Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.19 ft, Date: 2/20/2020 CPT-2
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:26:01 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.13 ft, Date: 2/20/2020 CPT-3
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:26:47 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.34 ft, Date: 2/20/2020 CPT-4
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:27:42 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.05 ft, Date: 2/20/2020 CPT-5
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:28:10 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.38 ft, Date: 2/20/2020 CPT-6
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:28:40 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.19 ft, Date: 2/20/2020 CPT-7
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:29:12 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.32 ft, Date: 2/24/2020 CPT-8
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:33:21 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.58 ft, Date: 2/24/2020 CPT-9
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:34:18 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.53 ft, Date: 2/24/2020 CPT-10
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:32:57 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.06 ft, Date: 2/21/2020 CPT-11
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:29:47 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.28 ft, Date: 2/21/2020 CPT-12
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:30:16 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.05 ft, Date: 2/21/2020 CPT-13
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:30:40 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.20 ft, Date: 2/21/2020 CPT-14
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:31:08 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.06 ft, Date: 2/21/2020 CPT-15
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:31:33 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.14 ft, Date: 2/21/2020 CPT-16
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:32:04 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.14 ft, Date: 2/21/2020 CPT-17
Location:
Cone res istance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone res istance Sleeve fr iction
Friction (tsf)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve fr iction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
- 2 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u F r iction ratio
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 F riction ratio So il Behav iour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 So il Behav iour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 4:32:35 PM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.55 ft, Date: 3/2/2020 CPT-18
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:05:54 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.23 ft, Date: 3/2/2020 CPT-19
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:24:44 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.19 ft, Date: 3/2/2020 CPT-20
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:25:32 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.12 ft, Date: 3/2/2020 CPT-21
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:25:54 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.19 ft, Date: 3/2/2020 CPT-22
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:26:14 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.06 ft, Date: 3/2/2020 CPT-23
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:26:32 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.53 ft, Date: 2/28/2020 CPT-24
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:31:55 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.26 ft, Date: 2/28/2020 CPT-25
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:32:39 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.08 ft, Date: 2/28/2020 CPT-26
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:33:01 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.14 ft, Date: 2/28/2020 CPT-27
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:33:19 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.19 ft, Date: 2/28/2020 CPT-28
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:33:36 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.33 ft, Date: 2/28/2020 CPT-29
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:33:58 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Project: Geocon / 125, 129 & 133 S. Linden Dr.
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Beverly Hills, CA Total depth: 80.33 ft, Date: 2/28/2020 CPT-30
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
8 0
7 8
7 6
7 4
7 2
7 0
6 8
6 6
6 4
6 2
6 0
5 8
5 6
5 4
5 2
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 3/6/2020, 10:34:17 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-BeverlyHills2-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Kehoe Testing & Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
TEST ID: CPT-2
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 5 10 15 20 25
-2
-1
0 1 DEPTH (ft)
34.008
TEST ID: CPT-3
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10 DEPTH (ft)
63.732
TEST ID: CPT-5
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-4
-3
-2
-1
0 1
2 3 DEPTH (ft)
56.328
TEST ID: CPT-6
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 DEPTH (ft)
64.081
TEST ID: CPT-7
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22 DEPTH (ft)
80.183
TEST ID: CPT-9
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 DEPTH (ft)
51.68 TEST ID: CPT-10
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 DEPTH (ft)
51.743
TEST ID: CPT-12
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 DEPTH (ft)
50.253
TEST ID: CPT-13
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10 DEPTH (ft)
54.48 TEST ID: CPT-14
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3 4 5
-15
-10
-5
0 5
10 15 DEPTH (ft)
62.798
TEST ID: CPT-15
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 DEPTH (ft)
61.524
TEST ID: CPT-16
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3
-15
-10
-5
0 5
10 15 DEPTH (ft)
60.273
TEST ID: CPT-17
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 DEPTH (ft)
63.877
TEST ID: CPT-18
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-6
-5
-4 DEPTH (ft)
80.516
TEST ID: CPT-19
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 DEPTH (ft)
57.359
TEST ID: CPT-20
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 DEPTH (ft)
60.294
TEST ID: CPT-21
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6 DEPTH (ft)
72.471
TEST ID: CPT-22
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 DEPTH (ft)
60.393
TEST ID: CPT-23
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-10
-5
0 5
10 15
20 DEPTH (ft)
72.895
TEST ID: CPT-26
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 DEPTH (ft)
80.079
TