident with foliation within the draw that are likely in-place. Further, it appears that shallow wedge failures are at least partly responsible for the debris now mapped as colluvium. These deposits are loose to tight and are composed of locally -derived mixed silt, clay, sand and gravel soil and gravel debris as noted in the attached logs of trenches and borings. Depths of the colluvium encountered in those excavations ranged from about 4- to 14 -feet, with greater depths at the toeslopes. Observed colluvium can be classified as clayey silts and silty sand with abundant pebbles, cobbles and boulders of Catalina Schist. The engineering characteristics of the colluvium are set forth in the appendix. Landslides: Landslides are mapped onsite. For example, Woodring and others (1946), Cleveland (1976), Dibblee (1999) and Haydon (2007) mapped local landslides. Haydon, in particular, mapped a suite of landslides at the site. Further discussion of landslides is given below. Bedrock — Catalina Schist: Jurassic (?) low to medium grade schist underlies the surficial deposits over the entire site. The blue -gray to dark gray schist varies from fresh to extremely weathered. Occasional quartzose sills/veins parallel to foliation are rare but present. Foliation is moderately to well-developed, but is wavy and discontinuous. In general, the foliation dips at moderate angles to the east-northeast, but many variations are recorded. The upper 15- to 25 -feet of the bedrock is weathered and fractured. Based on downhole logging by a Certified Engineering Geologist associated with this firm the weathering decreases with depth and gradually "freshens." No plane or other discontinuity separates the weathered from the fresher rock. This strongly suggests that the degradation of the schist occurred in place over a long period of time, suggesting long-term exposure to surficial processes. One particular quartz -rich stratum is delineated on Plate A-1 and A-2. The aerial photographs show that the unit is present on the north wall of George F. Canyon and is traceable unbroken across the canyon and the subject site. The intact feature illustrates that the area where the residence is planned has not been displaced by landsliding. The engineering characteristics of the bedrock are given in the Appendix. 4.2.3 Geologic Structure The study site lies on the northeast flank of the Palos Verdes Hills, a structural high formed by transpressional deformation along the regional, active Palos Verdes fault zone that is about 1 -3/4 -miles to the northeast. Most investigators (Woodring and others, 1946; Cleveland, 1976; Dibblee, 1999) portray the hills as an anticlinorium composed of many smaller folds generally trending northwest, Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 01 Page 11 HAMILTON 77 with local variations. Figure 2 depicts the regional geology as mapped by Dibblee (1999). Accordingly, the north flank of the hills is also the north flank of the Palos Verdes Hills anticlinorium, hence, bedding Catalina Schist generally dip to the locally interrupted by small folds o others (1946) suggest that foliatior overlying sedimentary rocks. Such i to a great degree the foliations dips the foliation do vary over the site. planes in sedimentary rocks overlying the north and northeast except where they are by basaltic sills and dikes. Woodring and in the schist generally follows that of the seemingly the case near the study site, for northeast and east. However, orientations of No faults have been mapped in the area applicable to this report (see References). Joints are common in the bedrock. They vary from wide -spaced to closely spaced. 4.3 MAPPED LANDSLIDES Haydon (2007), in particular, mapped the entire site as in essence underlain by either dormant or old dormant landslides (Figure 5). Exploration by others (see References) demonstrate that large parts of the mapped landslide are not landslide, but rather are in place rock. Many exploration borings and trenches (Plate A-1) encountered in place Catalina Schist below thin surface deposits on the "knob" on which the proposed residence will be located. No pull apart zones or slide planes were encountered on the knob. Further, a distinct, hard quartzose bed/sill is visible on aerial photographs as trending across George F. Canyon on to the study site in an unbroken manner, thereby demonstrating that the knob is intact. A small possible landslide was identified near the bottom of George F. Canyon, away from development. A scarp resulting from likely rock fall/debris flow is just east of the site. It is anticipated that shear pins as discussed elsewhere in this document will mitigate effects, if extant, of that feature. A dormant landslide is mapped above and below Chaparral Road on the east side of the property (Plates A-1 and A-2). Based on exploration and aerial photographic review, much of the slide mass has been evacuated and weathered soil and rock (colluvium) are now filling the scar. Apparent wedge failures, likely along foliation and joint intersections in the schist, produced at least some debris (colluvium) that exists in the scar. An identified remnant slide mass, replete with an identifiable slide plane, does exist at Chaparral Road and will require mitigation as discussed elsewhere in this document. Other local mapped landslides are offsite of the study site. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 IMPage 12 HAMILTON & Associates r • 4.4 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depths explored for this project of 74 feet below existing grades. Due to the elevated position of the site with respect to nearby drainage courses, ground water is not expected to be a factor during construction of the proposed project. However, seasonal and long- term fluctuations in the groundwater conditions may occur as a result of variations in irrigation, rainfall, surface run-off and other factors. Furthermore, a saturated zone of bedrock from the proposed septic system has been assumed in Stability Analysis described in Section 4 of this report. Caving was not observed during test pit excavation and sampling operations during the course of subsurface exploration at the site. Caving may occur in excavations deeper and/or greater in dimension than our test pits. 4.5 REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMIC HAZARDS There are no mapped active faults with surface expression that trend through or are adjacent to the subject property based on the references cited herein. The site does not lie within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDMG, 2000). Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture at the site during the design life of onsite structures is considered low. Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Model (edited May 9, 2013), the estimated peak ground acceleration for both firm and soft rock conditions at the site is reported to be on the order of 0.415g, with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis incorporates seismic and geologic information for a regional area to consider the probability of ground motion from damaging earthquakes. The analysis calculates the potential range of ground motions for each potential earthquake for a given period of time and arrives at level of ground shaking that has a given probability within a given time span. According to the "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas" (Jennings, 2010) and Blake (2003), the subject site lies about 1-3/4 miles southwest of the Palos Verdes fault, capable of producing an Mw7.1 earthquake; approximately 5.5 miles south of the Compton Thrust capable of a Mw6.8 event; and 9 miles southwest of the Newport -Inglewood fault, capable of producing an M6.9 earthquake (see Figures 2 and 3). The Predominant Earthquake affecting the site vicinity is indicated to be a 7.1 event on the Palos Verdes Fault. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY Based on our investigation and testing, bedrock at the site has relatively good strength characteristics. Furthermore, global stability analyses indicates the planned development has calculated Factors of Safety (F.S.) equal to or greater than the minimum generally accepted values of 1.5 and 1.1 required for long-term static and seismic conditions, respectively. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 Im Page 13 HAMILTON & Associates 79 Slope stability analyses was performed for three different sections through the site, these sections A -A', B -B', and C -C' are shown in the Appendix as Plates A-3 through A- 5. Analyses were based on laboratory strength properties under saturated conditions, back -calculated strength properties, and engineering judgment for the proposed slope configurations. Slope stability analysis is attached to this response in Appendix B. Design bedrock and soil parameters for slope stability analyses are shown below: Design Soil Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses Soil or Bedrock Type Cohesion, C (psf) Friction, phi (degrees) Fill 225 22 Colluvium 275 26 Schist Bedrock (Intensely Weathered) 400 35 Schist Bedrock (Very Hard) 50 45 Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration, and was not incorporated into slope stability analyses; with the exception of a theoretical groundwater profile to evaluate proposed septic system seepage pits. Regional high groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor in the development. 5.1 GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS The STABL computer program, using the Modified Bishop Method of Analyses for circular failure surfaces, was utilized to search for the most critical failure surfaces for Cross sections A -A' and B -B'. Results of the analyses are summarized below. Summary of Global Slope Stability Analysis Stability Analyses indicate that the planned construction has a calculated global static factor -of -safety (F.S.) greater than 1.5 and a calculated global pseudo -static F.S. greater than 1.1. Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference. 5.2 LANDSLIDE STABILITY ANALYSIS (ACCESS ROAD) The STABL computer program, using the Modified Bishop Method of Analyses for circular failure surfaces was utilized to model the landslide in Section C -C'. Access road Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 [D Page 14 HAMILTON & Associates 80 Static ; Seismic Section Factor of Factor of Description Safe FS Safety FS Section A -A' 2.9/2.1/2.8 2.0/1.4/1.8 Global/Lower/Upper Slope Section A -A' 2.9/2.1 1.9/1.4 Global/Lower Slope w/ GW Section B -B' 2.0/2.7/2.2 1.4/1.8/1.6 Global/Lower/Upper Slope Stability Analyses indicate that the planned construction has a calculated global static factor -of -safety (F.S.) greater than 1.5 and a calculated global pseudo -static F.S. greater than 1.1. Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference. 5.2 LANDSLIDE STABILITY ANALYSIS (ACCESS ROAD) The STABL computer program, using the Modified Bishop Method of Analyses for circular failure surfaces was utilized to model the landslide in Section C -C'. Access road Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 [D Page 14 HAMILTON & Associates 80 landslide strength values were determined to be c=0 psf and phi=14.2 degrees using back -analysis of the slide assuming a Factor of Safety = 1.0. Caisson retaining wall design pressures were determined from the resultant force required to achieve a satisfactory Factor of Safety for a 10 feet vertical face into the slide toe. Results of the analyses are summarized below. Summary of Landslide Analvsis and Caisson Retainina Wall Desian Based on the results of static and seismic slope stability analyses, we recommend that the Chaparral access road landslide be supported by a caisson retaining wall extending into the project site, as necessary to support the above slide. Caissons should be deepened into schist bedrock to a depth necessary to support the landslide equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf for a 10 feet vertical face. Stability Analyses indicate that the above slide relative to chaparral road would have a calculated global static factor -of - safety (F.S.) greater than the 1.25 standard for access roads. Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference. 5.3 SURFICIAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Surficial stability analysis was performed for natural colluvium slopes and proposed fill slopes. Results of the analyses are summarized below. Stability Analysis and graphical output files are provided on Plates S-1 through S-3 in Appendix B. Summary of Surficial Slone Stability Analysis Static Resultant Equivalent Fluid Section Factor of Force to Pressure to Safety (FS) Achieve Static Achieve Static 1.5:1 (H:V) Slope 1.52 FS FS Section C -C' (back -calculated strength 1.0 N/A N/A c=0 psf, phi=14.2 deg) 15 kips/ft ................ --_.......... 300 pcf Section C -C' 1.26 (Access Road)_....._. Based on the results of static and seismic slope stability analyses, we recommend that the Chaparral access road landslide be supported by a caisson retaining wall extending into the project site, as necessary to support the above slide. Caissons should be deepened into schist bedrock to a depth necessary to support the landslide equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf for a 10 feet vertical face. Stability Analyses indicate that the above slide relative to chaparral road would have a calculated global static factor -of - safety (F.S.) greater than the 1.25 standard for access roads. Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference. 5.3 SURFICIAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Surficial stability analysis was performed for natural colluvium slopes and proposed fill slopes. Results of the analyses are summarized below. Stability Analysis and graphical output files are provided on Plates S-1 through S-3 in Appendix B. Summary of Surficial Slone Stability Analysis Stability Analyses indicate that the planned construction has a calculated global static factor -of -safety (F.S.) greater than 1.5 and a calculated global pseudo -static F.S. greater than 1.1. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 [ Page 15 HAMILTON 81 Static Section Factor of Description Safe FS 2:1 (H:V) Slope 1.53/1.86 Fill/Colluvium 1.5:1 (H:V) Slope 1.52 Colluvium Stability Analyses indicate that the planned construction has a calculated global static factor -of -safety (F.S.) greater than 1.5 and a calculated global pseudo -static F.S. greater than 1.1. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 [ Page 15 HAMILTON 81 6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing, combined with engineering analysis and our experience and judgment, it is our opinion that the site may be developed as planned, provided the site grading and foundation criteria discussed herein are incorporated into the project plans and specifications and implemented during construction. The major geotechnical considerations affecting the design and construction of the planned residential development, include the following: 1. Presence of uncertified fill, colluvium, and slide debris that is unsuitable for support of the proposed structure. 2. Steep slopes above and below the proposed structure, requiring setbacks. 3. Difficulty excavating onsite bedrock for grading and/or caisson drilling. 4. Access road with susceptibility to landslides. Structures, retaining walls, or other improvements constructed on or near slopes, may require pile foundations to satisfy slope setback requirements. However, given the parameters found from our investigation, there are a number of alternatives available that include shear pins and friction piles embedded into bedrock, re -grading and certification of fill, and a mat foundation to support the proposed residence. The following geotechnical systems are recommended for the proposed residential development. A schematic of geotechnical systems is shown in blue on the Geotechnical Site Plan, Plate A-1, and Cross Sections. • Phased re -grading of the building pad to remove uncertified fill, colluvium, and any other deleterious material; including placing subdrains, keyway, and benching approved compacted fill a minimum of 5 feet into Very Weathered Schist Bedrock. • Perimeter caissons penetrating Very Weathered Schist Bedrock and embedded into Very Hard Schist Bedrock constructed on the downslope side of the building pad to serve as slope stabilization of the property. Optimal location of the caissons would parallel the alignment and elevation of the perimeter keyway and may include a retaining wall to create additional building pad space. This system may transition to a caisson retaining wall to provide a wider property entrance and turn -a -round for fire truck access. • A caisson soldier pile retaining wall shall be constructed along the upslope portion of Chaparral access road to improve the access road relative to the above landslide. Phased retaining wall construction should be implemented to support up to 10 vertical feet of slide debris and include 3 -feet of freeboard to collect slough. Landslide analysis and caisson retaining wall design recommendations are provide in Section 5.2 of this report. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 a] Page 16 HAMILTON & Associates 82 The proposed residence should be setback from the toe of the rear ascending slope a minimum of 15 feet to achieve code setbacks and may be attained using a separate rear yard retaining wall or slope configuration. Furthermore, we recommend a slough wall catchment system be constructed at the base of the rear ascending slope with 15 feet separation from the residence. The slough wall should be constructed with at least 3 feet of freeboard and a 3- to 5 -foot lateral catchment area and surface drain on the upslope side of the slough wall. • The residence may be supported by a shallow reinforced mat foundation supported by approved compacted fill, except where deeper foundation elements are necessary to achieve slope setback requirements. • Retaining walls may be supported by shallow conventional foundations embedded into approved compacted fill or bedrock, except where deeper foundation elements are necessary to achieve slope setback requirements. • The setback line for development at the site should be revised as shown on Plate A-1, Site Geotechnical Plan. Recommendations and criteria for such systems are included herein. Safety Hazard Statement If the proposed residential construction is performed in accordance with the findings and recommendations in this report, the residential construction and adjacent sites will be safe from the hazards of settlement, slippage, and landslide as a result of the construction, in accordance with generally accepted limits of current professional principles and local practice in geotechnical engineering and reflect our best professional judgment. 6.1 SITE PREPARATION 6.1.1 Existing Improvements Prior to grading operations, it will be necessary to remove designated existing construction, including any remaining buried obstructions, which may be in the areas of proposed construction. Concrete flatwork should also be removed from areas of proposed construction. Concrete fragments from site demolition operations should be disposed of off-site. 6.1.2 Underground Utilities Any underground utilities to be abandoned within the zone of proposed construction should be cut off a minimum of 5 feet from the area of the future building. The ends of cut-off lines should be plugged a minimum of 5 feet with concrete exhibiting minimum shrinkage characteristics to prevent water migration to or from hollow lines. Capping of lines may also be required should the plug be subject to any line pressure. As an alternative, deep hollow lines may be left in Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 M Page 17 HAMILTON Associates 83 place provided they are filled with concrete. No filled line should be permitted closer than 2 feet from the bottom of future footings. Local ordinances relative to abandonment of underground utilities, if more restrictive, will supersede the above minimum requirements. 6.2 SITE GRADING 6.2.1 Remedial Grading Remedial grading to create an approved compacted fill pad consists of removing and re -compacting the approximately 12- to 15- of uncertified fill, colluvium, and any other deleterious material identified during over excavation. Furthermore, excavation shall penetrate into the layer of weathered bedrock a minimum of 5 feet and a minimum of 5 feet below proposed foundations, whichever is deeper. The placement of fill shall be benched into the bedrock progressively up the slope with a keyway and fitted with a keyway and bench drains, as necessary. It is recommended that excavated soils be replaced with properly compacted fill such that the footings and slabs are supported on an improved layer of approved compacted fill. Soils should be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction above optimum moisture content for clayey soils and near optimum moisture content for granular soils. Phasing and the depth of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material encountered during grading, should be immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as recommended. Exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the Geotechnical consultant or his representative. 6.2.2 Temporary Excavation Procedures Excavations of site soils 4 feet or deeper should be temporarily shored or sloped in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements: In areas where excavations deeper than 4 feet are not adjacent to existing structures or public right-of-ways, sloping procedures may be utilized for temporary excavations. It is recommended that temporary slopes in site soils be graded no steeper than 1:1 (H:V), or shallower based on observed conditions during construction, for excavations up to 10 feet in depth. Temporary slopes in site bedrock (with no adverse structural orientation) may graded no steeper than 3/4:1 (H:V), or shallower based on observed conditions during construction, for excavations up to 10 feet in depth. Temporary slopes for any layered soil and/or bedrock conditions should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time of grading. The above temporary slope criteria are based on level soil conditions behind temporary slopes with no surcharge loading (structures, traffic) within a lateral distance behind the top of slope equivalent to the slope height. Chen Residence M November 21, 2014 14-1876 W Page 18 HAMILTON & Associates It is recommended that excavated soils be placed a minimum lateral distance from top of slope equal to the height of slope. A minimum setback distance equivalent to the slope height should be maintained between the top of slope and heavy excavating/grading equipment. Soil conditions should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant as excavation progresses to verify acceptability of temporary slopes. Final temporary cut slope design will be dependent upon the soil conditions encountered, construction procedures and schedule. 6.2.3 Imported Soils Any imported soil required to complete grading operations may consist of similar site soils (for certain uses approved by the geotechnical engineer), or material which exhibits an expansion index less than 20 (for structural retaining wall backfill) when tested in accordance with ASTM D4829 Test Procedures, and should be free of debris, particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or other deleterious materials, and should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative. Potential import material should be identified and sampled by the Geotechnical Consultant at least 72 hours prior to planned importation to the site. 6.2.4 Backfilling and Compaction Requirements Existing site soils, unless indicated otherwise, are considered suitable for re -use during site grading, provided they are free of debris, particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or other deleterious materials, and are to a suitable moisture condition to permit achieving the required compaction. On-site and import granular materials approved for use should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 -inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture contents for granular soils, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the latest edition of ASTM Test Method D1557. 6.2.5 Tests and Observations Our office should be contacted for a site pre -grading meeting prior to beginning grading. All grading, compaction, and backfill operations should be performed under the observation of and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant's field representative. Field tests should be taken in accordance with this report and local ordinances. The depth of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant during the actual construction. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material encountered during grading, should be immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as recommended. Exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative. Imported fill soils should be tested as necessary for evaluating Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 19 HAMILTON 85 their suitability for use as fill prior to being hauled to the site. Final acceptance of any imported soil will be based upon review and testing of the soil actually delivered to the site. In addition, geologic inspection is required during grading to confirm the preliminary geologic map or to identify local anomalies that might require further assessment or mitigation. Such includes retaining wall backcuts and swimming pool excavations. Maximum density for control of grading should be determined in accordance with the latest edition of ASTM D1557 test procedures. 6.2.6 Interior/Exterior Concrete Flatwork Support Unless a uniform and acceptable bedrock surface is achievable, it will be necessary to provide a minimum one foot of approved compacted fill beneath existing grade or finish grade, whichever is lower, in all areas of interior/exterior concrete flatwork. Site soils should be recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture contents. 6.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN Geotechnical systems for site development are described in the introduction to Section 6.0. The recommendations provided herein apply to the design of mat, conventional foundations and cast -in-place friction piles, where applicable. 6.3.1 Foundation Capacity and Embedment A. Shallow Conventional Foundation: A dead plus live load allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be used in the design of continuous footings, when supported by compacted fill soils (or bedrock). The above bearing pressure may be increased by one-third under short term loading from wind or seismic forces. Minimum embedment is 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. B. Mat Foundation: A dead plus live load allowable soil bearing pressure of 750 pounds per square foot may be used in the design of a mat foundation, when supported in approved compacted fill. The above bearing pressure may be increased by one-third under short term loading from wind or seismic forces. Minimum embedment is 12 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade with 24 inch deep thickened edges. C. Piles: Recommended bearing and uplift capacities for perimeter piles embedded into Very Hard Schist Bedrock at least 10 feet are provided on Figure 6a. Recommended bearing and uplift capacities for interior piles embedded into Intensely Weathered Schist Bedrock at least 10 feet are provided on Figure 6b. Pile concrete weight may be neglected in considering bearing pressure. It is our opinion that the lateral pier deformation can be minimized by increasing the structural rigidity with the use of grade beams connecting the foundation pier caps. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 [a Page 20 HAMILTON //�1 & Associates y. �/'1� 6 FRICTION PILE DESIGN Allowable Capacity (Kips) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0 2 2 5 Y 0 Minimum Embedment 10 Feet L CO 10 0 U) LL LL 0 -15 - C N E 20 - - - W 25 30 Design values given are for 12 inch diameter, cast -in -,place friction piles. For piles of different sizes, the allowable capacity will be directly proportional to the comparative pile diameter. Uplift capacity will be one half the downward value given. Chen Residence Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, California Figure 6a HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Leoh FRICTION PILE DESIGN Allowable Capacity (Kips) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0 N N L n3 >O 5 - - vii Minimum Embedment 10 Feet c a) 10 Y U O ,^ N LL m —15 4- . U 07 O C 20 C N 25 W 30 Design values given are for 12 inch diameter, cast -in-place friction piles. For piles of different sizes, the allowable capacity will be directly proportional to the comparative pile diameter. Uplift capacity will be one half the downward value given. Chen Residence Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, California Figure 6b HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.3.2 Foundation Setback The foundation slope setback, required by the building department, is for the placement of buildings and structures on, or adjacent to, slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) to provide protection from water, mudflow, loose slope debris and shallow slope failures. This setback, shown on Figure 7, is the horizontal clearance from the face of the foundations to the slope face. Furthermore, we recommend a slough wall catchment system be constructed at the base of the rear ascending slope with at least a 15 feet separation from the residence. The slough wall should be constructed with at least 3 feet of freeboard and a 3- to 5 -foot lateral catchment and surface drain area on the upslope side of the slough wall. 6.3.3 Active Lateral Loads on Piles Perimeter piles should be designed for a lateral load of 1,000 pounds per linear foot of shaft exposed to the upper fill and Intensely Weathered Schist Bedrock, overlying Very Hard Schist Bedrock. Interior piles should be designed for a lateral load of 1,000 pounds per linear foot of shaft exposed to fill or colluvium, overlying Intensely Weathered Schist Bedrock. Bedrock depths should be confirmed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction. 6.3.4 Lateral Resistance A. Conventional and Mat Foundations: Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by pressure acting on structural components in contact with fill (or bedrock). Lateral resistance on the sides of footings may be computed using a passive pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot embedment into bedrock, subject to a maximum of 2,500 pounds per square foot. An ultimate friction coefficient of 0.35 may be assumed with dead load forces between concrete and the supporting soils. The above passive pressure value may be combined with friction coefficient in calculating lateral resistance, provided the passive pressure is reduced by one-third. B. Piles: An allowable lateral bearing value against the sides of isolated piles (poles) of 600 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, to a maximum depth of 6,000 pounds per square foot, may be used, provided there is positive contact between the vertical bearing surface and the bedrock. 6.3.5 Settlements/Displacements Total settlements for conventional foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the above criteria are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch. A differential settlement less than 1/3 inch is anticipated between similarly loaded adjacent footings. Differential settlements of less than 1 inch in a horizontal distance 30 feet are anticipated between new footings supporting the assumed structural loads and the adjacent existing building footings. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 ®, Page 21 HAMILTON & Associates 89 1808.7 Foundation on or adjacent to slopes. The placement of building and structures on or adjacent to slope steeper than one unit vertical in three units horizontal (33.3 -percent slope) shall comply with Section 1808.7.1 through 1808.7.5 1808.7.1 Building clearance from ascending slopes. In general, building below slopes shall be set a sufficient distance from the slope to provide protection from slope drainage, erosion and shallow failures. Except as provided in Section 1808.7.5 and Figure 1808.7.1, the following criteria will be assumed to provide this protection. Where the existing slope is steeper than one unit vertical in one unit horizontal (100 -percent slope), the toe of the slope shall be assumed to be at the intersection of a horizontal plane drawn from the top of the foundation and a plane drawn tangent to the slope at an angle of 45 degree (0.79 rad) to the horizontal. Where a retaining wall is constructed at the toe of the slope, the height of the slope shall be measured from the top of the wall to the top of the slope. 1808.7.2 Foundation setback from descending slope surface. Foundations on or adjacent to slope surfaces shall be founded in firm material with an embedment and set back from the slope surface sufficient to provide vertical and lateral support for the foundation without detrimental settlement. Except as provided for in Section 1808.7.5 and Figure 1808.7.1, the following setback is deemed adequate to meet the criteria. Where the slope is steeper than 1 unit vertical in 1 unit horizontal (100 -percent slope), the required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane 45 degree (0.79 rad) to the horizontal, projected upward from the toe of the slope. 1808.7.3 Pools. The setback between pools regulated by this code and slope shall be equal to one-half the building footing setback distance required by this section. That portion of the pool wall within a horizontal distance of 7 feet (2134 mm) from the top of the slope shall be capable of supporting the water in the pool without soil support. 1808.7.4 Foundation elevation. On graded sited, the top of any exterior foundation shall extent above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved drainage device a minimum of 12 inches (305 mm) plus 2 percent. Alternate elevations are permitted subjected to the approval of the building official, provided it can be demonstrated that required drainage to the point of discharge and away from the structure is provided at all location on the site. 1808.7.5 Alternate setback and clearance. Alternate setback and clearances are permitted, subject to the approval of the building official. The building official shall be permitted to require a geotechnical investigation as set forth in Section 1803.5.10. Face of Footing Top of Face of Slope Structure Toe of H Slope At least the smaller of H/3 and 40 feet At least the smaller of H/2 and 15 feet Figure 1808A.7.1 Foundation Clearance From Slopes iml SLOPE SETBACK — Sec. 1808A.7 Project No. 14-1876 Hamilton & Associates 10 Chaparral Lane Figure 7 Rancho Palos Verdes, California Settlement of single piles, or groups of up to 3 piles, may be estimated to be less than 'h inch. Most of the estimated settlement will take place rapidly with the first application of load. This office should be contacted for further evaluation and recommendations, as necessary, should final design structural loads exceed the maximum loads used in our analysis by more than 10 percent. 6.3.6 Foundation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant's representative to verify minimum embedment depths and competency of bearing materials. Such observations should be made prior to placement of any reinforcing steel or concrete, where possible. 6.5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The below site-specific seismic design parameters were determined as a part of this study in accordance with the 2013 California Building Code, which is based on the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). The 2013 CBC seismic design parameters that apply to the site are as follows: Table 1 — 2013 CBC Seismic Parameters CBC Seismic Parameter Value or Classification Site Classification per ASCE/SEI 7-10 Table 20.3-1) B Mapped Spectral Response at 0.2 Sec Acceleration, SS 1.588 Mapped Spectral Response at 1.0 Sec Acceleration, S, 0.610 Maximum Considered Earth uake Spectral Acceleration, SMS 1.588 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Acceleration, SM1 0.610 5 -Percent Damped Design Spectral Acceleration, SpS 1.059 5 -Percent Damped Design Spectral Acceleration, Sp1 0.407 The Structural Consultant should review the above parameters and the 2013 CBC to evaluate the seismic design. Final selection of design coefficients should be made by the structural consultant based on the local laws and ordinances, expected structure response, and the desired level of conservatism. 6.6 EXPANSIVE SOILS Laboratory testing on a bulk sample of near surface soils indicates a 'low' soil expansion potential (EI=24) as defined in the latest edition of ASTM D4829, however it is our opinion that at least 'Medium' soil expansion should be considered for design at the subject site. The degree of soil expansion should be confirmed by additional tests during or after rough grading operations. The degree of soil expansion should be confirmed by additional tests during or after rough grading operations. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 ® Page 22 HAMILTON 91 Lightly loaded structural elements such as shallow footings and slabs may be subject to movements and distress due to expansion of site soils. Design provisions such as the use of non -expansive fill beneath lightly loaded structural elements, adequate reinforcements, measures to minimize moisture fluctuations in foundation soils, deeper footings, or other measures may help reduce the effects of soil expansion but may not completely eliminate the problem. At a minimum, interior floor slabs should be 5 inches thick and provided with internal reinforcement consisting of #4 rebar at 16 inches on center in two directions within the slab. It is further recommended that the subgrade soils be moistened to a depth of 24 inches prior to placing the membrane and pouring of floor slabs. The moisture content should be at least three percent greater than the optimum moisture content. 6.7 RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls planned should be adequately designed to resist the lateral soil pressures and the anticipated construction loadings and service conditions. The earth pressure acting on retaining walls depends primarily on the allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressure. The following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge loading: These values are applicable for the above site expansive fill soils or select site (or import granular) non -expansive fill soils placed between the wall sides and an imaginary plane rising at 45 degrees from below the edges (heel) of wall bottoms. The surcharge effect of anticipated loads on the wall backfill (e.g., traffic, construction equipment, footings) should be included in the wall design. Depending on whether the wall is free to deflect or restrained, 33 or 50 percent, respectively, of a maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the retained height of the wall should be used in design. If it is determined that retaining walls require an additional seismic design pressure in accordance with the CBC, the following is provided for lateral earth pressures of site retaining walls. A resultant lateral force acting on proposed Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 a' Page 23 HAMILTON 92 EARTH PRESSURE Backfill Slope Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) Soil Type Behind Walls Active(Cantilever) At -Rest (Rigid) Site Level 60 100 (Expansive) Import Level 40 60 (Non -Expansive) . .......... Access Road . See Section 5.2 Retaining Wall These values are applicable for the above site expansive fill soils or select site (or import granular) non -expansive fill soils placed between the wall sides and an imaginary plane rising at 45 degrees from below the edges (heel) of wall bottoms. The surcharge effect of anticipated loads on the wall backfill (e.g., traffic, construction equipment, footings) should be included in the wall design. Depending on whether the wall is free to deflect or restrained, 33 or 50 percent, respectively, of a maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the retained height of the wall should be used in design. If it is determined that retaining walls require an additional seismic design pressure in accordance with the CBC, the following is provided for lateral earth pressures of site retaining walls. A resultant lateral force acting on proposed Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 a' Page 23 HAMILTON 92 retaining walls as a result of seismic forces may be computed as 14H2 (pounds/ft), where H is the height of the wall in feet. This seismic resultant force may be applied to the retaining wall at a point located at 0.61-1, measured from the bottom of the wall. Positive drainage measures should be incorporated in design. A certified and approved waterproofing and a blanket drainage system should be provided on the basement retaining walls with a continuous base drain to intercept any seepage to an approved outlet. We recommend that the manufacturer or waterproofing specialist certify the waterproofing design. Retaining wall subdrains should be located below the basement slab elevation and consist of a minimum four -inch diameter perforated ABS -SDR -35 or PVC SCH-40, or equivalent, connected to similar non -perforated outlet pipe. The perforated portion of the pipe should be embedded in at least three cubic feet per lineal foot of 3/4 inch crushed rock or equivalent material which has been wrapped in fabric, consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent, and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. The filter fabric should overlap at least 12 inches at the ends of the fabric. Other subdrainage alternatives may be considered but should first be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to implementation. 6.8 SOIL CORROSIVITY Chemical test analyses were performed on a select sample of site soils by Cal Land Engineering, Inc. These chemical tests were selected to give a general idea as to the corrosive nature of on-site soils to proposed concrete foundations, rebar, and any underground metal conduit. The Project Structural Engineer should employ the below described corrosion results for minimum structural design and concrete requirements. A corrosion engineer/specialist should be consulted for any advanced analysis or recommendations relating to corrosion at the subject site. The chemical test results are presented on the attached Appendix, Plate E-1. Results are summarized below. 6.8.1 Concrete Corrosion Disintegration of concrete may be attributed to the chemical reaction of soil sulfates and hydrated lime and calcium aluminate within the cement. The severity of the reaction resulting in expansion and disruption of the cement is primarily a function of the soluble sulfates and the water -cement ratio of the concrete. Laboratory testing indicates a sulfate concentration of 0.0130 percent by weight of dry soils in the tested soil sample. Soils with sulfate concentrations less than 0.10 percent are generally reported to have a negligible corrosive effect on concrete. 6.8.2 Metal Corrosion In the evaluation of soil corrosivity to metal, the hydrogen ion concentrate (pH) and the electrical resistivity of the site and backfill soils are the principal variables Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 Page 24 HAMILTON & Associates 93 in determining the service life of ferrous metal conduit. The pH of soil and water is a measure of acidity or alkalinity, while the resistivity is a measure of the soil's resistance to the flow of electrical current. Currently available design charts indicate that corrosion rates decrease with increasing resistivity and increasing alkalinity. It can also be noted that for alkaline soils, the corrosion rate is more influenced by resistivity than by pH. The resistivity value of 660 ohm -cm, as well as a pH -value of 7.38 classifies the on-site soils tested to be `Severely' corrosive to buried ferrous metals. Based on California Test 643, the year to perforation for 18 -gauge steel in contact with soils of similar resistivity and pH -value is approximately 21 years. In lieu of additional testing, alternative piping materials, i.e. coatings, plastic piping, may be used instead of metal if longer service life is desired or required. Where more detailed corrosion evaluation is required we recommend that a qualified corrosion consultant be engaged to provide further evaluation and recommendations. A soluble chloride content of 50 ppm recorded in our limited laboratory tests are considered low to the threshold values of 100 ppm per Federal Highway Administration Standards (FHWA), 2002. 6.9 SITE DRAINAGE Final grading should be designed to provide positive drainage away from structures. Roof gutters and downspouts should discharge into a closed pipe system which outfalls to the street gutter pan or directly to the storm drain system. If raised floors are to be constructed, it is suggested that the sub -floor areas be sloped or grooved to low areas, and directed away from the structure. Surface water from potential uphill sources (irrigation and rain water), should be directed into a storm drain system. In accordance with the CBC, the ground immediately adjacent to buildings should be sloped away from the building at a slope of 5% for the first 10 feet. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, the 5% slope should be provided to an alternate method of diverting water from the foundation system, such as swales (sloped at 2%). Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2% away from the building. 6.10 PLAN REVIEW, OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING All excavations should be observed by a representative of this office to verify minimum embedment depths, competency of bearing soils and that the excavations are free of loose and disturbed materials. Such observations should be made prior to placement of any fill, reinforcing steel or concrete. All grading and fill compaction should be performed under the observation of and testing by a Geotechnical Consultant or his representative. As foundation and grading plans are completed, they should be forwarded to the Geotechnical Consultant for review for conformance with the intent of these recommendations. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 [a Page 25 HAMILTON & Associates 94 7.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Chen and their design consultants relative to the design and construction of the proposed residential development at the subject site. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties. The Owner or their representatives should make sure that the information and recommendations contained in this report are brought to the attention of the project engineers and architects and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to confirm that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This office should be notified should any of the following, pertaining to the final site development, occur: 1. Final plans for site development indicate utilization of areas not originally proposed for construction. 2. Structural loading conditions vary from those utilized for evaluation and preparation of this report. 3. The site is not developed within 12 months following the date of this report. 4. Change of ownership of property. Should any of the above occur, this office should be notified and provided with finalized plans of site development for our review to enable us to provide the necessary recommendations for additional work and/or updating of the report. Any charges for such review and necessary recommendations would be at the prevailing rate at the time of performing review work. The findings contained in this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the information obtained from the exploratory test pits performed and the results of laboratory testing and engineering analysis. As part of the engineering analysis it has been assumed, and is expected, that the geotechnical conditions which exist across the area of study are similar to those encountered in the test pits. However, no warranty is expressed or implied as to the conditions at locations or depths other than those excavated. Should any conditions encountered during construction differ from those described herein, this office should be contacted immediately for recommendations prior to continuation of work. Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted current professional principles and local practice in geotechnical engineering and reflect our best professional judgment. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. These findings and recommendations are, however, dependent on the above assumption of uniformity and upon proper quality control of fill placed and foundations installed. Geotechnical observations and testing should be provided on a continuous Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 26 HAMILTON & Associates 95 basis during grading at the site to confirm design assumptions and to verify conformance with the intent of our recommendations. If parties other than Hamilton & Associates, Inc., are engaged to provide geotechnical services during construction they must be informed that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations. This concludes our scope of services as described in our proposal dated September 26, 2014, however, our report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project. Any further geotechnical services that may be required of our office to respond to questions/comments of the controlling authorities after their review of the report will be performed on a time and expense basis as per our current fee schedule. We would not proceed with any response to report review comments/questions without authorization from your office. We appreciate your business and hope that we can assist you during construction related services. Chen ResidenceNovember 21, 2014 14-1876 F—q I Page 27 HAMILTON & Associates •e 8.0 REFERENCES California Geological Survey, 2002/2011, Interactive probabilistic seismic hazards map- http://conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rregional/pshamap//html. *Cleveland, G.B., 1976, Geology of the northeast part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County, California: Calif. Div. Mines and Geol. Map Sheet 2.*Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones Special Map, San Pedro 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1999, Geologic map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and vicinity: Dibblee Foundation Map DF -70. EGL, 2006, Boring Logs and their locations for 10 Chaparral Lane, no report. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., Revised 2007, Fault -rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo earthquakes fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones map; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Haydon, W.D., 2007, Landslide Inventory Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County, California: Calif. Geol. Surv. Jennings, Charles, 2010, "Fault Activity Map of California": Online. Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., 2007, Geological/Geotechnical Report, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Consultant's Technical Report, Project No. FC0907, dated November4, 2007. United States Geological, Services, 2005, Geologic inspection for feasibility of purchase, Tract No. 22946, 7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California" by U.S. Geological Services, Project Number: 05001, dated January 29, 2005. Survey, Java ground motion parameter calculator website: Version 5.1.0., Work Order 02-3401. Woodring, W.P., Bramlette, M.N., and Kew, W.S.W., 1946, Geology and Paleontology of the Palos Verdes Hills, California: U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 207. Ziony, J. I. ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles region — an earth science perspective: U.S. Geol. Surv. Professional Paper 1360. Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 28 HAMILTON 97 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Date Flight/Frames 2-24-99 C 134-37/206, 207 10-15-97 C117-36/135, 136 1-29-95 C 102-36/4,5 6-9-93 C93-12/208,209 1-29-92 C85-8/35,36 1-7-88 19279,17980 1-27-86 E/363,364 5-12-79 FCLA-12/139, 140 3-17-78 78047/193,194 1-31-70 61-9/184,185 1-18-68 #4/55, 56 2-20-58 CAA -9/34, 35 8-31-54 19K/18, 19 Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 In Page 28 HAMILTON 97 APPENDIX A The following Appendix contains the substantiating data and laboratory test results to complement the engineering evaluations and recommendations contained in this report. Plate A-1 Geotechnical Site Plan Plate A-2 Topographic Map w/ Geologic Features Plate A-3 Cross Section A -A' Plate A-4 Cross Section B -B' Plate A-5 Cross Section C -C' Plates B-1 through B-6 Logs of Test Pits & Borings Plates C-1 through C-3 Consolidation Test Results Plates D-1 through D-4 Direct Shear Test Results Plate E-1 Corrosivity Test Results LABORATORY TESTS After samples were visually classified in the laboratory, a testing program that would provide data for our evaluation was established. The results are presented in the following sections. CONSOLIDATION AND DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Consolidation (ASTM D2435) and direct shear (ASTM D3080) tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed samples to determine the settlement characteristics and shear strength parameters of various soil samples, respectively. The results of these tests are shown graphically on the appended "C" and "D" Plates. MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST The following maximum density test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method A, using 5 equal layers, 25 blows each layer, 10 -pound hammer, 18 inch drop in a 1/30 cubic foot mold. The results are as follows: EXPANSION TEST An expansion test was performed on a soil samples to determine the swell characteristics. The expansion test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D4829, Expansion Index Test. The expansion sample was remolded to approximately 50 percent of saturation, subjected to 144 pounds per square foot surcharge load and submerged in water. I Maximum Dry Optimum Material Test Pit No. Depth, Feet Density, pcf Moisture Classification Moist. Saturatio Expansion Content, /o TP -3 10-15' 112 17.0 Silty Clay EXPANSION TEST An expansion test was performed on a soil samples to determine the swell characteristics. The expansion test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D4829, Expansion Index Test. The expansion sample was remolded to approximately 50 percent of saturation, subjected to 144 pounds per square foot surcharge load and submerged in water. I Molded Molded Dry Moist. Saturatio Expansion Expansion Location Density, pcf Content, n, % Index Classification B-1 @ 0-5' 106.0 11.3 51.9 24 Low Chen Residence November 21, 2014 14-1876 G] Page 29 HAMILTON 6 Associates • GEOTECHNICAL SITE PLAN 7.50' �-4 @ Landslide Scarp "cars 32° p App r xi ate Logattor df Proposed Cai sore 13.5' /T/32 d Tf Petaining Wall i 19.0' 330 1�1 _ 77.-- "�► - .� =•+ Imo_ � __.�� �� 25.0' �r Required Slope Setback end f— _--'�1�l F_ - j4 C Slough Wall Catchment Area ' 20.0' 420 28.0, 320 1 LEGEND 21.0' 42 i A ii x, QIP COI/QIs/JC 32° 7.00' 230 ! #:� ' ,` PEC�3 28,0r 1s°:,' * 0-0 I Approximate Location of 35° s.00' L; P, :7 �-- w Hamilton & Associates, Inc. - EGL2 r� 33.5' ;' ' 1/y y^( I Test Pits r, ry r Approximate Location of f ® Professional Engineers PEC1' 22° Consulting, Inc. Test Pits r ' • /JC 10.0 r ,. k" 12.0'o Approximate Location of EGL r- '.' ri PEC -4 y PP Test Pits r C �I 12.0' fi f_ w l Fl E� ) 2 ° T' 4 Approximate Location of • °' �.r Qcv11Jc 3A° Hamilton &Associates, Inc. Soil Approximate Limits of Existing °� ,' � -� • M ,' r, J c 2.00' i�C5 l� ► Borings --��— ll E w } 7 JD1 150 ,. ,� • !r�f'r 24° 45@.1 . 21 Approximate Location of •tri u , 33° �3° T Professional Engineers, Inc. Soil 1,, • -PEC wF"� F E �,�t. ,,tu�,� 37,0 Borings, 2007 I 4' 1 �,• - � ?� s ,��,, --' J�> .°. "' qv. "° Geologic - - - Approximate Location of EGL 300 Geologic Legend 15.5'Soil Borings, 2006 Proposed Setback Line 1 .._ A �{. ',: 550 10.5' ° Qcol Colluvium ° 17.5 6 21.0' 29 520 , 13.5' 3 QIs/Qlsr Landslide/recent t 26.0' B 41' t 27.0'37 25.0' 26° Jc Catalina Schist Approximate.L66ation cif P� vp ed Shear Pin s 370 27.0' ' ° 28,5' �— 34.0' 45 Scale: I"=50' J 01�cl KeMay� �" l 540 34.0' �'`-40° 30° i Geologic Contact 36.0' 7 47.0' �'` ` 41.5' 56° 51.0'340 _` 00 Approximate Strike and Site Plan Reference: City of ,� Dip of Folliation Rancho Palos Verdes 43.0' � ¢50 PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes CA PROJECT NO: 14-1876 [0� Hamilton & Associates PLATE A-1 Lj V; rn LU E . o Qls I l i / J 'I - / I-" �+► Landslide Scar i Proposed � �.-�" p / Residence �! Scars I Sw� � � `~�[1 •�". it �� rr� 't s � k �� r� � +4 ` � 1y1 �\ ` 5 .I � � f�'/- Dike .. ` J - - - -_ � r� •r���rin. i� 7 i�r +�r'.�Ir ��• '� ,` \\ ` 4 � ��� `�1 �, � �b 1 ti s � �'1 1 �r \00011, �\ • y ',t� ;�, J`MF � , a ,i` � �� 4 '`t w -,,`} �� 'y` \,,y yr,� •y � �b� ` •1 1y j} Topographic Map Showing Referenced Geologic Features g Scale: 1 "=50' PROJECT NO: 14-1876: Chen Residence �; Hamilton & Associates Plate A-2 100 Cross Section A -A' 9009-900' Property Line Proposed Setback Property Line 875' S21E 875' 850' 850' Proposed Compacted Fill Pad, Keyway, 825' Subdrains, and Shear Pins to Support 825' Residence EGL -2 QC is 8009-,�,_-' 800' PEC -2 Gr 7759-775' H&A-3 - PEC-3--'� -'Schist Bedrock , 75O' (IntenselyMeathered) 75O' PEC -6 - H&A-1 J 725' _J - - 725' EGL -3J 7009—Existing Grade H&A-6 J Schist Bedrock Colluvium (Very Hard) 700' — / 675' U ocu rated Fill —`� - 675' 71;'- 650; Colluvium--' - _ _ 30°04V �� 650' -�-- r 38, TE) - Proposed Seepage Pit with -? Infiltration Zone 625� JJj �.. ? J Schist Bedrock 07°@64'� .hiqt Bedrock — 625' bon " TD = 74' , - -' �' �� - 600' , 575' Qls/i 575' 7 -- �e / 5509 Approximate Transition Between Intensely 550 Weathered -to -Very Hard Schist PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California Scale: V=50' PROJECT NO: 14-1876 MHamilton & Associates Plate A-3 101 102 103 FIELD LOG OF BORING NO: B-1 Sheet 1 of 3 PROJECT: Chen Residence HAMILTON LOCATION: 10 Chaparral Lane, RPV PROJECT NO: 14-1876 & Associates DATE(S) DRILLED: 10/20/2014 LOGGED BY: EFH DRILLED BY: Discovery Drilling TOTAL DEPTH: 74' RIG MAKE / MODEL: Bucket Auger HAMMER TYPE: Kelly DRILLING METHOD: Bucket Auger HAMMER DROP/ WT: Unknown HOLE DIAMETER: 24" SURFACE ELEVATION: Unknown COMMENTS: No groundwater encountered to a total depth of 74' SAMPLE INT. Cl) Zz 0 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a w w Cl) x a a >Y> w -' w Q�► 3 3 o ° p x �_ N Cn z D w� z w x 0 w m 0 m m J 0 0 o 2 V 0,0 54-5 10-{-10 15-4-15 204-20 Fk1C3041 Ring Ring CLAYEY SANDY SILT: FILL, mottled tan brown ----------------------------------- CLAYEY SILT: FILL, mottled brown, many small rock fragments ----------------------------------- CLAYEY SAND: FILL, gravelly, dark grayish brown ----------------------------------- SCHIST: Intensely fractured, mixture of crushed and fixed pieces, with gray pieces of shale and clayey patches Crushed/Fixed rock, E -W, 40S thinly bedded N60E, 20-250SE on 6" clayey crushed rock band Patch of remnant foliation/bedding, N10E, 20 °SE 1 126.3 1131.6 7.1 2.3 expansion, max density shear, consol FIELD LOG OF BORING NO: B-1 Sheet 2 of 3 Lul PROJECT: Chen Residence HAMILTON LOCATION: 10 Chaparral Lane, RPV PROJECT NO: 14-1876 & Associates DATE(S) DRILLED: 10/20/2014 LOGGED BY: EFH DRILLED BY: Discovery Drilling TOTAL DEPTH: 74' RIG MAKE / MODEL: Bucket Auger HAMMER TYPE: Kelly DRILLING METHOD: Bucket Auger HAMMER DROP/ WT: Unknown HOLE DIAMETER: 24" SURFACE ELEVATION: Unknown COMMENTS: No groundwater encountered to a total depth of 74' SAMPLE INT. m ZZ y O N GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a w W w x a J w y c0 C 00 p = ~ fA w } (n F- W W J W m cc C m pp .� J G p O O U H O ETT 35- 40- CPQ -35 -40 Ring Ring 511-51 11 0 [ Ring ---------------------------------- SCHIST: Intensely fixed, intact, blue- gray/brown Remnant large chunks with variable foliation orientation Remnant quartz veins until 53' 1126.1 1123.1 1 131.0 7.7 6.7 6.1 consol consol V shear 105 FIELD LOG OF BORING NO: B-1 Sheet 3 of 3 PROJECT: Chen Residence LOCATION: 10 Chaparral Lane, RPV PROJECT NO: 14-1876 HAMILTON & Associates DATE(S) DRILLED: 10/20/2014 LOGGED BY: EFH DRILLED BY: Discovery Drilling TOTAL DEPTH: 74' RIG MAKE / MODEL: Bucket Auger HAMMER TYPE: Kelly DRILLING METHOD: Bucket Auger HAMMER DROP/ WT: Unknown HOLE DIAMETER: 24" SURFACE ELEVATION: Unknown COMMENTS: No groundwater encountered to a total depth of 74' SAMPLE INT. i= v p p Z ^. o y � 0 o v GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION w a w z w ~ > Y> 3 = C N P w 0 W m 0 M m J 0 0 U 0 55- 9411C 5- 94110 65- 5- 70- 70- -55 -55 —60 —65 —70 i 1 • FIELD LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT NO. H&A-1 DESCRIPTION.- 0 ESCRIPTION: 0 — 3.0': Colluvium, Dark brown, Sandy Clay, abundant Catalina Schist shards, stiff, moist 3 — 5.0': Catalina Schist, well foliated, fractured, very difficult to excavate with backhoe, bluish gray with iron oxide stains and clay -filled fractures West Ground Surface r I-� Bedrock r nlh wii IM Total Depth: 5.0' 0.0' 2.0' 4.0' 6.0' Test Pit Excavation Utilizing: Backhoe Project No. 14-1876 PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA DATE: October 2014 0 Hamilton &Associates, Inc. PLATE B-2 FIELD LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT NO. H&A-2 DESCRIPTION: 0.0 — 6.5' : Colluvium; Clayey Sandy Silt, brown, angular shards of Catalina Schist, stiff, roots to 5' bgs 6.5 — 10.0': Catalina Schist; well foliated, fractured, very difficult to excavate with backhoe, bluish gray with iron oxide stains and clay fractures SKETCH west Ground Surface 0.01 2.0, - - 8.0' Colluvium110.01 Bedrock Total Depth: 10.0' Test Pit Excavation Utilizing: Backhoe Project No. 14-1876 PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA DATE: October 2014 0i' Hamilton & Associates, Inc. PLATE B-3 FIELD LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT NO. H&A-3 DESCRIPTION: 0.0 — 6.5: Mixed Soil; tan, soft to medium hard, few vegetative roots 6.5 — 15.0': Colluvium; sandy silt, brown, soft to medium stiff, damp, very moist in lower 2.0' 15.0 —16.0': Catalina Schist; weathered, greenish brown, moist, soft RKFTCH- Colluvium Total Depth: 16.0' West Ground Surface Bedrock 00, 2.0' 4.0' 6.0' 8.0' 10.0' 12 0' 14.0' 16.0' Test Pit Excavation Utilizing: Backhoe Project No. 14-1876 PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA DATE: October 2014 0 Hamilton & Associates, Inc. PLATE B-4 FIELD LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT NO. H&A-4 DESCRIPTION: 0.0 — 6.5': Colluvium; Silty Sand, reddish brown very fine-grained sand, abundant Catalina Schist chips, dense, few pores 6.5 — 7.0': Catalina Schist; Very dense, refusal at 7.0' CLIIZ7Tr'W Colluvium West f Ground Surface 1 Bedrock Total Depth: 7.0' 0.0' 2.0' 4.0' 6.0' 8.0' Test Pit Excavation Utilizing: Backhoe Project No. 14-1876 PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA DATE: October 2014 © Hamilton & Associates, Inc. PLATE B -s 0.1 0.00 -i- 1 00 2.00 3.00 c v 4.00 IL c 4 5.00 a M M O fA 6.00 c O U 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS B-1 at 20ft Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot) 1 O Test Specimen at In -Situ Moisture 40 Test Specimen Submerged 10 Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate C-1 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 112 0.00 C v 1.00 d a = 2.00 O 3.00 O U) 4.00 C O V 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS B-1 at 30 Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot) 1 O Test Specimen at In -Situ Moisture 0 Test Specimen Submerged 10 Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate C-2 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 113 0.1 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 c _ 4.00 d IL_ 5.00 -O - O C 6.00 O V 7.00 5.00 9.00 10.00 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS B1@40 Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot) 1 O Test Specimen at In -Situ Moisture 40 Test Specimen Submerged 10 Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate C-3 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 114 5 4 $ 3 M 0 L 0 SHEAR TEST RESULTS B-1 at 20' (Intensely Weathered Schist Bedrock) 5 4 0- N 3 Q 2 Cn N 1 W 0 1 2 3 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Stress - Displacement Diagram 4 0 1 2 3 4 Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch) Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours. The samples had a density of lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of % Cohesion= 400 psf Friction Angle = 35 degrees Based on Ultimate Strength ♦ 1 Kip ■ 2 Kips ♦3 Kips Chen Residence Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate D-1 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES 115 5 4 3 Cr Cn ina rn 2 2 M M 0 0 SHEAR TEST RESULTS B-1 at 50' (Very Hard Schist Bedrock 5 4 07 3 a 2 U) U) � 1 U) 0 1 2 3 4 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Stress - Displacement Diagram ■ ■AAAAMESEE ■ i f; 5 4 07 3 a 2 U) U) � 1 U) 0 1 2 3 4 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Stress - Displacement Diagram 0 1 2 3 4 Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch) Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours. The samples had a density of lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of % Cohesion= 50 psf Friction Angle = 46 degrees Based on Ultimate Strength ♦1 Kip ■ 2 Kips A Kips Chen Residence Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate D-2 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES 116 ■ ■AAAAMESEE ■ 0 1 2 3 4 Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch) Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours. The samples had a density of lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of % Cohesion= 50 psf Friction Angle = 46 degrees Based on Ultimate Strength ♦1 Kip ■ 2 Kips A Kips Chen Residence Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate D-2 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES 116 5 3 CY Cn Cn a Cn N 2 A i■ 0 L 0 5 $ 4 6 3 Q 2 w w � 1 U) 0 SHEAR TEST RESULTS 61 at 0-5' Remolded (EL IJ 1 2 3 4 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Stress - Displacement Diagram 0 1 2 3 4 Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch) Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours. The samples had a density of lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of % Cohesion= 225 psf Friction Angle = 22 degrees Based on Ultimate Strength ♦ 1 Kip A 2 Kips •3 Kips Chen Residence Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate D-3 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES 117 / ♦ ♦ ♦ ► ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 1 2 3 4 Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch) Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours. The samples had a density of lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of % Cohesion= 225 psf Friction Angle = 22 degrees Based on Ultimate Strength ♦ 1 Kip A 2 Kips •3 Kips Chen Residence Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Plate D-3 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES 117 SHEAR TEST RESULTS TP -2 at 3' (Colluvium) 5 4 V— 3 6 a Y w N 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Stress - Displacement Diagram 5 4 ♦ 1 Kip U N Q 3 r 2 Kips 2 L A Kips N 0 0 1 2 3 4 Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch) Colluvium samples were submerged for at least 24 hours. The samples had a density of lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of % Cohesion= 275 psf Friction Angle = 26 degrees Based on Ultimate Strength Chen Residence :EP ct No. 14-1876 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA D-4 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES 118 Cal Land Engineering, Inc. Quartech Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineerin Client: Hamilton and Associates Project Name: Chen Residence Project No.: 14-1876 Corrosivity Test Results QCI Project No.: 14-154-011 a Date: November 13, 2014 Summarized by: KA Sample Sample pH Chloride Sulfate Resistivity ID Depth CT -532 CT -422 CT -417 CT -532 (643) (643) (ppm) (% By Weight) (ohm -cm) TP -3 N/A 7.38 50 0.0130 660 576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 116 APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Chen Residence 14-1876 M HAMILTON & Associates November 21, 2014 Page 30 120 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ( for Colluvium Slope ) Reference: "Soils Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorms in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California", U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 851, 1975. Calculations: F.S. _ C+(Y-yw)*Z*(cosg)z*tano y*Z*(sing)*(cosg) where, F.S. is the Factor of Safety C (Cohesion) = 275 psf y (Saturated Soil Density) = 130 pcf yW (Density of Water) = 62.4 pcf Z (Depth of Slide) = 4 feet g (Slope Angle) = 34 degrees (Friction Angle) = 26 degrees F.S. 275+(67.6)*(4)*(0.829)`*(0.488) ( 130)*(4)*(0.559)*(0.829) 275+90.69 1.518 240.97 This factor of safety is in excess of the normally accepted minimum for stable slopes. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparrel Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, California Plate S-1 L I Hamilton & Associates, Inc. 121 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ( for Colluvium Slope ) Reference: "Soils Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorms in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California", U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 851, 1975. Calculations: where, where, F. S. -- C+(7-7W)*Z*(cosR)2*tangy r*Z*(sing)*(cosR) F.S. is the Factor of Safety C (Cohesion) = 275 psf y (Saturated Soil Density) = 130 pcf yW (Density of Water) - 62.4 pcf Z (Depth of Slide) = 4 feet R (Slope Angle) 26 degrees (Friction Angle) = 26 degrees F.S. 275+(67.6)*(4)*(0.899)2*(0.488 ( 130)*(4)*(0.438)*(0.899) 275+106.65 1.864 204.76 This factor of safety is in excess of the normally accepted minimum for stable slopes. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparrel Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, California Plate S-2 IHamilton & Associates, Inc. 122 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ( for Fill Slope ) Reference: "Soils Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorms in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California", U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 851, 1975. Calculations: where, F. S. C+(Y-yw)*Z*(cosp)2*tangy y*Z*(sing)*(cosp) F.S. is the Factor of Safety C (Cohesion) = 225 psf y (Saturated Soil Density) = 130 pcf yW (Density of Water) = 62.4 pcf Z (Depth of Slide) = 4 feet p (Slope Angle) = 26 degrees (Friction Angle) 22 degrees 225+(67.6)*(4)*(0.899)2*(0.404) F.S. (130)*(4)*(0.438)*(0.899) _ 225+88.29 204.76 313.29 1.53 This factor of safety is in excess of the normally accepted minimum for stable slopes. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Project No. 14-1876 10 Chaparrel Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, California Plate S-3 fll Hamilton & Associates, Inc. 123 31)AD11 livrU 1 lirair-%�'AIN V tcr,3U1-13 A=Ljlci raga 1 ui J STABL INPUT DATA ANIS RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A - Static, Global Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 572 L� 2100 —11 572 11 105 575 3 105 575 11 135 595 4 135 ]1595 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 6 218 634 11 233 642 7 233 11 642 263 65.5 8 263 11 655 300 665 9 300 11 665 338 673 10 338 673 353 683 11 353 683 390 11 684 12 390 684 391 693 13 391 11 693 450 693 14 450 11 693 500 705 15 500 11705 571 733 16 571 11733 594 745 17 594 745 11 650 11 765 124 f1a•///f`•/UrnrrromTlato/Tartu\7CIi�/CTORT 11111101A 3IYA E llNYU 1 Ullk I IA IAINIJ tS-E3UL13 rcr"YVlt1 118 11650 300 655 765 685 11 773 27 359 19 685 ]1773 11 743 785 2 20 743 785 756 792 21 756 792 770 804 22 770 804 790 814 23 E88 j1562 _11125 613 582 a 24 125 11582 745 250 635 O 25 250 635 300 655 26 300 655 11 359 672 27 359 672 400 673 28 400 673 414 676 461 29 414 676 11 445 687 30 445 687 461 690 31 461 690 492 692 32 492 692 525 11709 :1 33 525 709 575 11733 :1 34 575 733 613 745 35 613 745 650 763 36 650 763 760 782 37 760 782 790 800 Q 38 88 555 125 565 39 125 565 150 575 4� 40 150 575 259 11 620 41 259 J1620 341 11 650 4� 42 341 11650 ii 383 655 43 383 655 456 11675 4O 44 456 675 11 515 :11690 4� 45 515 690 541 H. 700 46 541 700 700 761 47 700 761 725 763 4� 48 1 725 763 750 770 1 l4 1 fila•///(`•/ArnnmmTloto/Tarrat111iv/CTART �/7(I�IUV�/7f17(1(1Q/T?ar�nrta/Rar+nrt h+ml ragc /- 01 125 17/'2/101A 31)AM- 11NrU I 1JIAI1A 1UNLI INn3U1-13 11-CrUA1 49 750 770 790 790 Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 555 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 ui Soil Wet Unit Wt. Saturated Unit Wt. Cohesive Intercept Friction Angle Pore Pressure Parameter Pore Pressure Constant Water Table O130 130 500 30 0 0 ❑ 130 130 500 30 0 0 140 140 1000 35 0 7110 F1 1140 140 1000 45 0 0 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 126 ala•///( •/ArnrrromTlot�/Tarry\x1i�/CTORT 0 I 01t1DL 11NrU 1 LJLilt1 ti1VLl 11�-C3UL13 Vc-CrVll,1 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 700 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 770 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 3.8742 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 3.8742 2 3.8812 3 3.8892 4 3.8936 5 3.9091 6 3.9147 7 3.9177 8 3.9448 9 3.9608 10 3.9704 fila•///(`•/PrnfrromTlo+a/Tarra�7iTi�/CTORT 1,+,,,1 rage ,+ 01 j 127 11 /'2 11M a 31Ei13L livrU 1 1Jti1LA L -U NIJ 1t1✓3UL13 A=Uit1 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Boo 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 6.10 620 600 580 560 5¢0 520 1876A1 FScr = 3.8742 rage J U1 J 100 - 350 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 128 f;lA•//1( •/A,.rTr�,,,Tl�ta/Tar+o�l•/;v/CTAi2T 17/'1P)0Id 31ti13L livru 1 LH1Li L11VL rcr•,lJL1 a ICC.YVIC1 rdgc G Ul J 118 1 650 11 765 685 1 773 19 685 773 11 743 785 20 743 785 1 756 792 21 756 792 770 804 22 770 804 790 814 23 88 11 562 125 582 24 125 582 250 635 3O 25 250 635 1 300 655 3� 26 300 655 359 672 27 359 ]1672 400 673 28 400 .673 414 676 O 29 414 676 445 687 30 445 687 461 690 31 461 690 492 692 32 492 692 525 709 O 33 11 525 709 575 733 1 34 575 733 613 745 35 613 11 745 650 763 3O 36 650 763 760 782 3� 37 760 782 790 800 O 38 88 555 125 565 39 125 11 565 150 575 4 40 150 575 259 620 41 259 620 341 650 Q 42 341 650 383 1655 4� 43 383 655 456 675 44 456 675 515 690 4� '45 515 11690 541 700 46 541 700 700 761 O 47 700 761 725 763 4� 48 725 763 750 770 1 l4 I 129 f;lA•///(•/p,.,rrromTlo��/TA,,o�xl;�/QTORT 041)M171,701-1)Al AOQA?A*,.rtv/RAr, rf 1,+, l 17/2/7(11,4 311101, llvru l 1JEi1Li JAiNLJ l-n3UL13 1 49 750 770 790 790 O Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils ragC -1 01 Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. F130 130 225 22 0 0 1� 130 130 11275 26 0 0 1� 3 140 140 1 400 35 0 0 lO 4O 140 140 50 45 0 0 GROUNDWATER (COMMAND 'WATER') Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y 88 F525] �J317 566 I' 332 600 130 f1a•///(`•/Arnrrromlloto/Tartu�U;�lQTORT o/7n�x�Io/7Ml111Q/Rar�nrfalRar�nr4l,+ml 17/2/7f11d 31YADL ltvru t tJLi1L-1 JAINIj tc-n3UE13 A-crvtcI [358R0 370 655 375 667 385 667 [3881 657 l�l 398 650 10 4361 565 11 790 525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 700 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 770 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ragC + ut j 131 filA•///( •/Arnnr�mTlo+�/TarrotA7i�/CTART o/7(IUUVa/7f17(1(1Q/1?P,,..,to/RPr,r.,t 1,t,Y,1 11/1/101A altinl, IivrU 1 LIEiI1A IAINU I,;-n3UEI LI) rcCrUmI ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.8978 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 2.8978 2 2.9303 3 3,0099 1.4 .3.0112 5 3.0131 6 3.0165 7 3.1662 8 3.175 9 3.1907 10 3.202 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 760 740 720 700 660 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 480 Section A - Global, Static, Groundwater - FScr = 2.8978 .rage.) ul J 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4501 500 550 600 fi50 700 750 132 fila•///('•/ArnnramTloto/Tarr��7il;/CT�RTo/7fl\1;7Vo/7117f1f1S2/1?A,,n,f�/RP,�nrthtml 17/2/701A 31YADE 11Nru 1 1JEi1L1 AINIJ 1-C3UJJ 13 S-CrVlCl ragc 1 01 J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A - Lower, Static Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 ]1565 100 11 572 L� 2 100 11 572 105 575 3 105 575 135 595 O 4 135 595 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 O 6 218 634 11 233 642 Q 7 233 642 11 263 655 8 263 655 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 O 10 338 673 353 683 11 353683 390 684 O 1 12 390 684 11 391 693 O 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 693 500 11 705 15 500 705 571 733 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 11 745 11 650 765 t=J 133 f;lA•///(`•/ArnrtramTlato/Tnr,�\lihv/QTORT o/7(I�xTVo/7f17(1(1Q/RAr...,�o/RPr,�,rt bf, l 11111101A 31ti131, iivru i ragc /- ui I 118 650 J 765 685 773 19 685 11773 743 785 2O 20 743 785 11 756 792 21 756 792 770 804 22 ii 770 804 790 814 23 11 88 562 125 582 3O 24 125 582 250 11 635 25 250 635 11 300 655 26 11 300 655 359 672 27 359 672 400 673 28 400 673 111 414 676 �_ I 29 414 11676 445 687 30 445 687 461 690 31 461 690 492 11 692 32 492 692 525 709 33 525 709 575 733 34 575 11733 613 745 I1 35 613 745 650 763 3O 36 650 763 760 782 37 760 782 790 800 38 88 555 125 11565 39 125 565 150 575 4� 40 150 11 575 259 620 4� 41 259 J1620 341 11650 42 341 650 383 655 43 383 655 456 675 44 456675 515 11 690 45 515 690 541 11 700 4� 46 541 700 700 761 47 700 761 725 11 763 48 725 763 11 750 770 �� 134 f;lA•///f`•/prnrrromTio4�/TA,-,•oi1•Iiv/QTORT o/7f1UVi7o/7117(1f1Q/RA„n,•t�/RAr�nrt1�4m1 17/1 /7(lld 31E-1I3L 11NrU 1 LJtilti t11VlJ 1S-C3UL13 KCrUAl 49 750 770790 790 4O Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 555 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 01 j Soil Wet Unit Wt. Saturated Unit Wt. Cohesive Intercept Friction Angle Pore Pressure Parameter Pore Pressure Water Constant Table 1� 130 130 225 22 0 0 130 130 275 26 0 0 I' 1 140 140 400 35 0 0 140 140 50 45 0 0 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 135 fly•///('•/UrnrTromTlata/Tarry�xli/CTORTo/7(1�7;IVo/7Mfl(1Q/RP,�.,,to/i?A+,.,,thr,,,l 17/2/7(11,4 L3111U3E 11Vru 1 L[-11[-1 AUN J K-n3ul,1LI) rcCrvnl rage + ul j x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 325 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 425 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.1589 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 2.1589 2 2.1992 3 12.22811 4 2.2378 52.2842 6 2.298 7 2.3145 8 2.34x4 9 :2.3479 10 :2.3541 136 f 1a•///( • /ArnnromTlato/TP, ra\xl;�/CT e RT o/ 7(l�x7Vo/ 7f17f1(1Q/1? A,,.,, t�/12A,..., t l,t,,,l 11 /2 /7(11 d 31YA01, tivrUt litiiritiivli t n3UL,t3 tcr,rvni Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 Section A - Lower, Static - FScr = 2.1581 rage j ut 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 la•///(`•/ArnRramTl�to/Tartu\1�Tiv/QTORT 0/7f1Ax7A7o/7f')OOQ/1?a�n to/1?a�n f html 137 11/1/7n1A 311ADL, iiv r U I liti i ti tilt' li IS -n3 U L 13 tS nrkJA I rage > ui J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A - Lower, Static, with Groundwater Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 F88 565 100 11 572 2 2 100 11 572 105 575 3 105 J 575 135 595 4 135 11 595 192 625 5 192 625 11 218 634 6 218 634 233 642 7 233 642 263 655 8 263 ]1655 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 10 F338 J1673 353 683 11 353 683 11 390 11 684 12 E9O 684 391 693 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 693 J1 500 705 15 500 705 11571 11733 16 571 733 11 594 745 17 594 745 650 765 138 f, l A • ///(` • /P, n frromTlo4� /Tarry �x7; � /C T O RT o/ 7 (1\l;IV o/ 7 n7 M Q /R P„�„ t� /i? A,,.,, t 1'f-1 1 1 /Z /7 (11 d 311ADI, llNru i LJAIA tiivli tcn3L)1,13 IS-Ervtci rage /- ui 118 1 650 1 765 11 685 11 773 1 I2 19 685 773 743 785 O 20743 785 756 792 21 756 792 770 804 22 770 804 790 814 23 88 562 125 582 24 125 582 250 635 25 250 635 300 655 26 300 655 359 672 27 F359 J1672 400 673 28 400 673 414 676 O 29 414 11 676 445 687 30 445 J1687 461 690 31 11 461 11 690 492 692 32 492 692 525 709 O 33 525 709 575 733 34 575 733 613 745 35 613 745 650 763 Q 36 650 763 760 782 37 760 782 790 800 3� 38 88 555 125 565 39 125 565 150 575 4 40 150 575 11 259 620 41 259 J1620 341 11 650 1 42 11 341 650 383 655 43 383 655 11 456 675 44 456 675 515 690 45 515 690 541 700 46 11 541 700 700 761 4� 47 700 761 725 763 4� 48 725 763 750 770 1 14 139 fila•///(�•/PrnnromTlat�/Tartu\7;1i�/CTORT 17/2/7()ld 011A13L, 11Nru 1 LJLAIJA rAivll tcn3UL,13 icrrvtc1 49 750 770 790 790 4� Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 ui Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. F130 1 130 225 22 0 0 2❑ 130 130 1 275 26 0 0 L� 3 140 140 1 400 35 0 0 O 140 140 50 45 0 0 GROUNDWATER (COMMAND 'WATER') Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y [88 [525] 317 566 I3 332 600 140 fila•///(`•/ArnrrromTlata/Tartutx7i�/CTORT11/1/101A 311A.Di- 11VrU 1 LJ1AI)A IAINIJ 1-n3U1-13 -CrVltl O358 650 370 655 375 667 385 667 657 398 650 10 436 565 11 790 525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 325 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 425 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 rage'+ Ul J 141 f;la•///(`•/ArnrrromTlota/Tarra�x7i /CT RT o/7/l�xlVo/7MMQ/RA,�..,fo/RP,��.,f ht, l 17/2/7(11d .71EiI3L liNrU 1 Ltiti ttc i�1VLl r3uLla icarvici ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.9244 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.9244 2 :2.1731 3 112.1885 4 2.2345 5 2.2478 6 2.3026' 7 2.3297 8 2.3345 9 2.3581 10 2.363 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 840 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 540 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 480 1876A1 - FScr = 1.9244 rage j 01 1 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 550 700 750 fila•///(`•/PrnrrramTl�4o/TarrotxTiv/CTORT o/7fl�xlVo/7M(1(1Q/1?A,��„-t�/1?P,�r.,-t htw,l 142 1 WA 011AnL, 11Nru l LJtilIlk L-11VL 1-C3UL13 11C.-CrUmI raga 1 ul STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A, Upper, Static Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 11 572 2 100 572 105 575 3 105 575 135 595 O 4 135 595 192 11 625 5 192 11 625 218 634 O 6 218 634 233 642 7 233 642 11 263 655 I�J 8 263 .11 655 11 300 665 9 300 665 11 338 673 10 338 673 353 11 683 11 1 353 683 390 684 12 390 684 391 693 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 693 500 11 705 15 500 705 571 733 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 745 650 765 143 fila•///(`•/ArnrrromTlato/Tarro�l�7iv/CTORT 111111MA 311AM, llNru i Ltiiti tiivL icn3L)E 1 a tcr,rvici rugc /- ul 118 1 650 765 685 773 19 685 773 11743 785 I J 20743 785 756 792 h_1 21 756 792 770 804 22 770 804 11 790 11 814 23 88562 125 582 24 125 582 250 635 25 250 635 300 655 26 300 655 1359 672 3� 27 F359 ]1672 11400 673 28 400 673 414 676 29 1 414 676 11445 687 30 1 445 687 461 690 31 461 690 11 492 692 32 492 692 525 709 L J 33 525 709 575 733 34 575 733 613 745 - 35 613 745 650 763 36 650 J1763 11 760 j 1 782 37 760 782 790 800 38 88 555 125 565 39 125 565 150 575 40 150 575 259 620 41 F259 ]1620 341 11650 42 F341 650 383 655 43 383 655 456 11675 44 456 ]1675 515 690 45 515 11 690 11 541 700 O 46 541 700 700 761 V� 47 700 761 725 7]1763 48 725 763 750 770 f4 144 f;1A•///l•/A,�.�,�,,,Tlo4�/TP,,��1;T;�/CTORT o/7(1�1;IVo/7M MQ/RPY.�„t�/RP,,.,,t I f—1 17/2/7(11,4 311 -ML, 11NrU 1 1JIAI1A )AIN LJ-C3Ul.13 I�CrVi�l 49 750 11 770 790 790 Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 555 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils ragc -1 01 Soil Wet Unit Wt. Saturated Unit Wt. Cohesive Intercept Friction Angle Pore Pressure Parameter Pore Pressure Constant Water Table F1-1 130 1 130 225 22 0 0 I - 1 130 130 275 26 0 ::110 l- 1 140 140 —11 400 35 0 0 140 140 50 45 0 0 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 325 145 ln• ///(�'• /prnnromrlo4o /Tarratxli-�/CT A RT 0/ 7(1\l�1Vo/ 7M(1(1Q /A ar,nrto /R ar�nrt html 1 7 /1 /7(11 d 31tini,11NrUi litiititiiNLicnaui,iLI) tcnrvtci rage,+uij x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 425 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 650 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 725 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.6997 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 2.6997 2 2.8944 3 2.9005 4 2.9285 5 2.9325 6 2.9545 7 3.025 8 3.0292 9 3.0562 10 3.1056 146 flA•///! •/Ur�rrromTlo+o/Tarratxhv/QTORT 17/2/701,4 ait raj-iivrUi LJAIJAtiivlittCLI)UI 13A-CrUAI Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 Section A, Upper, Static - FScr = 2.6997 rage jwj 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4SO 500 550 600 650 700 750 147 f;lA•///! •/A..,�..o,,,Th4o/TA,.o�xh�/QT ART 11111101A 311Ani, 11Nru i litiiti Hivli rcr,�ui i� tcr"rvt<i rags 1 ui J STABL INPUT DATA. ANIS RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND TROFIL) Project: Section A - Seismic, Global Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 F88 565 100 572 2 100 1 572 105 575 3 105 575 135 595 4 135 595 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 6 218 634 233 642 7 233 642 263 655 8 263 655 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 10 338 J1673 11353 683 2O 11 353 683 390 684 12 390 11 684 391 693 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 11 693 500 705 15 500 705 571 733 O 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 745 1 650 765 148 f;lA•///! •/U,.,.r,o,,,Tl��a/TP,,��7�1:/CTORT111111114 3 I JA.Dt, tiv r u t tJt-1 I L- lAiN" 13 tcnrvn i rags /- Ut j 118 650 765 685 11773 19 685 773 ]11743 J1785 20 743 785 756 ]1792 21 756 792 770 804 22 770 11804 11 790 814 23 88 562 125 582 3 24 125 582 11250 11635 25 250 635 300 655 26 300 655 359 672 27 359 672 400 11673 28 400 673 414 11676 3� 29 414 11 676 445 687 30 445 687 461 690 3� 31 461 11 690 11 492 692 3� 32 492 692 525 709 I� [T377[ --]1709 575 733 34 575 733 613 745 1. 35 613 745 650 763 36 650 763 760 782 37 760 782 790 800 O 38 88 555 125 565 39 125 565 150 575 4� 40 150 575 259 620 41 E597 620 341 650 42 134111650 383 655 43 383 655 456 675 O 44 456 675 515 690 45 515 690 541 700 4� 46 111 541 700 700 761 47 700 761 11 725 763 O 48 725 763 750 770 14 149 fla•///( /ArnrrromTlot�/Tarra�xli�/QT ORT17/2/7(11,4 aitinL, 11Nru i LJAIIk tiivli lccr"Al 49 750 770 790 790 4� Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 555 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 01 j Soil Wet Unit Wt. Saturated Unit Wt. Cohesive Intercept Friction Angle Pore Pressure Parameter Pore Pressure Constant Water Table F1 l 130 1 130 225 22 0 0 O [21 130 130 275 26 0 0 F140 140 1 400 35 0 0 KI140 1 140 50 45 0 0 1� SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 150 f;lA•///(�'•/A,•r.rt,•�,,,Tloto/TP,•,•��x1;�/QT�RT o/7(1�xT�Io/7Mfl(1Q/RP,a.,•10/1?P,,.,,-t ht., -,1 17/2/7(11 d a itinL ilvru i LLilLi t11VL t�C�l1L l a rcr"YVitl x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 700 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 770 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.901 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 11.901 2 11.9034 3 1.9243 4 1.9702 5 11.97461 6 1.9776 7 2.0116 8 2.0169 9 2.0232 10 2.0475 rage ,+ ui j 151 fila•///(`•/ArnrTromTlo+�/Tarrot7CT;v/CT�RT 11111101A 31IAD1 ., 11VrU 1 1JL-1.1LA ti1V1J B-C3UL 13 -CrUlf,l Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 750 740 720 700 580 660 540 520 600 580 560 540 52.0 Section A - Seismic, Gfobal - FScr = 1.901 rage -) 01 1 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 500 650 700 750 152 fila•///(•/Arnr.ramTloto/Tarrotlli�/QTORT17/2/7!11,4 3 11-1131. 11V r U 1 1Jt111 i L 11V U 1�*IG3 U L 13 1CCr Ulm 1 rage 1 01 J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A - Global, Seismic, Ground Water Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 F88 565 100 572 2 100 572 105 575 3 105 575 135 595 4 135 595 192 625 I�I 5 192 625 218 634 6 218 634 11 233 642 7 233 1[642 263 655 11 8 263 11 655 11 300 665 9 300 665 11 338 673 10 338 673 353 683 11 [L53: ]1683 390 684 12 390 ]1684 391 693 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 693 11 500 705 15 500 705 571 733 O 16 571 733 594 745 =2 17 594 745 650 765 153 fila•///(`•/ArnrrromTlota/Tarro�7:7;/CTORTo/7fl\UVo/7Mf1f1Q/RP,�..,to/RP,,..,tht,,,l 17/2h(1IA .�IIADL, liNru 1 1JIAIIA Ei1VLJ rcC3UL,13 icrrvicI rage /- ui I18 650 765 685 773 19 685 773 743 785 20 743 785 756 711792 21 756 J1792 770 11 804 22 770 804 790 814 O 23 88 562 125 11 582 24 125 582 250 635 25 250 635 300 655 26 1 L300 655 359 672 O 27 F359 ]1672 11 400 673 28 400 673 414 676 3 29 414 676 445 11 687 6� 30 1 445 ]1687 461 690 31 461 11 690 492 692 32 492 692 1 525 709 33 525 709 575 733 34 575 733 613 11745 3 35 613 745 11 650 11763 36 650 1 763 760 11782 37 760 782 790 800 38 88 11555 125 11 565 39 1125 11565 11150 575 4� 40 1150 575 259 620 4O 41 ,259 J1620 11 341 650 4� 42 341 11650 383 655 43 383 655 456 675 O 44 456 675 515 690 45 515 690 541 700 O 46 541 700 700 761 47 700 761 725 763 48 725 763 750 770 ' 154 fila•///(`•/ArnrrramPo+o/Tarro�x7;/CTART11/1/701d .�1H13L 11VYU 1 LH1H H1VL tcr„�UL1.� t�r"rVl�l 49 750 770 11 790 790 Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 ul j Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. 130 El 130 —11 225 22 0 0 2❑ 130 130 275 26 0 0 L" 3❑ 140 140 ��] 400 35 I 0 0 1� 47 140 140 50 45 0 0 GROUNDWATER (COMMAND 'WATER') Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y 88 525 317 566 I' 332 600 155 F f1A•///(`•/ArnnromTlot�/Tarro�xliv/CT�RT o/7ll�xlVo/7(17(1(1Q/RP,,.,rto/RP.,.,rt html 17/2 /7(11d 311AIDL, 11Nru 1 LtilEi IAINU UL13 rccrVml rage 4 01 J 358 650 370 655 11375 667 385 667 657 398 650 10 436 565 11 790 525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 700 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 770 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 156 fla•///(`•/Arnrfr�mTlato/Tartu\>h�ICTORT 11/2/7(11,4 L31tirs1, 11Nru 1 Ltiiti 1AINV 1-CL3u1.13 11,Crv1c1 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.9074 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.9074 2 1.9366 3 1.9648 1.4 1.9727 5 1.9812 6 1.9873 7 1.9977 1.8 1.2.03641 9 2.0391 10 .2.0519 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 744 720 700 680- 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 - 520 500 - 480 Section A - Globe, Seismic, Ground Water - FScr — 1.9074 rage j 01 j 100 150 260 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 157 f1a•/1/f •/ArnrrramTlato/TP,,at117i /CTART ')/2/')A1A 311AI3L 11Nru l 1Jt'l11-1 I-11NIJ A-n3uL13 11_nrVIC1 rage 1 o1.) STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS DEPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND TROFIV) Project: Section A - Lower, Seismic Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 572 2 100 572 105 575 L� 3 105 575 1 135 ]1595 4 135 1 595 1 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 u 6218 634 233 642 8 263 i 1 655 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 10 338 673 353 :11683 11 353 683 390 684 12 390 684 391 693 13 391 693 1 450 :11693 O 14 450 693 500 705 15 500 705 11571 733 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 745 650 765 O 158 f1A•///!•/A,.,.r,o,,,Tloh/TP,.oUU;�/QTORT b+m] 11/Z/1)MI1 01tinL,11'4rut 1JAAI'k1-UN J1'�-C3UL,13t'CrvlCI ru cL,Ut1 118 650 765 685 773 19 685 773 743 785 2O 20 743 11 785 756 7921 21 756 11 792 770 804 22 770 11 804 790 814 23 88 562 125 582 24 125 582 250 635 3� 25 250 11 635 300 655 26 300 11 655 359 672 27 359 672 400 673 28 40011 673 414 676 1. 29 414 676 .445 687 30 445 11 687 1 461 690 31 1 461 690 492 692 32 492 692 525 709 33 525 11709 11575 733 34 575 733 613 745 35 613 745 650 763 36 650 763 760 782 O 38 565 88 ]1555 125 39 125 ]1565 150 575 40 150 1[575 259 620 41 [259 ]1620 11 341 650 4� 42 341 650 11 383 655 43 [K83: 655 456 675 44 456 1675 515 690 45 515 690 541 700 4O 46 541 700 700 11 761 47 700 11 761 11 725 763 48 725 763 750 770 1 I`' 1 159 f,lP•///('•/A,.,R,�,„Tlo�o/TP,,a\xh/CT0RT11/2/7fl1d 31 ADL, 11NrU 1 Ll1i1Lti Li1VLJ IS-C3UL13 ACrUA l 49 750 770 790 790 4� Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 555 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils raga -1 ui Soil Wet Unit Wt. Saturated Unit Wt. Cohesive Intercept Friction Angle Pore Pressure Parameter Pore Pressure Constant Water Table 130 ,130 225 22 0 0 130 130 275 26 0 0 1 140 140 400 35 0 0 1� 140 140 50 45 0 0 !� ►i ■. i-1 Llrawrarfillyi►VA R ■ Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 160 flA•///('•/A,-�...ro,,,Tlato/TP,-,•��x7;�/QT�RT o/7f1�x1Vo/7(17(1(1Q/RAY,�,rtc/Aa„n,-t 1,+,,,1 17/2/7(lld O1t113J, 11Nru 1 UTA11i IAINLJ rcLnOULlLI) rcr"YV1C1 rags + 01 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 325 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 425 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.5672 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 12 1156771 3 1.586 4 1.5871 16lJ 6015 7 11.616111 8 11.61641 '9 1.618 10 1.6181 161 f,lA•///(`•/A,....,a,,,Tlo+o/TA,,aUU;�/QT0RT o/7fl�lCIVo/7M!1!1Q/T?A.,.,,+�/RA,�.,.t b+, l 11/Z/7(11d �1HI3L 11VYU 1 LH1H H1VL tcr„�UL1.7 rcr,YV1C1 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 Section A - Lower, Seismic - FScr = 1.5672 YdgC J 01 J 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 fila•///(`•/ArnrTromTlato/Tarr�txli•�/CTORT �/7f1tx/V0/7(17(111Q/Ra,�..rto/1?a,,.,r•f 1,+,,,1 162 »/z/1nia 31IA13U 11vry l VIA 1h Ei1VL 11-n3uL13 11-crVm1 rage 1 01 1 STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND TROFIV) Project: Section A - Lower, Seismic, Groundwater Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 11 565 100 572 2 10011 572 105 ]1575 O 3 105 11 575 135 595 4 5 135 192 595 192 625 1 218 :116341 625 6 218 634 233 642 8 263 655 300 665 9 10 11 = 300 11 338 1 353 11683 665 338 673 353 390 673 683 684 12 390 684 391 693 13 391 693 1 450 6931 14 15 450 500705 693 500 571 :]1733 705 16 17 571 594 733 594 :11 745 650 745 765 163 fila•///!•/prnnromTloto/Tarrot7CTi�/CTARTo/7(1�x1Vo/7(17(1(1Q/1?Ar,�.,t�/RP.,r»t1,f,l 17/10MA 31IADI. IINru t tJt11t-1 tiivii A=kiL13 icr,rvtci rage /- ut 1 118 650 765 685 11 773 I2 19 685 773 743 785 20 743 785 756 11 792 21 756 792 11 770 804 22 770 804 790 11 814 23 88 562 11 125 582 24 125 582 250 635 25 250 11 635 300 655 26300 655 359 672 27 359 672 400 673 28 400 673 414 676 29 414 676 445 687 30 445 687 11 461 690 31 461 _11690 11 492 692 32 492 692 525 709 33 525 709 575 733 34 575 733 613 745 35 613 745 650 763 36 650 763 760 782 38 88 555 125 565 39 125 565 150 575 40 150 575 259 620 41 259 620 341 650 4� 42 341 650 - 383 655 43 383 655 456 675 44 456 675 515 690 4� 45 515 690 541 700 46 541 700 700 761 47 700 761 725 763 48 1 725 763 750 770 I4 164 fila•///( •/ArnrTromll�to/TP,,a\7;Iii/CTORT11111101A a 1 IA13L, 11Nr U l liti i ti tiiNli tcna u 1, 13 A=Ull, I 49 750 770 790 11790 4� Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 ui Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. 11 130 130 711 225 22 0 0 lO 2❑ 130 130 711 275 26 0 0 O I- 1 140 140 11 400 35 0 0 O 140 140 50 45 0 110 :1 Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y L�F8525 317 566 I3 332 600 165 f;la•///(`•/ArnnramTlato/Tarrotx7i�/CTART o/7f1�x1Vo/7f17(1(1S2/RA,,..,-t�/1?A,,.,,-rl,�,,,1 17/2/7flld 31IA13E 11VrU l LJIA11A 11,1NL 1CnaUL.10 rcr,rUiNA,1 358 650 370 655 375 667 L�!385 667 8� 388 657 398 650 10 436 565 11 790 525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 325 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 425 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 rage ,+ 01 J 166 flA•///(`•/A,�.�.,�mTh+o/TA,.o�xT;�/QTORT o/7/1�x7Vo/7(17(1/1Q/RA,�nrto/RPr�nrt html 11/Z/7(11,4 aititsL,iivrui Lr�itiriivL rcr,aui,ia rcr"rvt�i ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.4862 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.4862 .Z 1.5215 3 1.5427 4 1.5427 5 1.5575 6 1.5602 7 1.5611 S 1.5827 '9 1.6014 10 1.6234 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Sao 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 5411 520 500 480 Section A - Lower, Seismic, Groundwater - FScr = 1.4862 raga I ui I 100 1.50 200 250 300 350 404 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 167 flA•///f`•/Ar..�.,�,,,Tla��/TP,.o\�1;�/CT�RT o/7/1�xIVo/7Mfl(1Q/1?A,��.,fo/1?P,�.,,f lk+, 1 17/2/7l A 31JIU31. 11NrU 1 LJI-1I 'I Ii1VLJ t-C3UL13 tcr,rUAI rage 1 ui J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND TROFIV) Project: Section A - Upper, Seismic Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 572 2 100 572 105 575 2O 3 105 11 575 135 595 4 135 59511625 192 2O 5 192 11 625 218 634 6 21811634 233 '642 14 450 693 500 705 15 500 705 1 E5:71 J1733 8 9 263 300 655 665 300 338 665 673 10 338 673 11353 650 =683 11 353 683 390 684 2O 12 13 390 391 684 693 1 391 ]1693 450 :]1693 14 450 693 500 705 15 500 705 1 E5:71 J1733 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 11 745 650 765 168 fla•///(`•/ArnrrrnmTloto/Tarro�xliv/CTDRT 11/2/ 0 1 A 31ti13i, IINru i rage t, ui 1 118 1650 765 685 11 773 19 685 773 743 785 20 21 743 785 756 792 804 756 792 770 22 23 770 11 804 11 88 562 790 125 814 11 582 24 125 1 582 250 635 25 26 27 250 635 300 655 359 672 300 359 400 655 11 672 673 28 400 673 111 414 676 29 30 31 414 11 676 445 687 461 1 690 445 461 492 687 O 690 O 692 O 32 492 692 525 709 L—J 1.33 525 11 709 575 733 34 575 733 11613 —11 745 IJ 35 613 745 650 763 36 650 11 763 760 782 38 88 555 125 565 L' 39 125 565 150 575 40 150 575 11 259 620 41 259 11 620 341 650 42 341 43 383 44 456 45 515 650 655 675 690 383 655 456 675 515 690 4� 541 700 4� 46 541 11700 700 761 4O 47 700 11761 48 725 763 725 763 750 -11770 14 1 169 fila•///(•/Ar�frr�mTlo4o/Tartu�7Uiv/CTORT/7(IUVVo/7f17(1(152/Rar�nrto/Rar�nrt html 17/2/7(11d rage .3 ui 49 750 11 770 790 11 790 Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 555 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. lO 130 130 225 22 0 0 ::1 a I2 F 130 130 275 26 0 0 I� 140 140 711400 35 0 0 ::1 1� 140 140 50 45 0 0 ::1 N PAI 1i I IrM IWM'W.V111 1641rdWrAMIA1 . 0 9 i Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 325 170 fila•///(ry•/prnrTromTl�t�/TP,,aUV;�/CTORT o/7(IUUVo/7MMQ/T2ar�nrto/Rar�nrf html 11111101A 311-113E 11Nru 1 1jAl A JAINIJ AMLIuL l L3 B-nruil.-1 rage,+ ui x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 425 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 650 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 725 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.8385 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.8385 2 1.875 3 1.8927 4 1 10 16 111.92511 7 1.97$6 8 1.9985 9 1.999 Ito 2.[1035 171 fiA•iiir•m,.,.�,�,Y,ria+�iTA,.��a�;�icTeur oi�n��n�oi�mnnQiuP,,,,,+�iuP,,,,,, lkf, l 111111nia 3IIA1311114rul LtiitiAkINIJ-n3L)I,1311C.crvici Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 760 746 726 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 Section A - Upper, Seismic F'Scr = 1.8385 rage J ui j 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 5S0 600 650 700 750 172 f;la•///(`•/Ar..rrromTloro/TP,roZ7�7;�/QTORT o/7ll�x/Vo/7/17/1f1Q/RAr...,to/1?A,,.,,f l l-, I 17/'1 Of) 1A 311ADE 11VrU 1 LJt11 ti tilt/1J 111-n3ui.1 D I_nrVICl rugc 1 0l J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND TROFIV) Project: Section B - Global, Static Number of Boundaries: 50 Number of Surface Boundaries: 21 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 125 11 630 168 630 2 168 630 273 671 3 273 671 290 682 4 290 682 300 684 O 5 300 684 312 686 6 312 686 1[337 :]1686 . MOIL 8 0.31 00 UnD 362 686 1 363 694 9 363 694 400 :]1694 10 400 694 404 :11 694 1� 11 404 694 405 :11702 O 12 7711 11 405 702 429 712 13 429 11 712 1[442 725 14 442 11 725 469 745 15 469 745 1. 487 750 16 487 750 527 777 17 527 777 547 784 173 f;lA•///(`•1A,...r,�„,Tla1�/TA,,��xT;�/QTART o/7ll�xl�lo/7M(1(1Q/RP...,,to/1?A,...,� 1,1,,,1 11/2/7(11,4 31 JADE 1114YU 1 VIA IIH lAiNii ,-n3uE13 I,-nrkiltl rage G Ul J 18 1547 784 567 794 19 567 11 794 612 813 20 612 813 672 ]1842 21 672 842 775 863 2O 22 127 618 165 618 23 165 621 175 625 24 175 625 300 670 25300 670 310 670 26 310 670 311 674 27 311 ]1674 325 674 L" _I 28 325 674 326 677 29 326 11 677 356 677 30 356 11 677 357 680 0 31 [K57: 680 380 680 32 380 680 381 685 33 381 685 398 685 34 398 685 399 11 690 35 11 399 690 418 693 36 418 693 475 741 3� 38 500 752 557 783 39 557 ]1783 650 828 40 650 ]1828 700 842 41 [700 J1842 775 860 42 127 11 605 11 166 11605 Q 43 166 11 610 11 175 612 44 175 612 338 665 45 338 665 :]F375 11 671 46 375 671 442 11 692 47 442 692 552 1751 48 552 751 675 807 1 14 174 fila•///(`•/ArnrrramTlota/Tarry \7i7i�/CTaRT 1111001A 31f-U3L 11NrU 1 UY-1IJA t11V1J 1cnl)U1.13 1c.nrV1l%�1 49 675 807 725 825 4O 50 725 825 775 838 U Smallest x value: 125 Largest x value: 775 Smallest y value: 605 Largest y value: 863 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Wt. rage -1 u1 Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Parameter Constant Table Ill 1 130 130 225 22 0 0 130 130 275 26 0 0 [3 140 140 400 35 0 0 F4140 140 71150 45 0 EO BOUNDARY LOADS (COMMAND 'LOADS') Number of Loads: 1 Load No. x Left x Right Magnitude Angle 337 384 500 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 175 fila•///(`•/P,•n.r,•omThta/TPrro«7;�/CTART o/7!1\x1Vo/7(17f1f1Q/AA,,�,.•t�/1?A,...,-t h1,,,1 17/2 /7(lld .L)1ti13L 11Vru 1 LJLl1h t11VL rcn3uj-io r%rrV1C1 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 150 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 250 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 650 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 725 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS c — s 111 MAIL Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.0319 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 2.0319 2 12.0411 3 2.0594 1.4 2.Ot)34 1.5 12.2004 rar,c "+ 01 176 f,1A•///(`•/A,..R,�,,,Tlota/TP..��xh�/QTART 11111101A 10 12.478 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 860 840 820 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 { 580 560 Section B - Global, Static - F$cr = 2,0313 — — -- — �—r — s — 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 177 f,lA•///f`•/ArnRromThta/Tnrro�7;7: s/CTO TIT 0/-') xTVo/7W)Oil R/1?annrto/T? �t html 17/2/1011 u6- — I STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section B - Lower, Static Number of Boundaries: 50 Number of Surface Boundaries: 21 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 125 630 168 630 2 168 630 273 671 3 273 11 671 290 682 !�I 4 290 682 1 [300 684 5 300 11 684 312 6861 6 312 686 337 686 8 362 686 363 :]1694 1� 1. 9 363 694 400 694 1� 10 400 694 _] 404 :]1694 u 11 1 404 694 405 :]1702 12 405 702 429 712 13 429 11712 442 725 14 442 ,725 469 :]1745 15 469 1745 ][487 750 16 487 750 527 777 17 1 h 1527 11 777 11 547 11 784 178 flA•///f`•/A,�,.r,a,,,Tht�/Ta,r�\xT;�/CTART o/7I1`xlVo/7117MQ/AAnnrfo/Rar�nrt h+ml 1 ) /7(l1A 118 1547 19 567 11794 784 1 567 11,794 1 E612 ]1813 12 1 20 612 813 672 842 21 672 842 1 775 863 22 127 618 165 618 23 165 621 1 175 625 24 175 625 1 [30o 670 25 1310 300 670 :116701 26 310 670 311 674 l� 27 311 674 1 =325 ]1674 28 325 674 326 677 29 326 11 677 356 :11677 I1 30 1 11 356 677 ][357 680 31 357 11 680 380 680 32 380 680 1 381 685 33 381 685 398 685 Q 34 398 685 1 399 690 35 399 690 418 693 36 418 693 1 [475 741 38 500 11 752 '557 _ 783 39 557 783 1 650 828 40 111 650 828 1 700 :]1842 41 .700 11 842 775 860 3� 42 127 605 166 605 43 166 610 175 :11 612 44 175 612 338 665 45 338 665 375 671 1 4� 46 375 11 671 442 692 47 442 692 552 751 48 552 751 675 807 F4� 179 flP•///f`•/A,�.R,�,,,Tloro/TA,,��x/ice/QTS RT o/7!1\xlVo/7l17MQ/RP,��„tc/T?A.,n,t h+.,,l 11/*1/')()1 A 49675 807 725 825 l�J 50 725 825 1 775 :]1838 K130 4� Smallest x value: 125 Largest x value: 775 Smallest y value: 605 Largest y value: 863 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Soil Wet Unit Wt. Saturated Unit Wt. Cohesive Intercept Friction Angle Pore Pressure Parameter Pore Pressure Constant Water Table K130 130 225 22 0 0 L� I2 ] 130 130 275 26 0 0 I3 1 140 140 400 35 0 0 :1 lO F4140 140 50 45 0 Fo BOUNDARY LOADS (COMMAND 'LOADS') Number of Loads: 1 Load No. x Left x Right Magnitude Angle 1� 337 384 500 OO SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 180 1a•/!/(`•/Prnnr�mTlot�/Tartu�xT; /CTART17/1/')nIA ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 150 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 250 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 350 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 400 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS c 6 Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.7355 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 .2.7355 2 2.7497 3 2.8099 4 2.8142 5 2.8146 6 2.86 7 2.8722 8 2.8732 1.9 2.9253 n 181 Gln•///(•/PrnnramTlot�/TArrotlLTi�/CTART ��%I�`TtI��7n7n11Q/AP111�1�0/1ZP1111M:ll+ml 11/2/7I11A 10 Figures 2.9417 ius%.✓vl✓ Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 860 840 820 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 Section B Lower, Static - FScr a 2.7355 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 182 f;ln•!//( •/ArnnramTht�/TArro�7;Ti�/CTART o/7(I�xIVo/7/17/1(1Q/RA.,.,,to/AA,,.,,t b+, I 17/2/7/11 A STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND TROFIL') Project: Section B - Upper, Static Number of Boundaries: 50 Number of Surface Boundaries: 21 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 125 630 168 630 2 168 11 630 273 671 3 —71 273 671 290 682 4 290 682 300 684 5 300 684 312 686 O 6 312 1686 337 686 8 362 686 ][363 694 I� 9 363 694 1[400 694 1� 10 400 11 694 404 ]1694 11 404 694 405 702 12 405 702 429 J712 13 429 712 J 442 :]1725 14 442 725 469 745 15 469 11745 487 750 16 487 1 750 527 777 17 527 1 777 1 547 :]1784 183 fla•///('•/Ar.,nramTlot�/TA,.��1L7;�/QT�RT o/7(11xIVo/7117/1/1Q/1?A,..,rto/T?a,,n,tbf„ l 11/'1IM1A ,. _ . _...._..., .,.... �............� . �..............�..f... � use � vi .� 118 1547 19 567 784 567 - -11794 794 [612 813 �2 1 20 612 .813 1 672 ]1842 L 21 672 842 775 863 22 127 618 165 618 23 165 621 1 E175 625 C� 24 175 625 300 :]1670 u 25 1. 300 11 670 310 670 26 - 310 11 670 311 674 3O 27 311 11 674 [325 11674 28 325 674 326 677 29 326 1 677 356 677. 30 356 677 357 680 31 357 680 380 ]1680 32 380 680 381 685 33 381 685 398 685 34 398 685 1 399 690 35 399 690 418 11693 36 418 693 1 475 741 38 500 752 557 783 39 557 783 650 828 40 650 828 11 700 842 41 700 842 775 11 860 42 127 605 166 11605 43 166 610 175 ]1612 44 175 11 612 338 665 4� 45 338 665 375 671 46 375 671 442 692 LTJ 47 442 11692 552 751 48 552 751 675 807 '..17 1 184 fila•///(`•/Prr.`rmmTlot�/TPrro�x7:-�/CTORT o/7!1\xTVo/7/17 MQ/Aar..,-t�/RP,�..,•t ht,,,l 17/Z /7 (11 it - _ . ..... ... .. ... ... a ..... .-5 —. 49 675 807 725 825 4� 50 725 825 775 838 140 Smallest x value: 125 Largest x value: 775 Smallest y value: 605 Largest y value: 863 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. 1� 130 130 225 22 0 0 1� 130 130 275 26 0 0 140 140 400 35 0 0 1� [4140 140 50 45 0 Fo Q BOUNDARY LOADS (COMMAND 'LOADS') Number of Loads: 1 Load No. x Left x Right Magnitude Angle 337 384 500 0� SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 185 fla•///(`•/A,.,r.ro„�Tlof�/Terra\7;7; /CT�Ri 0410 WN1041117Oil Qfl? r "nrfo/V? "r rf l f"ml 11/Z /In IA ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 350 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 400 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 650 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 725 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.1213 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 2.1213 2 J12.1228 3 2.1989 4 2.2368 5 2.2456 +6 2.2688 7 2.2816 .B 2.2917 9 2.3267 AI 1 186 f1a•///(`•/UrnnramnQfa/Tartu III;/QT APT 11/'1/')WA 110 112.3317 Figures a"5v✓v•✓ Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 860 840 820 Boo 780 760 740 720 700 6sa 660 640 620 600 580 560 Section B - Upper, Static - FScr - 2.1213 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 187 f,lP•///(`•/Arr,nromTl�to/TA,,��xT;/CTeRTo/7(1�lCTVo/7117(lflQ/Rar�nrfoll?ar�ntthtmI 17/I/7/11A Iar,%,ivi✓ STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section B - Global, Seismic Number of Boundaries: 50 Number of Surface Boundaries: 21 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 125 11 630 168 630 ::1 2 168 630 273 671 3 273 671 1 290 682 u 4 290 682 300 684 I� 5 300 684 1 312 686 6 312 11 686 11337 686 :1 8 362 11 686 363 I 694 9 11 363 11694 400 694 10 400 694 404 694 11 404 694 405 702 12 405 702 429 712 13 429 712 442 725 14 11 442 725 11 469 11 745 15 469 745 487 750 16 487750 527 777 O 17 527 777 547 11784 188 f1A•///f •/Prnnr�mTlota/Tarr�tx7i�/QTART /7f1\ IVa/7117/111Q/RA,...,f�/l?A++..+�1++w.1 11/1/'f/11A 118 1 19 547 567 784 567 794 612 794 813 20 1. 612 11813 1 672 J842 Q 21 672 11 842 11 775 11863 22 127 618 165 :11 618 23 165 621 175 625 24 11.175 J1625 [3700 j 670 O 25 11 300 670 310 :11670 26 310 670 311 674 27 311 674 325 674 28 -7:11 325 11674 1[326 :]1677 O 29 326356 677 677 30 356 677 357 680 31 357 680 380 680 �] 32 380 680 381 685 33 1,381 11685 398 685 34 398 685 399 690 35 399 690 418 693 36 418 693 475 741 38 500 752 F557 783 39 557 783 650 -- 828 40 650 828 700 j 842 41 11, 700 842 775 860 42 127 605166 605 43 166 610 175 612 U 44 175 612 338 :]1665 45 -71 338 665 375 671 L� 46 375 671 1[442 j 692 47 442 692 552 751 48 552 751 675 807 189 f 1 A • / //(` • /Arn rrro m Tla to /Tama t�7; � /C T A RT o/ 7 (1\x7tIo/ 7 M fl(1 Q /R P,.�,rt� /R A,�nrt hrm l 1 7 /2 /7 01 d 49 675 807 725 825 4 50 725 11 825 775 838 0 Smallest x value: 125 Largest x value: 775 Smallest y value: 605 Largest y value: 863 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. [E] 130 130 225 22 0 0 Ll130 130 275 26 0 0 1� 3 140 140 400 35 0 0 F4] 140 140 50 45 0 0 1� BOUNDARY LOADS (COMMAND 'LOADS') Number of Loads: 1 Load No. x Left x Right Magnitude Angle 337 384 500 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 190 F1A•///('•/ArnRromTlo4a/Tnr+aUUi�/CTORT o/7!1\1LTVo/7117f1(1Q/RAY....tc/T?A;,.,,tht,,,l 11111101A ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 150 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 250 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 650 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 725 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.3846 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.3846 Z 1.4146 3 1.4148 1.4 1.4196 5 1.433 6 1.4631 7 1.4751 .8 1.4953 9 1.5014 r1 I� ` Tt r1 A�1 /1/1 T1 1 191 f1P•///(•/Arn`rramTlot�/TPrrotJLTiv/CTART 0� /11 1/ \IQ� /II /IIIIQ/API�AliO/KPY�ll1� IItYY1� 11/101)Id 10 _ _ 11.5277 Figures a -5v✓ vi ✓ Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 860 840 820 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 Section a - Global, Seismic - FScr - 1.3846 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 192 f,1P• ///(` • /Arn�iromTlat� /Tarr��liTiv/CT O RT �/ 7(1\7;T�Io/ 7(17 MQ /1? ar�nrfolR ar.nrt html 17 /2 /7l11 d v i a aar a... as •a v a aia a a a a a as �L i�l/VV 1J a V 1W1 Vl\ 1 1 agG 1 Vl J STABL INPUT DATA►. AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section B - Lower, Seismic Number of Boundaries: 50 Number of Surface Boundaries: 21 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 125 i 1 630 168 630 2 168 630 1 E273 671 3 273 11671 ]F290 8 682 686 ]L363 4 290 11 682 300 684 363 5 300 684 312 686 400 6 312 11686 337 686 O 193 f l o • ///(' • /Ar.,r�romTlot� /Tartu«7;/CT A RT o/ 7/l�lU�/o/7Mr1114 /D o« .. t� lD o« .. 1.+..,1 1 '1 /1 /)[) t A 8 362 686 ]L363 694 �] 9 363 694 [400 694 10 400 694 1 [404 11694 11404 694 1[405 :]1.702 12 405 702 429 712 13 429 712 442 725 14 442 725 469 745 15 11 469 745 1 487 750 16 487 750 527 :11777 17 527 777 547 784 L� 193 f l o • ///(' • /Ar.,r�romTlot� /Tartu«7;/CT A RT o/ 7/l�lU�/o/7Mr1114 /D o« .. t� lD o« .. 1.+..,1 1 '1 /1 /)[) t A 118 1547 19 567 784 794 11 567 612 794 813 20 612813 RE:- 842 2 21 672 842 775 863 22 127 11 618 1 165 618 7:::] 23 165 621 175 625 24 175625 11 300 670 25 300 670 310 670 26 310 11670 311 674 3� 27 311 674 325 674 28 325 11674 326 ]1677 3 29326 677 E6 677 30 356 11677 357 680 O - 31 357 680 380 11 680 32 380680 1 I 381 7]1685 33 381 685 '398 685 3� 34 398 11685 [399 690 - 35 399 690 418 693 3 36 418 11693 1 475 741 38 1 500 11 752 11557 :11 783 39 557 783 650 828 40 650 828 700 :11 842 O 41 700 842 775 860 3O 42 127 605 166 :11605 43 166 610 175 :11612 4� 44 175 612 338 :]1665 4O 45 338 11 665 375 :11 671 46 375 671 442 692 771 47 442 692 1 552 :]1751 48 552 751 675 807 1 I4 194 flA•///(•/ArnnromTlot�lTarrot7.7iv/CTORT 0/7f1\x7V0/7M11()Q/va"n.to/1?---n f I f—1 11/2/7/11 A a u��✓ va ✓ 49 675 807 725 825 O 50 72511 825 775 :]1838 275 26 0 0 Smallest x value: 125 Largest x value: 775 Smallest y value: 605 Largest y value: 863 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. 1, 130 130 225 22 0 0 F 130 130 275 26 0 0 140 140 40035 0 0 O F140 140 —11 50 45 0 0 BOUNDARY LOADS (COMMAND 'LOADS') Number of Loads: 1 Load No. x Left x Right Magnitude Angle 337 384 500 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 195 filA•///!`•/A,�,.,,omTlato/TP,���7L7;�/QTORT 17/1/')nlA 1ur,�zvi ✓ ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 150 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 250 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 350 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 400 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS —to f 0 10 1[ Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.742 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.742 2 1.7533 3 1.8207 1.4 1.8548 :5 1.8635 6 1.8653 7 1.8818 .S 1.903 9 2.0038 196 f1A•///(`•/ArnRmmTlo�o/TA,.��xh�/CTORT o/7f1�7LIVa/7MMQ/RP,,..,to/RP.,..,t h+,,,l 17/1/7!11 A 10 112.0048 Figures a"rv✓vi✓ Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 860 840 820 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 650 640 620 600 580 560 150 Section B - Lauver, Seismic - FScr — 1.742 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 197 fi1P•///f`•/prnnromTlatoITPYMQ�1Ti�/CTdRT/7(1\1LIV�/7l17MQ/RPr�nrfo/Rar�nrt html 17/1/7( A - - _... v . — _...,...,, ,.... —.,. i asp, L STABL INPUT DATA. AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section B - Upper, Seismic Number of Boundaries: 50 Number of Surface Boundaries: 21 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 125 630 E168 630 hJ 2 168 630 1 273 671 3 273 671 290 11 682 4 290 682 300 684 5 300 684 312 ]1686 6 312 686 1 337 :]1686 O Mao/ 08D .3nL MEN 8 362 686 363 694 l� 9 363 694 400 694 110 400 11694 1 F404 694 0 11 404 694 1 E405 :11702 :1 12 405 11 702 [429 712 71 13 429 11 712 442 :11 725 14 =1 442 725 469 745:1 15 469 745 487 750 2O 16 487 11750 527 [77 7 17 527 777 547 784:1 198 f1P•///(`•/Arn.�romTlato/Tarrot�7;v/CT�RT a/7(1\x7�/o/7M(1(1Q/1?Pr...,�o/T?A,,.,,�h+.,,l 17/2/7lltA u LLLLL LL �L VL LLILtlLIL�L LWUVLLULWL Vl\L La�VLVLJ 118 1�547 19 567 784 567 794 1 612 794 813 �] 20 612 813 672 842 21 672 842 775 863 22 127 11 618 1 165 618 23 165 621 175 625 24 175 11625 300 670 25 300 670 310 -11 670 26 310 11 670 311 J1674 27 11311 11 674 1 325 674 L�J 28 325 674 1,326 677 29 326 677 356 11677 30 356 677 1[357 :]1680 3O 31 357 11 680 380 :]1680 32 380 680 381 685 33 381 685 1 398 685 34 398 685 399 690 35 399 690418 693 3� 36 418 693 475 741 3� 38 500 752 11557 783 39 557 783 650 828 1 40 650 828 700 842 41 700 11842 775 858 42 127 605 166 605 4O 43 166 610 175 :11612 L� 44175 612 338 665 45 338 665 375 :11671 L 46 375 671 442 692 47 442 692 552 751 48 552 751 675 807 14 199 flA•///('•/ArnnramTlat�/TPrYO\xT; /QT�RT17/Z/1/11 A via aa..i i a a. i v a✓ c a i c a a is � L 1 W V V L 1 V l W1 V 1\ 1 49 675 807 1 725 825 0 !�J 50 11. 725 11825 130 775 838 0 Smallest x value: 125 Largest x value: 775 Smallest y value: 605 Largest y value: 863 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Wt. 1 ar,-G J Vl J Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Parameter Constant Table F1130 x Left x Right 130 225 22 0 0 !�J 337 F 1 130 130 275 26 0 0 1 140 140 400 35 0 0 O F47 140 140 50 45 0 0F7:1 BOUNDARY LOADS (COMMAND 'LOADS') Number of Loads: 1 Load No. x Left x Right Magnitude Angle 337 384 500 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 200 fla•///(`•/ArnrTromTlata/Tarrot117i�/CTART o/7�1\xlVo/7MMQ/Do,...,t�/D o,. .,t h+_1 17/2/')A14 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 350 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 400 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 650 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 725 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS r c. Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.5734 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.5734 2 1.6088 3 1.6171 4 1.6251 5 1.6297 6 1.6305 7 1.6348 8 1.6627 9 1.6809 201 flA-U/0•/PrnnromTlofn/TP Alf;/QTATIT 17/Z/7M 1 110 111.681.3 Figures a uE'v✓vi ✓ Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 860 640 820 Sao 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 Section 6 Tipper, Seismic - Mcr;" 1.5734 150 200 250 3410 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 100 750 fla•///f`•/prnnromTl�t�/Tam\]1/ice/CTART o/7(1\7�TV�/')(17(1/1Q/Rar�nrta/Aar�nrthtml 202 i')/z/1n4n STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section C - Global, Static Number of Boundaries: 24 Number of Surface Boundaries: 9 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 200 680 1 250 702 2 250 702 270 711 O 3 270 711 1 280 711 4 280 711 310 731 O 5 310 11 731 1 [K36 742 6 336 742 381 750 O 8 431 761 493 ]1781 O 9 493 11 781 543 801 10 ::711 543 11801 625 822 11 282 11,712 308 712 12 308 712 455 :11761 13 455 761 1 471 :11774 14 471 774 483 777 15 20011 673 250 692 16 250 692 275 698 17 275 698 285 :11704 O 203 fla•///(`•/P,....,�,,,Tlo+�/TA,ra�lLT;�/QTART 11/2/7111A 118 285 704 300 709 �3 19 130011709 313 :11709 7:1 275 20 313 709 440 747 21 440 747 450 750 u 22 450 750 456 755 3O 23 456 755 525 780 0 24 525 780 625 1 809 Smallest x value: 200 Largest x value: 625 Smallest y value: 673 Largest y value: 822 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 5 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit lila Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table 11-1 130 130 1 225 22 0 0 :1 130 130 275 26 0 0 ::1 O F3140 140 1 400 35 0 Fo l J 140 140 :71150 45 0 0 15 130 130 0 14.2 0 0 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS r1 /� ` ,1 /�.1 /�/1 T1 1 204 fila•///(`•/PrnrrramTlo+o/TarraU�TivICTA RT 0/ OAAT IO/ )016119/PP"l rfv/RP/II�Tf Y+i l 17/2/7()1 A --.-- —1a V 1 ✓talo .-1— 1WIJVL A" LWl Vl\1 Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 250 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 300 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 450 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 525 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.0208 2 1.126 ,3 1.1677 4 1.282 :5 1.3433 1arGJ V1`t 205 fila•///( •/Arnnr�mTlo4o/TArra�ATi�/QTAnT I A - .. —1— .... 1. . ... . ....— ----x v •v. A �A%A Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 820 610 800 790 7$0 7701 760 750 740 730 720 710 700 690 680 570 s 660 650 Section C - Global, Static - FScr — 1.0208 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 206 f 1P•///('• /Arn..ramTlata/TP,. a\xli�/CT A RT o/ 7(1\xlVo/ 7/17 MQ/T?Ar...r+o/AA,�..r+ h+ml 17 /12 /7111 A i ubv a v1 z STALL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section C - Global, Static, Resultant Force 12.5 Kips Number of Boundaries: 24 Number of Surface Boundaries: 9 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 200 680 250 ]1702 2 250 702 1[270 :]1711 3 270 11 711 280 :]1711 2O 4 5 —71 6 280 310731 336 11742 711 310 336 381 731 742 E50_ 8 431 761 493 11781 9 493 11 781 543 :11 801 10 543 11 801 625 :118221 11 1- 282 11 712 308 7777 712 12 308 712 455 761 13 455 11 761 471 774 14 471 774 483 777 15 200 673 250 :11 692 3 16 250 692 275 698 17 275 698 285 :11704 O 207 flP•///(•/U,.,.,,�,,,Thto/TA,,��x7;�/CTAnT A fur, c, vim 118 11704 1 300 11709 0 0 ::1 19 300 709 313 709 0 ::1 1� 20313 709 440 747 Fo ::1 21 440 747 450 750 0 22 450 11 750 1 456 755 0 23 456 755 525 780 24 525 780 1 F25. 809 3 Smallest x value: 200 Largest x value: 625 Smallest y value: 673 Largest y value: 822 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 5 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit 1vi,,t. Intercept ' �,>, _ Anile Parameter Constant Table KI130 130 225 22 0 0 ::1 F2 1130 130 275 26 0 0 ::1 1� I- 1140 140 400 35 0 Fo ::1 4 140 140 50 45 0 0 SF130 130 0 14.2 0 0 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 208 f;1P•///(•/A,.,.rro.,,Tl�to/TA,,�\xT;�/CTaRT o/7(1\x7Vo/7117(1(1Q/T?A,,n,r�/T?A.,.,,rl,r.,,l 11 /1/7111 A — .. . — i, i. .. — . -.. .... a♦ — •\arrJvar a.J Bart V1\ ! 1 ar,% J Vl T TIEBACK PROPERTIES (COMMAND] 'TIES') Number of Ties: 1 Ties Tieback Boundary No. x y Load Hz Spacing Inclination Free Length Fixed Length �4 [01 [718] F7710 110 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 22 Number of surfaces per point: 22 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 250 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 300 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 450 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 525 Minimum elevation: 300 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.257 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 209 f1A•///f'•/A,...rro.„Tloro/Ta,,��7�7;�/CTDRT o/7fl�xTVo/7(17MQ/Ao,,.,,*�/i?o..r..f 1�+...1 17/2/'1!11 A 11 J 1.257 2 1.2643 3 1.2871 -4 1.2953 5 1.3163 6 1.6049 7 1.6544 8 1.6855 9 1.6911 10 1.7372 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Section C- Global, Static, Resultant Force 12.5 Kips - FScr = 1..257 820 810 B00 790 780 770 760 750 740 730 720 710 680 670 660 650 ! 200 250 300 350 400 450 lar,c-rVI -r 500 550 600 210 f;1P•///f•/prn�TromriotolTArro�l;T;lQTARTo/7(1\xTVo/7M11114/Ao...,+�/A�...,t1,+-1 1)/2PIM n APPENDIX C GEOTECHNCAL GEOLOGICAL DATA FROM PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS Chen Residence M 14-1876 HAMILTON & Associates November 21, 2014 Page 31 211 Project Name /.,:, "z /f rtrf'� f Date - ,�5" --4' 7 Project Number /Q - 4�, 575' 7 -Drifting Company Equipment 5, "' ��' 672- Drive Weight Average Drop 12- Elevation (ft) Hole Diameter y 'd Engineer/Geologist 5 a CIO 3lu" w GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 1 ell, J► 7 % 7� trs C -K " -;0►i 7> A w` 1 L) 13 -10 :+" P 10 bru G, 1 K� � � wu -15 C- r v n 15 20 20 -20 4 , 25 -25 �! � � � -�c� X114 r" �" 1 1 ' •t`y 30 -30 BORING NO. 1 212 Project Name [ tz /, Gf7,a p rA r-rA) Date q — i S C> -7 Project Number /c, —07— 577 5— Drilling Company Equipment Drive Weight Average Drop / z a Elevation (ft) Hole Diameter 7 q lEngineer/Geologistj 5 7,IR o w A i GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION p w > L S. / A17 J ;;F G�+ W 5c K I 'f' [`V A -C � A E I.f .,J r�Aw -10 10 -15 �1 )Ac -4 , • � `r S�P(pvsa"� � G ,h S 15 s OAw'�vt?.�f -20 U a.4 } A r` -25 T Z1 "v 1 1v rye 'FWt ' -30 C- ` Vie, _ EE HAA 1 �)P. r,� C"' �•'. ,per±; . BORING NO, Z :� . ZIZ��� TEST PIT LOG pROACT NAME: U% / tJ. '! Plf) ,C�M JOB NO.: JO -07 - LOCATION: O-U]-E,OCATION: t 1 I i..o Sl e. _ I =�1 EOUiPMEM: LOGGED BY: S N L L L.• _ GROUND ELEVATION: s J6 1-5 r7 - TEST••PIT NO. LOGGED BY: Z GROUND ELEVATION: Fr TEST PIT NO. 2- NA test,,,. t -7 f/epcar, cj- - 12� A d $ Lj 4"k 4e ca�,7 Tr t? A c. l;.! rD; TREND: DESCRIPTION jCom! i. 0,4,-'k I`if awriy Srl�`� JA/c-7 Lnca5 ej Ve i� poio+._, -s�. AAAW 3'S c t fTj / /I JUA ve l I,-- InL nj 20.o./) $,N -= �L-►�kl�% TREND: DESCRIPTION 214 l�Sa} t _ SGS,_ 4ti t SG --- - 4,Ar,7 �f.�r��►�c� 77, 3t'C7 p" I� F LOGGED BY: Z GROUND ELEVATION: Fr TEST PIT NO. 2- NA test,,,. t -7 f/epcar, cj- - 12� A d $ Lj 4"k 4e ca�,7 Tr t? A c. l;.! rD; TREND: DESCRIPTION jCom! i. 0,4,-'k I`if awriy Srl�`� JA/c-7 Lnca5 ej Ve i� poio+._, -s�. AAAW 3'S c t fTj / /I JUA ve l I,-- InL nj 20.o./) $,N -= �L-►�kl�% TREND: DESCRIPTION 214 TEST PIT- LOG PROJf;CT NAME: Lo f i l,,q L ^Aj t_ JOB NO.: /,0 - ta]- S`7'� DATE: LOCATION: ,C�, lE1C 2-, a �- rp% �- N EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION: rr TEST PIT NO. E tic IS DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY_ 77 GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: SQL' �!~ TESD- PIT NO. _ �� m CX7-iit W 4.4+ TD. I61 14 A TREND: DESCRIPTION 215 ee, eo c %L S ' - �1J���5liC�Lla6 _ C l.,7 DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY_ 77 GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: SQL' �!~ TESD- PIT NO. _ �� m CX7-iit W 4.4+ TD. I61 14 A TREND: DESCRIPTION 215 PROJECT NAME: Z -p r Z- G" LOCATION: LOGGED BY: T GROUND ELEVATION: �T TEST PIT NO. -6- TEST PIT LOG �i A +[.lf I JOB NO.: / D -07 --S-75` DATE: . J --,0 '7 EW PMENT. - ,.,&FAc k G� e LOCA-noft -SCC /pLAA%. _ TREND - DESCRIPTION a O or q /'rteAIZ s a✓A A LoU i s 3 G✓ " }t �o D� JL `pa ov . t + z"'oft, s 5 2 LOGGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION. LDCATION: TREND: F:,T fF's I p i r N O r�rn r.ir�T 216 v P `7 04) i >1 Ill �a,� off A 216 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER5 CON5ULTZNG, Inc TRENCH LOG Surface Elevation: NA Logged By: TH Trench Orientation: E -W Date: 10130J10 Trench Dimensions: 2.0'X 1.0'X15.0' Equipment: Excavator 1 P-7 Groundwater Depth: NA This log is a representation of subsurface conditions at the time C& place of excavation. SAMPLE _... - 0 3 G o ENGINEERING o b a o w CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION PG H Gt1 w� Aa A �� 0 - 5' (on slope), Fill: ML Brown and light gray clayey silt and gravel/cobble, loose. 5.0 ML 5' - 8' Native: _ Residual soil, dark brown silty clay with weak fragments, _ moist — SM - sw 8' -15' Bedrock: to Catalina Schist, hard, moderately well foliated. Fol: N35W, 25NE N28W, 25NE 5 N545W TOTAL DEPTH =15.0 FEET Af 5 Ground Surface L LM1 --- SIC r 15' Location @ Situation: 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 FOLD Surface Gradient: NA Scale: — 5 Uffich Project No.: FC0907 217 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc.. T5 Ground surface Af (Qls) 5' QIS AC Pavement 10' f— •S '.•4 •\•\.\•♦ U"ZI ♦ t. ti \rNi \ 1.•.�'.•.\!\. \sti.• •\,\rr tik �lr ar. i7't rir 1.'\� \,1 1 Base -------- SC 15' Location 0 Situation: Surface Gradient NA 10 Chaparrdl Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 - Scale: - 5 ft./inch Project No.: FC0907 218 TRENCH LOG Surface Elevation: NA Logged By: SS P Trench Orientation: E -W Date: 10/30/10 Th -8 Trench Dimensions: 2.0'X 15.0'X15.0' Equipment: hand digging Groundwater Depth: NA This log is a representation of subsurface conditions at the time @ place of excavation. SAMPLE a o ENGINEERING o b A A W CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION F Pra w® Aa A _ 0 -5' (on slope) Fill SW Gray Silt with Shale fragments and reddish brown clayey silt with _. shale fragments. 2.5 SM Moist, loose, porous with woods. - Shy Qls ( includes fill above) - Mixture of fill as above, dark brown residual soil, and shale - fragments, overrides AC pavement. - Bedrock: 5.0 SM Catalina Schist, very hard, difficult to excavate, Schist. SW Fol: N05W. 11SW. T5 Ground surface Af (Qls) 5' QIS AC Pavement 10' f— •S '.•4 •\•\.\•♦ U"ZI ♦ t. ti \rNi \ 1.•.�'.•.\!\. \sti.• •\,\rr tik �lr ar. i7't rir 1.'\� \,1 1 Base -------- SC 15' Location 0 Situation: Surface Gradient NA 10 Chaparrdl Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 - Scale: - 5 ft./inch Project No.: FC0907 218 220 w1elfprold =—z o�i�■yea is M Emil Milli RmummmiiiiliiiimmmgiiIIN gill 1 111111111 0 WHOM oI��ii ei ��11l oil pi�Wl■A■�91 ��id! 1111011111110 HOME 1 1111111101111 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 Normal Pressure (ps� Strain Rate: 0.0042 in. / min. 2 C& 10' Undisturbed Sandy Silt 136.8 3.8 & Saturated w. rock Frgmts Normal Pressurg Wsfj Peak Shear SILP.,ngth jp�ifj Ultimate 5h?,gr Strength (psf) 2000 1640 @ 0. 1680" 1400 4000 4810 @ 0.2320" 4790 220 PROJECT NUMBER: FC0907 SAMPLE: B-1 PAR TICL SIZE ANAL YSIS SM: 10 Chaparral Lade, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 DEPTH: 1-5 ft, � rr r. rrrr r.r� rr�r r�r flrriwrr �.i ��7���tiYrlr�la�a 14 1.0 0.1 FARMCLS I,1LkME'MR IN MM 0.01 0 10 20 so 40 - so 70 80 90 1100 0.001 COBBLES CNAVBL, SAID SILT AND CLAY FRACTION u+rM fM 221 PPOFE SIONAL ENGINE-EkS CONSULTING, Inc PARTICL SIZE ANAL YSIS PROJECT NUMBER: FC0907 SITE: 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 SAMPLE: B-2 DEPTH: 1-5 ft. amAR smvE 1u&grAmmwsmwmwBm OfI NWGS s• z- t.!i• 1. IJ2- 4 0 i° 4o s0 120 100 �.��: -rte ► . 90 so 70 Bo 40 SO 20 10 0 100 10 1.0 0.1 PARTICLE DMMETER IN MM 0.01 a 10 20 30 -- 40 -- 60 70 so - 90 100 0.001 222 CWAV 4f., SA" doom aa. cor=e COMAU l fm 222 EGL BORING LOG B -1a PROJECT LOCATION: Bronco Drive, RarSd,.o Palos Verdes, California PROJECT NO. 05-23440SEG epic w S: standard Petwrzo ► To" R: Rirp SPmple 2 g I ° DATE DRILLIED:50 18-06 SAMPLE METHOD: 2ik.� $ r c 16uger ELEVATION: NIA LOGGED BY: RY Deaaiption of MateRai Fill: 4 SC 1 125.5 a,8 mottled yellowish brown gravelly clayey sill, moist, firm. with large siliceous bolders. 20" to 25", asphalt fragments Bedrock: 5 6 119.3 4.4 @ 41, bedrock of grayish while schist, quartzite sugens, fractured and jointed Q 8', schlslI vein, h" foliation, highly weathered 10 3 129.4 7.7 10.5', N 34 W l 94 N - foliation 12', quartz vein with change in attitudes 135, N 14 W 136 N-follation �S 119.6 8.3 30 35 1W, chW(e deposits, with rerrdets and pockets 20-24'. Siliceous quarIzite, with wedge failures when disturbed 25.N54W141N Q 28', highly stained zone, red, ferrWdes 34', dV'0111ite, stiff present with *nroxddes, N 40 W 145 N - foliation 35' rock became very hard, intac k sample collection unavailable page 1 223 EGL BORING LOG 8-2& PROJECT LWATION: Bronco Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California PROJECT NO: 34a0BEG samprQ s TL 5 10 i5 35 s: Srer Wd Fww4 Vcn Test aa: fto sample `I DATE DRILLIED, X5-1 SAMPLE METHOD,. 4-' Gh flu ftLL ger ELEVATtON. KIA LOGGED BY: RY Dasc/l'ptivn of Matalfal 5 SC 126,7 5.B Clrr�rey silly sand dark brOwn_sli�htiy moist ro r t} r -t, dense, porous, Asphalt frxpvrents_ 2 1 SC 1 115.4 1 1,1,o i Clayey silty sand, darts brown, moist, loose to medium dense, emitted grayish white, 2 108.7 ��' natural l SC Y4Yilty sand with gravelly �s'�Y daYey matrix, moist, loose to medium den seporous, rocky and gravelly 14A f Bedrock Q 13' sncounteredk I bedrock severely weathered, clayey matrix. with sheared and fractional qua& schists Q 15.6', N 5a E / 3ON - foliation 0 17.6', N 65 E 166 N - fottatton Q 19, top of Catalina Schist 0 26, clay, grayish white, mOW, firm, highly undulatory and foliated, multi -colored, dark brown-white-Ilght WaY. N 28 E 152 N - Tofidtlon 0 27', N 26 E 126 N - foliation It 3+4', granulated tenses and foiiatiorrs, N 10 E 126 N-fodetion, hard siliceous quartz 34.5. Idnked fokts, not continuous, localized 35', rack material became very hard, sample collection unavailable page 3 224 A EGL BORING LOG B -2b 415, cored section v+n'th hard quartzge oore healed fractures b secgndary growths, 55 W 140 N - folation, with rotation 43', N 2 W / 45 N- foliatlon Drilling terminated a 46' Total Depth 46 feet No Groundwater Hoke BaW led Hammer Drtv4 Height =18 inches Hammer Driving Welght = 4800 for 0'-25' 2000 Ib for 25'-5O' 900 Ib for 60'-75' 55 70 page 4 225 PROJECT LoCATiON; Bronco Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, Casifornla DATE DRILLIED: 0•�-_1a-ns PROJECT NO: 06.234-005EG SAMPLE METHOD:' 244r?r h Bucket A er ELEVATiON: NIA LOGGED BY: RY Sample N S: Standard Penetrafti Taal R: Ring Sample a3 m o Qesclfpf on Of AUforfai 415, cored section v+n'th hard quartzge oore healed fractures b secgndary growths, 55 W 140 N - folation, with rotation 43', N 2 W / 45 N- foliatlon Drilling terminated a 46' Total Depth 46 feet No Groundwater Hoke BaW led Hammer Drtv4 Height =18 inches Hammer Driving Welght = 4800 for 0'-25' 2000 Ib for 25'-5O' 900 Ib for 60'-75' 55 70 page 4 225 ECL BORING LOG B4a PROJECT LMATION: Bronco Dsive, Rancho Palos Vetoes, Caiifarnie PROJECT N0: flS-2311 t305EG s: Ttandwd Psnatra>on Test RE R: RkV Sampts Fye go DO 5 10 15 20 DATE DRILL1ED: ,15.1 SAMPLE METHOD: 4-3noh BtL(-.1(_Chuger ELEVAT)ON: NIA LOGGED BY: RY Descrip6w of Material FRI: Gravelly ai sarsd, dark brow maist, Term art¢ rnedlurn dense Deftck: bedrock of schlst with clayey matrix Q 2' -12', quartz layer, highly jointed, cross pint, N 81 W 130 N-fo6adon 1T, clayoy sheared chlorite schist, high day content, highly fellated, undulatory, firm, 67 W 141 N - fbllation, N 50 W 115 S - Ulation 17, bottom of clayey layer, top of hard sAloeous yellowish brown quartz schist 26, top of mineraliied veMlets, right, hard, well foilatod, N 25 W 145 5 - foliation, 27 W 129 N - foliation 29 bedrock bucarne very hard, in lack sarnple aoltectlort not available 3T, rnineralized acme, ►vertical ern 504thern portion, N 84 W 190 & N 16 E 143 N - Wt 401, day, white and yellowish brawn, malst, 6vfrn, undulatory, N 1 i W 124 N - fotteAon batwoQn auartz fokls page 6 226 EGL BORING LOG B, 4b PROJECT LOCATION; Bronco Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, Callfarrtia DATE DRILLIEb: gviB Q . PROJECT NO: Q5-23+W5EG SAMPLE METHOD: 2a -In QUr.,ket Iwger ELEVATION: , NIA LOGGED BY: RY Sample o ' o I � Q $o $0 5: 6tandard PwW a1 w Teat WE R: Ring sample 7 .. 1F ® 42% diiti'mg terminated 1)eScffPu017 of Materiel Total Depth 42 feel No Groundwater Hole Backfilled Hammer0rivVig Height =18 inches Hammer Driving Weight = 4900 Ib for 0' -25 a 28dd Ib for 26'-W - 900 Ib fbr 50'-75' PLATE A-3 page 7 227 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc. 41 quotz 4) SOO GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING INSPECTION 25422 Trabuco Rd. #105 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Phone 949-768-3693 in/o(0pesoil.com 27636 Ynez Road, # L7 Temecula, CA 92591 Phone 951-698-4598 www.pesoil.com RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGIC REPORT SITE: 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 DATE: April 30, 2014 LM0414 PREPARED FOR: Luis de Moraes, AIA Envirotechno Architecture 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California 90066 228 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc. Soil Report Review by Zeiser Kling Consulting, Inc. 10 Chaparral., Rancho Palos Verdes, California PN 97082-1642. April 30, 2014 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Page 1 of 3 SUBJECT: Response to the reviewer's comment, TD 6207, PN 97082-1642, dated October 27, 2011, issued by Kling consultants, Inc. Dear reviewers: Per your request, we are submitting you our responses on the subject geotechnical/geology review letter, regarding the construction of a single family residence at 10 Chaparral lane , Rancho Palos Verdes, California: 1. As previously requested, please provide revised slope stability analysis based on the "new" location and height of the retaining wall. Additional Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): 2. A caisson wall is to be used to mitigate the landslide. 'rhis wall should be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. Based on proposed wall location, a major portion of the wall will be located on the adjacent property. City should confirm that all appropriate encroachment permits are obtained. Slope stability analyses were performed based on the new location and height of the wall. We also considered the impact of the proposed seepage pit on the slope stability by considering the entire area as saturated condition ( cross section 1 -II') . The slope stability analyses as shown on planes I & 2 and Figures 1 to 6, exhibited factor of safety of over 1.5 The groundwater in the area is very deep and will not interfere with the septic system. Our 45 feet deep borings did not encounter any water. It is our opinion that there will not be any negative impact on the slope stability from the septic system. 229 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc. Soil Report Review by Zeiser Kling Consulting, Inc. 10 Chaparral., Rancho Palos Verdes, California PN 97082-1642. Page 2 of 3 Retaining wall supporting landslide As shown on Figures 6 - 7 and also planes A & B. we performed slope stability analyses based on 12 feet high retaining wall, supported by caissons with the minimum depth of 30 feet. Slope stability analyses demonstrated factors of safety of over 1.5. It is our opinion that the new retaining wall will provide sufficient stability. As a minimum, followings must be taken into account to validate our opinion: CAISSONS Cast in place caissons should have a minimum of 36 -inch diameter and embedded for a minimum depth of 30 feet from the bottom of the footing. Depth of the embedment is subject to increase based on the final review of the plans and final structural calculations per structural engineer. Diameter 36 inches Coefficient of friction 0.35 End bearing pressure 7,000 Ib/ft2/ft depth Concrete Type V cement with 0.45 W/C Fixity point: 7 feet below surface Pier Reinforcing: To full depth of the pier excavation. Expansion Low (20) 230 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc. APPENDIX "A" FIGURES 231 N M u u c N 11i Z 0 U W W Z zg W Z O H W LL at d 232 0�1 � .w U W II '� O a o U a a � a � L a a a z l U ami u c N 11i Z 0 U W W Z zg W Z O H W LL at d 232 �C x C N / 1 1 ` q 11 D z i �I I 11 1 0 N G� U - --- ---------- - U oz �o LTi CIO wM a W A w 0 a a o o CIS C z A U o w C N / 1 1 ` q 11 D z i �I I 11 1 0 U - --- ---------- - U oz �o CIO wM 233 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc. APPENDIX "B" Slope stability analyses Calculations 234 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING Inc. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 LANDSLIDE AREA, 0=26° PLANE A SATURATED L = 255 feet Wet Density = 145 psf 0 = 25 degrees C = 100 psf SLICE I° AREA W(KIPS) D=W Sin I N=W Cos I 1 28 700 101.50 47.65 89.62 2 20 1575 228.38 78.11 214.60 3 14 1970 49.25 11.91 47.79 4 9 2150 215.00 33.63 212.35 R=N TAN 0 + CL= 288.7 F.S.=R/D= 1.69 OK 235 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING Inc. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 LANDSLIDE AREA, 0=26" PLANE B SATURATED L = 255 feet Wet Density = 145 psf 0 = 26 degrees C = 100 psf SLICE I° AREA W(KIPS) D=W Sin I N=W Cos I 1 30 1125 163.13 81.56 141.27 2 18 2700 391.50 120.98 372.34 3 6 3200 83.20 8.70 82.74 TOTAL 215.86 861.31 R=N TAN 0 + CL= 445.6 F.S.=R/D= 2.06 OK 236 %AWOMOW 950 REGE1VEDMdW?-- -y y-. I c z 20 HAMILTON 1641 Border Avenue • Torrance, CA 90501 T 310.618.2190 888.618.2190 F 310.618.2191 W hamilton-associates. net February 10, 2015 Project No. 14-1876-2 Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Chen c/o Envirotechno Architecture 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Subject: Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geotechnical Investigation Report Review Checklist (P.N. #97082-1642A dated January 26, 2015), Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California. References: See Attached List of References Dear Mr. Chen: Hamilton & Associates, Inc. is providing this letter as a response to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Soils Report Review Letter, P.N. #97082-1642A, dated January 26, 2015 for the subject project. A copy of the City's Review Letter is enclosed for your reference. Item 1: The subject site is within an open space hazard zone. The consultant has demonstrated that the open space hazard limit line (OSHLL) may be relocated to allow for construction of the proposed improvements from a geotechnical perspective. The geotechnical consultant shall provide a map illustrating the existing OSHLL through the entire project area and off site if necessary and the proposed OSHLL including how the two lines connect at either end of modification. Response: The attached Plate A-1 (updated February 2015) illustrates the existing OSHLL through the entire project area and off site as necessary and the proposed OSHLL, including how the two lines connect at either end of modification. Hamilton & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Construction Testing 8 Inspection Materials Laboratory 237 Item 2: The proposed new residence will be served by an on-site septic system. The proposed septic system shall be determined to be acceptable by the Los Angeles County Health Department. Confirmation shall be provided to the city prior to approval of geotechnical documents. Once approved, the septic system including leach field (if any) shall be illustrated on all future maps for the project. Response: Acknowledged. The client is requesting approval of the geotechnical documents at this time for planning purposes only. We understand that a separate percolation study shall be performed and approved by the County Health Department, prior to approval of the geotechnical documents for `Building and Safety' approval. Once approved, the septic system including leach field (if any) will be illustrated on all future maps for the project. Item 3 Prior to Building and Safety approval, the consultant shall provide a complete geotechnical grading/foundation plan review report based on an engineered plan for both the residence and associated retaining walls and improvements and the access road retaining wall. The results of subsurface investigation and laboratory testing should be included, along with detailed geologic cross sections depicting proposed structures, grading, temporary cuts, typical foundations, recommended setbacks, property lines, and adjacent structures. Response: Acknowledged. The client is requesting approval of the geotechnical documents at this time for planning purposes only. Once the project grading/foundation plan(s) are prepared, those documents shall be provided to the geotechnical and geological consultant to perform a complete geotechnical grading/foundation plan review report based on an engineered plan for both the residence and associated retaining walls and improvements and the access road retaining wall. The results of subsurface Chen Residence 10 February 10, 2015 14-1876-2 HAMILTON Page 2 & Associates 238 investigation and laboratory testing shall be included, along with detailed geologic cross sections depicting proposed structures, grading, temporary cuts, typical foundations, recommended setbacks, property lines, and adjacent structures. We thank you for the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. le Alex nder L. s Staff EngineerGO ,?RpF ESSIaN�I MAS SE 2721 m Exp. CLQ CHv NO avid T. Hamilton, M. Principal Engineer Attachments: List of References City of RPV Soils Report Correction List, dated January 26, 2015 Plate A-1 Geotechnical Site Plan (Updated February 2015) Chen Residence ®i February 10, 2015 14-1876-2 HAMILTON Page 3 & Associates 239 REFERENCES 1. Hamilton and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Report, Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project No. 14-1876, dated November 21, 2014 2. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Report Review Checklist, Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, P.N. 97082-1642A, dated December 24, 2014 3. Hamilton and Associates, Inc., Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Review Checklist, Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project No. 14-1876, dated January 13, 2015 4. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Report Review Checklist, Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, P.N. 97082-1642A, dated January 26, 2015 Chen Residence M February 10, 2015 14-1876-2 HAMILTON Page 4 & Associates 240 a 20.0' � 420 21.0' -,A.-42° 32° 28..0' 10'5' 35° 33.5' Bi' 43° 7.50' -�- 32° 13.5' 1 s.0' 330 ' 33° 25.0' 28.0' W 32° 7.00' 23° 8.00' � 160 Approximate Lovatio,"b;`,>.s. Proposed SeepageLfit pproximate Limits or Existing Proposed (OH , oundary) Setback Line 4 • GEOTECHNICAL SITE PLAN Approximate Location of Proposed Carson � -r � - T � �•-• Landslide .Scarp Scars Retaining Wall j i required Slope Setback and A' C' Slough Wall Catchment Area �Z-► PEC -2 LEGEND , QI�, �Coia'- S:/Jc 'e",, • �}'- PEC -3 c� Approximate Location of s IHamilton & Associates, Inc. C ''•'r►• -7 `' - �"'" y EGL -2 Existing }H (open Space •'a;°` 'EC -8 ® Hazard) Boundaryine Test Pits . ,4 Approximate Location of Professional Engineers PEC 1 22° Consulting, Inc. Test Pits .co 0 .Y YY.YIfYYeI fY•f *28° 146-6 G M& •' few. 12.0' •..f,Y•,f..f '/ Approximate Location of EGL pp PEC -4 Test Pits 12.0' / � � �.,, s• i ° Approximate Location of �•fry'�C JC 300 - Hamilton & Associates, Inc. Soil H,& 4 2.00 Borings pj 17.0' 150 450-3 2.4° 26.0' Approximate Location of - ,..� }, . f 33° 430 Professional Engineers, Inc. Soil �pEC h� 37.0' Borings, 2007 o 01 ,,Approximate Location of ,,`i 30° Proposed Shear Pins and 15.5' 55° Keyway ` EQQ 21.0' 29° 17.5' 52 7° 26.0' l 27.0 26° Quarfzose Dike 28.5' 27.0' 54° 34.0' -V--40* 36.0' T 41.5' � 56° Rock FallT 43.0' 45° PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes CA Q Hamilton &Associates -�- Approximate Location of EGL Soil Borings, 2006 Scale: 1 "=50' Site Plan Reference: City of Rancho Palos Verdes PROJECT NO: 14-1876-2 (Updated: February 2015) PLATE A-1 241 Geologic Legend 840 10'5' Qcol Colluvium Bi' 6° 13.5' ° Qls/Qlsr Landslide/recent ,_/ 41 25.0' 7 Jc Catalina Schist 450 34.0' Geologic Contact 47.0'30° 51.0 340 200 Approximate Strike and Dip of Folliation Q Hamilton &Associates -�- Approximate Location of EGL Soil Borings, 2006 Scale: 1 "=50' Site Plan Reference: City of Rancho Palos Verdes PROJECT NO: 14-1876-2 (Updated: February 2015) PLATE A-1 241 Category 3 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES P.N. 97082-1642A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESPONSE REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: January 19, 2015 Date Completed: January 26, 2015 Date of Response: January 13, 2014 September 15, 2011 October 4, 2011 Consultant: Hamilton & Associates Their Job No.: 14-1876 Signed By: David T. Hamilton License/Expiration Date: GE 2721 Exp 6/30/15 August 5, 2010 Michael F. Mills December 18, 2009 CEG 994 Exp 2/29/16 Prior Report: November 21, 2014 Prior Review: December 24, 2014 Applicant Name: Kevin Chen C/o Envirotechno Architects Legend: N =No Site Address: 10 Chaparral Lane Y =Yes Rancho Palos Verdes, California NA = Not Applicable Lot/Tract No.: A.P.N.: Proposed Project: New single family l and 2 story residence with associated retaining walls, swimming pool and on-site septic. Chaparral Lane access to be expanded by a caisson retaining wall. Prior Reviews by Others Consultant: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. Their Job No.: FC0907 Date of 70' Response: October 5, 2011 Prior Reviews: October 27, 2011 Date of 6"' Response: September 15, 2011 October 4, 2011 Date of 5th Response: February 1, 2011 February 17, 2011 Date of 4tb Response: December 29, 2010 January 27, 2011 Date of 3rd Response: July 28, 2010 August 5, 2010 Date of 2nd Response: December 18, 2009 January 25, 2010 Date of 1St Response: September 15, 2008 October 2, 2008 Original Report: November 4, 2007 November 26, 2007 • Geotechnical Response: EN Responsive to checklist comments N Grading/foundation plans changed as a result of response • Recommended Actions: Planning Department: In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes In Concept Approval for Open Space Hazard Relocation Building and Safety: Report Approved Conditional Approval (See Below) X Additional Input Required Items requiring response/further evaluation: I . The subject site is within an open space hazard zone. The consultant has demonstrated that the open space hazard limit line (OSHLL) may be relocated to allow for construction of the proposed improvements from a geotechnical perspective. The geotechnical consultant shall provide a map illustrating the existing OSHLL through the entire project area and off site if necessary and the proposed OSHLL including how the two lines connect at either end of modification. 2. The proposed new residence will be served by an on-site septic system. The proposed septic system shall be determined to be acceptable by the Los Angeles County Heath Department. Confirmation shall be provided to the city prior to approval of geotechnical documents. Once approved, the septic system including leach field (if any) shall be illustrated on all future maps for the project. 3. Prior to Building and Safety approval, the consultant shall provide a complete geotechnical grading/foundation plan review report based on an engineered plans for both the residence and associated retaining walls and improvements and the access road retaining wall. The results of subsurface investigation and laboratory testing should be included, along with detailed geologic cross sections depicting proposed structures, grading, temporary cuts, typical foundations, recommended setbacks, property lines, and adjacent structures. S:\projects\1997\97082\97082-1642A 2nd Review 1-15.doc 10 Chaparr242 Category 3 P.N. 97082-1642A CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESPONSE REVIEW CHECKLIST Additional Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): 4. Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E./G.E.) have signed the final dated grading/foundation plans, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. 5. The proposed new residence will be served by an on-site septic system. The proposed septic system shall be determined to be acceptable by the Los Angeles County Heath Department. Confirmation shall be provided to the city prior to approval of geotechnical documents. 6. A caisson wall is to be used to mitigate the landslide adjacent access road. This wall should be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. Based on proposed wall location, a major portion of the wall will be located on the adjacent property. City should confirm that all appropriate encroachment permits are obtained. 7. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report should include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. Limitations: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendAons made by the gcotecllnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. BY;J fines~ . Lancaster, Jr., C.E.G.192 Expires6/30/16 Dante P. D mingo, R,Ca.E. 57939 Expires 6/30/16 KLII�i CONSULTING GROUP,IIC. KLING CONSULTING GROUP, INC. S:\projects\1997\97082\97082-1642A2iid Review 1-15.doc 10 Chaparral Lane G1 / 000so HAMILTON & Associates REc N ED r1i.c11�1c� sA}. 1641 Border Avenue • Torrance, CA 90501 T 310,618 2190 888.618 2190 F 310.618.2191 W hannillon-associates.net January 13, 2014 Project No. 14-1876 Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Chen c/o Envirotechno Architecture 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Subject: Response to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geotechnical Investigation Report Review Checklist (P.N. #97082-1642A dated December 24, 2014), Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California. References: See Attached List of References Dear Mr. Chen: Hamilton & Associates, Inc. is providing this letter as a response to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Soils Report Review Letter, P.N. #97082-1642A, dated December 24, 2014 for the subject project. A copy of the City's Review Letter is enclosed for your reference. Item 1: The subject site is within an open space hazard zone. The consultant shall label existing zone on site maps and provide location of proposed zone. The consultant shall provide justification and discussion for relocation of zone. Response: Acknowledged, Plate A-1 had shown the 'proposed' (OH Boundary) setback line and has now been updated to include the `existing' Open Hazard (OH) Boundary for reference. After performing a thorough Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation of the subject property, including stability analysis, it is recommended that the proposed setback line be adjusted as shown on the appended Plate A-1. Hamilton & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Constructlon Fasling & Inspectlon Materials laboratory 244 Item 2: Figure 5 appears to be from the 2008 Palos Verdes Peninsula Landslide Inventory Map Series and illustrates various landslides in the area, yet is labeled Regional Fault Map. Please clarify and re -label as necessary. Response: Noted; Figure 5 has been re -labeled and appended. Item 3 The consultant speaks of hard quartzite bed/sill that trend across the site and into and across the canyon below in a number of places. Is this feature the feature illustrated as a dike in Plate A-2? Response: Yes, the feature is a quartzose vein that is, in form, a resistant dike. It is thus deemed a Quartzose dike on Plate A-2. Item 4 Please identify on Plate A-1 or A-2, the location of the scarp resulting from rock fall/debris flow discussed on page 12. Response: The scarp is west of the property. It is in part separated from the building area by the aforementioned intervining quartzose dike shown on Plates A-1 and A-2. Item 5 Please illustrate the location of the proposed seepage pit on Plate A-1. Response: Noted; the appended Plate A-1 has been updated to include the location of the proposed seepage pit, which is centered on Boring B-1. Item 6 The infiltration zone as illustrated on cross section A -A' does not appear reasonable. It would appear that the water would build up and move within the weathered bedrock materials. Please provide infiltration information to justify the outlined zone of infiltration. If the zone is modified, please rerun stability analysis. Chen Residence Ila] January 13, 2014 14-1876 HAMILTON Page 2 & Associates 245 Response: Acknowledged, we have considered the effect that the hard bedrock would have on the infiltration zone of the seepage pit previously shown and thus illustrated a shallower line in the weathered bedrock than the hard bedrock. Per the city review, we have adjusted the zone to represent a more conservative estimation of the infiltration zone and have appended the updated Plate A-3. Slope stability analysis was rerun for static and seismic conditions with the updated infiltration zone and are summarized in the table below with detailed stability reports appended. Location of Analysis Static Factor of Safety (FS) Seismic Factor of Safety FS Global Slope 2.91 1.90 Lower Slope 2.11 1.54 However, it should be noted that through typical usage, the water level in the seepage pit may rarely fill up beyond the region of the hard bedrock given the bottom of the proposed seepage pit will be on the order of 60 feet deep from existing pad grade. Item 7 The consultant has indicated that the PGA for the site is O.415g. The USGS Design Maps Website indicates that the PGA is 0. 645g. Please review and clarify PGA. Response: It is acknowledged that the PGA of our site using the USGS Design Maps Website using ASCE 7-10 Design Code produces a PGA of 0.645g. Item 8 Please provide the Seismic Design Category for the site. Response: The Seismic Design Category for the site is Category D. Item 9 The consultant has used a benchmark factor of safety of 1.25 for the access road. The consultant shall provide new calculations to provide a factor of safety above 1.5 per city code section 15.18.090, 310.5. Chen Residence In January 13, 2014 14-1876 HAMILTON Page 3 246 Response: LANDSLIDE STABILITY ANALYSIS (ACCESS ROAD) The STABL computer program, using the Modified Bishop Method of Analyses for circular failure surfaces, was utilized to model the landslide in Section C -C'. Access road landslide strength values were determined to be c=0 psf and phi=14.2 degrees using back -analysis of the slide assuming a Factor of Safety = 1.0. Caisson retaining wall design pressures were determined from the resultant force required to achieve a satisfactory Factor of Safety for a 10 feet vertical face into the slide toe. Results of the analyses are summarized below. Summary of Landslide Analvsis and Caisson Retainina Wall Desian Based on the results of static and seismic slope stability analyses, we recommend that the Chaparral access road landslide be supported by a caisson retaining wall extending into the project site, as necessary to support the above slide. For a Factor of Safety of 1.25, Caissons should be deepened into schist bedrock to a depth necessary to support the landslide equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf for a 10 feet vertical face. For a Factor of Safety of 1.50, Caissons should be deepened into schist bedrock to a depth necessary to support the landslide equivalent fluid pressure of 650 pcf for a 10 feet vertical face. Stability Analyses indicate that the above slide relative to chaparral road would have a calculated global static factor -of -safety (F.S.) greater than the standard for access roads. Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference. Item 10: Will the proposed upslope catchment area require grading? Please clarify. The proposed catchment area appears to be beyond the property line in the area west of cross section B -B'. Please clarify. Chen Residence [0 January 13, 2014 14-1876 HAMILTON Page 4 247 Static Resultant Equivalent Fluid Section Factor of Force to Pressure to Safety (FS) Achieve Static Achieve Static FS FS Section C -C' (back -calculated strength 1.0 N/A N/A c=0 psf, phi=14.2 de) _ Section C -C' 1.25 15 kips/ft 300 pcf (Access Road) Section C -C' 1.50 32.5 kips/ft 650 pcf Access Road) Based on the results of static and seismic slope stability analyses, we recommend that the Chaparral access road landslide be supported by a caisson retaining wall extending into the project site, as necessary to support the above slide. For a Factor of Safety of 1.25, Caissons should be deepened into schist bedrock to a depth necessary to support the landslide equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf for a 10 feet vertical face. For a Factor of Safety of 1.50, Caissons should be deepened into schist bedrock to a depth necessary to support the landslide equivalent fluid pressure of 650 pcf for a 10 feet vertical face. Stability Analyses indicate that the above slide relative to chaparral road would have a calculated global static factor -of -safety (F.S.) greater than the standard for access roads. Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference. Item 10: Will the proposed upslope catchment area require grading? Please clarify. The proposed catchment area appears to be beyond the property line in the area west of cross section B -B'. Please clarify. Chen Residence [0 January 13, 2014 14-1876 HAMILTON Page 4 247 Response: The proposed upslope catchment area will be graded as part of the pad grading. It is acknowledged that the catchment area was shown beyond the property line, Plate A-1 has been updated to show the catchment area within the property and is appended below. Item 11 Please confirm that the Sol value provided was utilized in determining the maximum seismically induced lateral earth pressure provided. Please provide calculations. Response: Using SDS the maximum seismically induced lateral earth pressure is 11.3H2, which is lower than the 14H2 value provided in the report. 11.3H2 may be used for design. Calculations are provided below. The above value was determined using the following equation: (1 1 2XyX(1—kv)XK,�E- —2XyXKA)H2 X 130 X (1 — 0) X 0.629 — X 130 X 0.60 = 11.311 Item 12 On Plate A-1, it appears that 8-1 has been labeled H&A-1. Please correct. Response: Acknowledged, Plate A-1 has been updated to reflect the change and is appended to this response. Item 13 Please provide stability analysis for temporary cuts that will expose colluvium and intensely weathered bedrock materials. Response: Acknowledged, please see the appended stability report for analysis of temporary cuts that will expose colluvium and intensely weathered bedrock materials. Temporary cut stability was performed assuming a conservative case in which all excavations performed on the site were conducted in one phase, however, it should be noted that temporary excavations are recommended to be performed in phases based on the conditions exposed at the time of grading. Chen Residence {(DI January 13, 2014 14-1876 HAMILTON Page 5 248 Item 14 The consultant has indicated that rock debris and small mud/soil flows exist at the site. Please discuss the potential for debris/mud flow and if the proposed slough walls can deal with potential debris impact. Response: Stability analysis indicates an acceptable factor of safety however, the potential for debris flow and soil slips may exist along the natural slope behind the proposed residence. The potential for and the size of same varies according to slope morphology. The slope is rather planar with but first -order drainages that in general do not go far up slope. The possibility of debris flows is generally higher at the mouths of these drainages, as is the assumed volume of debris. Test pits in these draws penetrated about six feet of cumulative debris flow/wash sediments near their mouths. Along the more planar parts of the slope face, it is anticipated that less debris/soil/rock would be produced owing to thin soil accumulations on the active slope faces. Catchment devices should be designed to accommodate larger volumes near the drainages, whereas slough/impact walls along the planar slopes should be designed to impede soil slips and rock roll. Options include catchment fills of varying widths topped with impact/slough walls of varying height and designs. Many other impact wall, fence, catchment fill and impound trough designs have been used with success also. It appears that the large pad area has room to accommodate such devices. As detailed engineering plans evolve, the size and style of catchment devices can be incorporated based on the geotechnical information. Item 15 Please provide minimum recommendations for the proposed pool. Response: SWIMMING POOL & SPA It is recommended that the bottom of the pool be supported directly on approved compacted fill or firm weathered bedrock. The pool shell should be free standing and, depending on the pool location, caissons may be necessary to achieve building code setbacks. The proposed swimming pool shell shall be supported entirely upon the underlying fill or weathered bedrock. If during construction, variations of the earth materials are observed in the deep end versus shallow end of the pool, or between pool bottom versus the spa bottom, it may be required to deepen portions of the excavation to insure that the entire Chen Residence ® January 13, 2014 14-1876 HAMILTON Page 6 N Associate' 249 REFERENCES Hamilton and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Report, Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project No. 14-1876, dated November 21, 2014 2. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Report Review Checklist, Proposed Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, P.N. 97082-1642A, dated December 24, 2014 Chen Residence M January 13, 2014 14-1876 HAMILTON Page 9 & Associates 250 LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP ff{{ l�1'Yf��q Vc {*D; ,� , �` �"c Palos VCrdes };�! `�1���f� P'. �`.J•.i. ,rn 1 fj�,' �'.;. FiesBfv01! "'"=—tst@ . 1!7,e�G' 7r-• I' r - i +-e }ate -+t 1. / r, r '-• ,... "l:.,.., y n. N'.•'"a .`•,yam 4e r � . e I!r ti 7r' h � � + •� 1 r v --f � �`p �t"s '�15 � --•��• r ng , i 1 -,l ` tai.* > ' -_' • . 4 '�:J _� C� _ �f�l � �� � J`,�� , �.; r a� `•r, ���ecs s r�R t�� i N, aING • • r"y" °` ,p lot? ti "i' • �'. r "— ! �!� � y Y�1 ¢ . f rig � ,v��1 11, td .• 'r�{y QS i_�� � mel �,+ i y� •' + #` ,. M. , �,✓ � +i -' Ili,r'i t' h#n"�,;�--ee.�� ,. !a. „rriyIng Triangle . Landslide • Jd � '.. , ' .f'<<ti ��-,�.��� . .Yr11 � , '"-� a-' n.� . rk�r r�\'` �H•'.� ",� � ,..$r"•w`�,.� "'� 'ip� LEGEND: or HISTORIC: DEFINITE: qWACTIVE The landslide shows evidence of very recent movement (at the time me ���j Landslide exhibits many of the diagnostic landforms, including, but not aerial photograph was taken or field observation occurred) or records '^ limited to, prominent scarps, open cracks, rounded toes, offset show movement within historic time. streams, well-defined mid -slope benches, closed depressions, springs, DORMANT: and irregular or hummocky topography; or has clear records of CDThe observed landforms related to the landslide are generally subdued prehistoric, historic it ongoing activity From reports, aerial photography or instrumental monitoring. by erasion and covered by vegetation, and there is no evidence of historic movement. (� PROBABLE: (` DORMANT -OLD: ` Landslide exhibits several of the diagnostic landforms commonly �--�' The observed landforms related to the landslide have been greatly associated with landslides. These landforms may be modified by eroded, including significant gullies or canyons cut into the landslide erosion or obscured by vegetation such that other explanations are mass and/or main scarp by small streams. possible. However, the preponderance of evidcnre strongly auggeata ROCK SLIDE that a landslide HQ" exist. • J� A landslide involving bedrock in which the rock that moves remains largely intact for at least a portion of the movement Rock slides can • •• QUESTIONABLE: • •' • " • Landslide exhibits only one or a few of the diagnostic landforms range in size from small and thin to very large and thick, and ar'e subject associated with landslides. The landforms may be heavily modified by to a wide range of triggering mechanisms. The sliding occurs at the erosion, altered by grading, obscured by dense vegetation, or formed base of the rock mass along one to several relatively thin zones of by other geologic processes such as differential erosion of lithologic weakness, which are variably referred to in engineering geology reports and structural features in the underlying bedrock. and literature as "slide planes," "shear surfaces," "slip surfaces," "rupture surfaces," or "failure surfaces." The sliding surface may be curved or planar in shape. Rock slides with curved sliding surfaces are commonly BOUNDARY OF USGS QUADRANGLES called "slumps" or "rotational slides," while those with planar failure surfaces are commonly called "translational slides," "block slides," or "block glides." Rock slides that occur on intersecting planar surfaces are commonly called "wedge failures." DATE: (Updated) PROJECT: Chen Residence PROJECT NO: 14-1876 January 2014 © Hamilton & Associates FIGURE 5 251 20.0' 42° 21.0'. 42° 32° 28.0' 35° 33.5' 43° 7.50' �— 32° 13.5' 33° 19.0' y 33° 25.0' 28.0' Vl 320 7.00' � 23° 8.00' ►� 160 B Approxirhate Locatic r_. Proposed Seepage i pproximate Limits of €xisting FIN-,, Proposed (OH �oon dary) Setback Line I t GEOTECHNICAL SITE PLAN I Appr xirr�te Location of Proposed Carson -� +' i' �` Landslide Scarp Scars Retaining Wall ,4 �► - ? • Required Slope Seiback andC • Slough Wall Catchrrror7t Area j r c� • - _r _ - - PEC -2 � � � . - `tocol/Qls/Jc LEGEND ;PEC -3 ® Approximate Location of C ��'''�.; _� PU+-7 EGL -2 Existing QN"(Qpen Space Hamilton & Associates, Inc. t uEG-8 + - Test Pits • ,,: °" ? J Hw' ardj Bounda Line '••Lt ,; O -g Approximate Location of �sProfessional Engineers �,/�`•' [ ' .,r,�- QcI1Je PEC,, -t 10.01 22° Consulting, Inc. Test Pits JJ a ,,.c.................28° F 5J 12'0_ o Approximate Location of EGL I J •• , PEC -4 •"''• i� i r - r , •" Test Pits �.. 12.0' 26° - EG �;. 4col' l/Jc 30° JC 2.00' 3 s,^ 15° /, 17.0' }ti 26.0' J H 450 A- a .• - 24 X330 37.0' T 430 .. 14.0' 420 40.0' ._jjj, -- 240 Approximate Location of �`/ N � 300 ,Froposed Shear Pins and Keyway j �T; 6 550 1 t.. x 21.0'29® 17.5' 52 26.0' 260 370 -00 Quartzose 28.5' �— 27.0 '�.` �'.' �• -- „ _.. 36.0' 54° 34.0' —V--400-40° 41.5' Rock Fall 43.0' 450 PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes CA 84° 10.5' 13.5' _* ---"36° B' _/ 410 25.0' 7 45° 34.0' 47.0' 30° 51.0' 34° [0� Hamilton &Associates Geologic Legend Qcol Colluvium Qls/Qlsr Landslide/recent Jc Catalina Schist — Geologic Contact --A! 0* Approximate Strike and Dip of Folliation Approximate Location of 47- Hamilton & Associates, Inc. Soil Borings Approximate Location of Professional Engineers, Inc. Soil Borings, 2007 - Approximate Location of EGL Soil Borings, 2006 Scale: 1 "=50' Site Plan Reference: City of Rancho Palos Verdes PROJECT NO: 14-1876 (Updated: January 2015) PLATE A-1 252 . Vv ........... I 1011�p, Qls/Qcol X x Qls B L ProposedLandslide Scarp Residence Scars rc t Qls UA co LU :t Ct Quartzose Dike Rock Fall Debris Flow Area BI it< Topographic Map Showing Referenced Geologic Features Scale: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: 14-1876: Chen Residence Hamilton & Associates (Updated: January 2015) Plate A-2 253 900' 875' 850' 825' 800' 775' 750' 725' 700' 675' 625' 60 57 550' Property Line Existing Grade Cross Section A -A' Proposed Setback Proposed Compacted Fill Pad, Keyway, Subdrains, and Shear Pins to Support Residence EGL -3 H&A- 1 r � r Golluviumr r r r ? .�� Schist Bedrock Schist Bedrock • (Very Hard) i (Intensely -Weathered) r r r r � Ar` ✓ r r QIs7� e Approximate Transition Between Intensely Weathered -to -Very Hard Schist 521E `---� EGL -2 Property Line 6 PEC -2 011LH&A-3 PEC -3 s rrrF �rrSChistBedrock ,"•"' (IntenselyWeathered) r PEC -6 r B-1 �� J / Schist Bedrock Colluviurp (Very Hard) , " Urdocu rated Fill • _ � 30`41, ' = 38' \ \ Proposed Seepage Pit with ,,'TD Infiltration Zone 07°@64' \ 11"@69' \ ... TD = 74' \\ \ \ \ PROJECT: Chen Residence, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California Scale: 1"=50' 900' 875' 850' 825' ©c s 800' r 775' 750' 725' 700' 675' 650' 625' 600' 575' 550' (Updated: January 2015) PROJECT NO: 14-1876 ®� Hamilton & Associates Plate A-3 31JAM11NrUl LH 11-1ti1VLMM3UL13 'nrU1C1 rage 1 Ul J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section B - Building Pad, Static Number of Boundaries: 56 Number of Surface Boundaries: 27 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 125 J1630 168 630 2 168 630 273 671 3 273 671 290 682 4 290 682 300 684 5 300 684 301 671 6 301 11 671 11 310 671 7 310 671 311 675 8 311 675 325 675 9 325 675 326 678 10 F326 J1678 356 678 11 1 356 678 11 357 681 12 357 681 380 681 13 380 681 381 686 14 381 686 398 686 15 398 686 399 691 16 399 11 691 404 695 17 404 695 405 703 255 f;lA•///(`•/ArnrrromTloto/Tam\�h�/CTORT o/7fl�xlVo/7(17MQ/RP,�..,-to/RA,,.,,-r hr,,,l 1 /O /7 (11 S 31)AO1L ilvrui 1Jti1LAIAIN1J rvn3L)i,13 IS-nrvici 118 405 703 429 713 19 429 713 442 726 20 442 726 469 745 21 469 745 11487 750 22 487 11 750 527 11777 23 527 777 547 784 24 547 11,784 567 794 25 567 794 612 813 26 612 813 1 672 11842 27 [672 J1842 11 775 11863 28 127 618 165 618 29 165 621 175 625 30 175 625 300 670 31 300 670 310 670 32 310 670 311 674 3� 33 311 674 325 674 34 = 1 325 674 326 677 35 326 677 356 677 36 356 677 11 357 680 37 357 680 380 680 38 1 380 680 381 685 39 381 685 398 685 40 398 685 399 690 41 399 690 11 418 693 42 418 693 475 741 43 475 11 741 500 752 44 500 11 752 557 783 45 557 11 783 650 828 46 650 828 700 842 47 700 842 775 860 48127 605 166 605 ' rage /- 01 256 f,1A•///!•/Ar.,`rromTloto/Tn,,o�1,7;v/CTORT /0/7()1 G i13L 11NrU 1 1JIL1L-1 t11VLJ KC,')U1.1.3 KnrU1C1 49 166 1 610 175 612 0 50 175 612 338 11665 26 51 338 665 375 671 O 52 375 671 442 692 140 53 442 692 11 552 751 54 552 751 675 807 55 1 675 807 725 825 56 725 825 1 775 838 Smallest x value: 125 Largest x value: 775 Smallest y value: 605 Largest y value: 863 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage 3 Vl J Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 257 fla•///(`•/ArnrrromTlat�/Tarra�7ili•�/CT�RT o/7n�1;IVo/7MMQ/Rar�nrta/Rar�nrl l,tml 130 130 11 225 22 0 0 F 130 130 275 26 0 K7- 1 l� 3O 140 140 400 35 0 0 O F4 1140 140 1 50 45 0 0 0� SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 257 fla•///(`•/ArnrrromTlat�/Tarra�7ili•�/CT�RT o/7n�1;IVo/7MMQ/Rar�nrta/Rar�nrl l,tml 31IAOI1 11NrU1 1J1iI)A AIN LJ IS-n3UL.13 tcr,YVIC1 rage,+u1 j ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 350 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 425 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 450 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 550 Minimum elevation: 300 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.4771 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.4771 2 1.5241 3 1.5292 1.4 1.5319 5 1.5331 6 1.5356 7 1.5388 8 1.5398 9 1.5444 258 f;lA•///!•/hr�.rrro,,,Th+o/Tarr�t17;�/QTAPT /O/W)1 G .L31L1t3L 11Vru 1 litiiti Ei1VL I'LC.7lJL1L) icrrvni 110 11.5472 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 860 S40 820 S00 780 760 740 720 700 580 650 640 620 600 580 560 Section B. - Building Pati, Static FScr = 1.4771. rage j 01 j - ;--I r -- 150 204 250 300 350 400 450 5o0 550 600 650 700 750 259 f;lA•///(`•/Arn.rromTlota/Tarr��xliv/CTART �/7(1\xlVo/7(17(1(1Q/RPr,..,-to/RA,.nrt htrr,l 1 /Qhfll S 31IADJ. 11vrU 1 LLA1Ilk E1INLJ I1-C3U1113 11-nrvt�-1 rage 1 ui STALL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A - Lower, Static, Groundwater Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 11 572 L J 2 100 572 105 575 3 105 11 575 11 135 1595 O 4 135 595 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 6 218 634 233 642 7 233 642 263 655 8 263 655 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 10 [E38 ]1673 353 683 11 353 ii 683 390 684 12 390 684 391 693 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 693 500 705 15 500 705 571 733 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 745 650 765 O11 11 11 260 fila•///!`•/ArnrrramTloto/Ta+ro�lCl»/QT�RT /Q/7f11 S �ititsL,ii�r�i litiitit�i�L tcr,�ui,ia rcr,rvtci 118 1650 250 635 765 685 773 O 19 685 773 743 11 785 32 20 743 785 11 756 11792 h_J 33 21 756 792 11, - 770 804 34 22 770 1 804 790 814 23 88 562 125 582 O 24 125 11 582 11 250 635 687 25 250 635 300 655 O 26 300 11 655 359 672 492 27 F359 J1672 32 400 673 525 28 1,400 673 11414 11 1 676 3 29 414 676 11445 11 687 3 30 445 687 461 690 O 31 461 690 11 492 692 782 32 1 492 692 525 709 h_J 33 525 709 575 733 34 575 733 613 11745 150 I� 35 11 613 11 745 11 650 11763 36 11 650 11 763 760 782 37 760 11 782 790 800 38 88 11.555 _]I125 :]1..565 39 125 565 150 575 40 150575 259 620 41 259 ]1620 341 650 42 341 11 650 383 655 43 383 655 456 675 44 456 675 515 690 45515 690 541 700 �.J 46 541 700 700 11761 4� 47 700 761 725 763 48 725 763 11 750 770 I `' rap,e /- ui 261 �1p-Ifl�`"•f�+•nrrry+r+ri+ataf�'arr�`+�liYrlCTI�RT of?fitRlllot?f1?f1fhS21R�..,,rtelRr�nnrt l,tr„1 1 /Q/?(11 S rage -1 ui 49 750 770 790 790 4O Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. Ll130 130 225 22 0 0 L� K11 130 130 71 275 26 0 0 3 ]F140 140 ��] 400 35 0 0 140 140 11 50 45 0 0 GROUNDWATER (COMMAND 'WATER') Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y 88 525 310 565 332 620 262 fila•///(•/ArnfrromTloto/Tarratl;liv/CTORT/Q/7()16 3I)AI31- 11NrV 1 LJ,'X1L-1 ftINIJ A-nOUL1a 1-=UINA 345 653 370 658 375 667 385 667 388 657 398 650 10 436 565 11 790 525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 325 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 425 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 rage -� 01 263 f;la•///(`•/A...R,o.,,Tht�/TP,.o�xh�/CTART 041MxlV0/1(Y)AAQ/11? /Rar+ rt lltml 1 /Q/7f11 S 31JADE 11NrU 1 1JIA1Li ti1VLJ IS-naUL10 ICI;YUIC1 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.1116 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 2.1116 2 2.1985 3 2.2148 4 2.2214 5 2.2612 Cr 2.2716 7 2.2844 8 2.3103 9 2.3415 10 2.3851 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 840 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 480 Section A - bower, Static, Groundwater - FScr = 2.1116 rage j ul j 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 264 fila•///(`•/ArnrrramTl�t�/Tarrot�liv/CTORT1 /Q/7(11 G 31JAI31, livrL) 1 L)1AI1A JAINU i1'.C3L)L,i 3 If-CrumI rage 1 ui J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND TROFIV) Project: Section A - Lower, Seismic, Groundwater Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 572 2 100 572 105 575 3 105 575 135 595 4 135 11 595 11 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 6 218 634 233 642 7 233 642 263 655 8 263 655 11 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 10 338 673 353 683 11 353 683 390 684 O 12 390 684 11 391 693 13 391 11 693 450 11 693 14 450 693 500 705 15 500 705 571 _11733 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 745 650 765 Q 265 f;lA•///f •/ArnnromTlo4o/Tnrrotx7iv/CTaRT/Q/7111 S 31YAD13 IINru 1 1Jt11ti tiivL 11-C3UL,I LI) IVnrvici L8 1650 1 _I 765 1685 773 I2 19 = 1 685 773 743 11 785 20 743 785 756 792 O 21 11 756 11792 770 11804 22 11 770 804 790 —11 814 23 1. 88 562 125 582] 24 125 11 582 250 635 25 250 635 300 J. 655 26 300 655 359 672 27 359 11 672 400 11 673 28 400 11.673 414 676 29 414 676 445 687 30 445 687 461 690 31 11 461 690 492 692 32 492 692 525 709 33 525 709 11575 733 34 575 733 613 745 35 613 745 650 763 36 650 763 760 782 37 7G0 782 790 800 O 38 88 555 125 11 565 39 125 565 150 575 40 150 575 259 620 41 259 620 341 650 42 341 650 383 655 43 383 655 456 675 44 456 675 11 515 ]J690 45 515 690 541 700 46 541 700 700 761 4O 47 700 761 725 763 O 48 725 763 750 770 1 14 ! rage /- 01 266 fi1A•///(`•/PrnnromTl�to/TPrr��xh�/QTART o/7fl�xlVa/7Mfl/1Q/RA,�n,t�/RAr�nrf 1�4m1 1 /9/7()1 G 31211ISL, 11Nru 1 1JIAIYA IAINLi AM3UL,13 lr-nrvr�-1 49 750 770 790 790 Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 ui Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. 130 130 225 22 0 0 130 130 26 275 0 0 1� 13 140 140 400 35 0 710 140 140 50 45 0 0 1 GROUNDWATER (COMMAND 'WATER') Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y F8 525 310 565 ��332 620 267 f,1P•///(`•/A,-r.R,-�,,,Tl�+o/TA,-.•�\U;�/QTORT o/7fl\xl�lo/7(17MQ/RA,�.,,•t�/RA,�.»-f ht,,,l 1 /Q/7f11 G 31tAjDl, Aivru 1 LrAiti tilvli 1s-C3LJ ,13 Accrvtci MR3 370 6 588 F375 667 385 667 388 657 398 650 10 436 565 11 790 [525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 325 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 425 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 rage ,+ uA 268 flA•///f'•/prnnromTio+a/Tartu«liv/CT�RT o/7fl�lLl�Ta/7/17(1(18/1?P.,.,,-t�/RP,.�„-t ht.,,l 1/52/7(11 G 3IYADJL 11NrU 1 VIA IEAEAIVL IS-nOUL13 1r-nrVl-1 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.5403 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.5403 2 1.5756 3 1.5955 4 1.5959 5 1.6278 6 1.6301 7 1.6323 8 1.6355 9 1.6448 10 1.6553 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Soo 784 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 480 Section A - Lower, Seismic, Groundwater - FScr = 1.5403 rage j 01 j 100 150 200 250 310 3S0 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 269 fila•///(`• All; /QT ATIT 1 f+ l 31YILD , livrUl IJA1,A 1AINLJ B-E3UL13 A=Uitl rage 1 of i STABL INPUT DATA. AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A - Global, Static, Groundwater Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 11 572 2 100 572 105 575 O 3 105 575 135 595 4 135 595 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 6 218 634 233 642 2O 7 233 642 263 655 8 263 655 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 10 338 673 353 683 11 353 683 390 684 12 390 684 391 693 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 693 500 705 15 500 705 571 733 2O 16 571 733 594 745 17 594 745 650 765 270 fila•///(`•/ArnrTr�mTl�ta/Tarrotltliv/CT�RT �/7f1t1�/V0/7Mfl(1Q/RAr��rto/RAr�nrt html 1 /Q /7f11 G 311-1.31.tivrut LftI)At11VLtcr,3uI,iLI)tcnrvici 18 1650 765 685 773 19 685 i 11 773 743 785 20 743 785 756 792 21 756 792 770 804 22 770 804 790 814 23 88 562 125 582 24 125 582 250 635 '25 250 635 300 655 26 300 655 359 672 O 27 359 J1672 11 400 673 28 400 673 414 676 29 414 676 445 687 30 445 687 461 690 31 461 690 492 692 32 492 692 525 709 3O 33 525 11 709 575 733 34 575 11 733 613 745 35 613 745 650 763 O 36 650 1 763 760 782 37 760 782 11 790 800 38 88 555 125 565 39 125 565 150 575 40 11 150 575 11259 620 41 1 259 620 341 650 42 341 650 _11383 655 4� 43 383 655 456 675 4� 44 456 675 515 690 O 45 515 690 541 700 O 46 541 700 11 700 761 47 1,700 761 725 763 48 725 763 750 770 1 14 I rap,c /- ut j 271 fibs•1111^•IUrnrrr mTlolnl'TF.rr�[�IiafCTARi �1J7fi�1�T470! ?fl �f1f13tIT?s,.�,rrll?.�.,r.rr l,r..,l 1 /2/)/11 G 011A01. 11Nru 1 UylkI1i IAINV B C3U1 13 A<Crvill 49 750 770 790 790 Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 ui Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. F1-1130 130 225 22 0 0 130 130 275 26 0 0 140 140 711 400 35 0 0 O T140 140 50 45 0 0 O GROUNDWATER (COMMAND 'WATER') Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y F88 525 310 565 I3 332 620 272 f;1A•///!•/Arr.rTro,,,Tloto/TAr,o�xT;�/CTART 1 /Q/1M G �1H13L 11VYlJ 1 LH1H H1VL 1<C.�lJL1�J I�CYVl�l �1345 653 370 658 U375 667 385 667 �J388 657 J 398 650 10 436 565 11 790 525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 700 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 770 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 273 fila•///( •/PrnnrnmTloto/Tar aAll;,/QTATIT /Q/7()1 G 31JADL, 11VrU 1 IJti1Ilk t11VL 11-C3UL,13 S-nrlJ1'�1 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 2.9167 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 ;2.9167 2 ;2.9227 3 11.2.93231 4 2.9682 5 .3.0248 6 3.0807 7 3.1113 18 3.1518 9 3.1531 10 3.1805 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Section A - Global, Static, Groundwater - FScr = 2.9167 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 560 . 540 520 *; 500 480 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ,M1 450 5010 550 600 650 f1A•///!`•/ArnrrromTlo4a/Tariot7C7� /CTART l,fml rage j 01 j 70C 750' 274 31ADL, 1ArU 1 1Jrilfi ti1V1J N-E3UL13 1-ErUrSL1 rage 1 01 J STABL INPUT DATA AND RESULTS REPORT System of units used: U.S. customary units Units of length: feet (ft) Units of stress: psf Units of unit weight: pcf SOIL PROFILE (COMMAND 'PROFIL') Project: Section A - Global, Seismic, Groundwater Number of Boundaries: 49 Number of Surface Boundaries: 22 Boundaries Boundary Number x (left point) y (left point) x (right point) y (right point) Soil type 1 88 565 100 572 2 100 572 105 575 3 105 575 135 11 595 745 4 135 595 192 625 5 192 625 218 634 6 218 1 634 233 642 7 233 642 263 655 1�! 8 263 655 300 665 9 300 665 338 673 10 338 11 673 353 683 11 353 683 390 684 12 390 684 391 693 13 391 693 450 693 14 450 693 500 705 15 500 705 571 733 16 571 733 594 745 L`�I 17 594 11 745 650 765 v 275 fila•///(`•/ArnrrramTlata/Tarrotxli�/QTORT o/7(1\x1V�/7(17(1(1Q/RA,,.,,-to/RA,,.,,-� hrr„1 1 /Q /7f11 G aihtsi_, llNrU i Ltiiti tiivli S -n3 E13 ACrUMI ragc /- 01 1 118 1650 765 1 11 685 773 19 685 773 743 785 20 [7437 785 .756 792 21 11 756 792 770 804 22 11 770 804 790 11 814 23 88 562 1 125 582 24 125 582 250 635 25 250 635 300 11 655 26 300 11 655 11359 11672 27 1[359 ]1672 400 673 28 400 673 414 676 29 414 676 445 687 O 30 445 687 461 690 31 461 690 492 692 lJ 32 1 492 692 525 709 33 525 709 575 733 134 575 733 613 745 35 - 613 745 11 650 763 36 650 763 11 760 11 782 3 37 760 782 790 800 38 88 11 555 125 11 565 39 125 11565 150 575 4� 40 150 11 575 259 620 - 4� 41 259 11 620 11 341 650 4� 42 341 650 383 655 4� 43 383 655 456 675 44 456 11675 11515 :11 690 '45 515 690 541 700 46 541 700 700 761 47 700 761 725 763 4O 48 725 763 750 770 ' I 276 f;lA•///f`•/PrnnramTlot�/Tartu«Tim/QTORT /Q/7111 S 31HI31, 11vrU 1 LH1H AIN IJ A-n3UL13 A-CrVM1 49 750 11 770 790 11 790 Smallest x value: 88 Largest x value: 790 Smallest y value: 525 Largest y value: 814 SOIL PROPERTIES (COMMAND 'SOIL') Number of Soils: 4 Soils rage -1 01 0 Wet Saturated Cohesive Friction Pore Pressure Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Table Wt. 11 130 1 130 225 22 0 0 1� k] 130 275 26 0 0 3❑ 140 140 400 35 0 0 [4 1 j 140 50 45 0 0 GROUNDWATER (COMMAND 'WATER') Number of water tables: 1 Unit weight of water: 62.4 WT number 1 Was this water table used in calculations? Water table was: not suppressed Point No. X Y 88 525 310 565 �� 332 620 277 fila•///(`•/Arnnr�mTlata/Tarro�7;Tiv/CT�RT /Q/7f11 S 311ADL, livru 1 LJ)AII1 JAINIJ tcrnOUJ,13 A-Crvici 345 653 O370 658 375 667 3851 667 388 657 398 650 10 436 565 11 S 525 SEISMIC LOADING (COMMAND 'EQUAKE') Horizontal Acceleration: 0.15 Vertical Acceleration: 0 Cavitation Pressure: 0 ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS Method used in calculations: Bishop Slip surface(s): Multiple circular (CIRCL2) Number of inititiation points: 15 Number of surfaces per point: 15 x (leftmost pt of initiation zone): 100 x (righttmost pt of initiation zone): 175 x (leftmost pt of termination zone):: 700 x (righttmost pt of termination zone): 770 Minimum elevation: 400 Segment length: 1 Ccw Direction Constraint: 0 Cw Direction Constraint: 0 278 fila•///(•/prnnromTlo+a/Tarr��7iTiv/CTORT/Q/7f11 G 31ADL, 11NrU 1 1Jt11A t11V1J 1-r.3U1-13 1CCYUlt1 ANALYSIS: RESULTS Critical Slip Surface Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.9043 Factors of Safety for Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces Slip Surface No. FS 1 1.9043 2 1.9101 3 1.9133, 4 1.9151 10 1.9743 Figures Slope and Ten Most Critical Slip Surfaces 800 780 760 740 720 700 680 560 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 Soo 480 section A Global, Seismic, Groundwater - FScr = 1.9043 rage -) 01 j 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 279 f,1P•///!-`•/Arnrrr�mTlo4�/Tnrratx7iv/CTART �/7fItxlVo/7M(1(1Q/Rar�nrtc/Rar+nr41�4m1 1 /Q/7(11 G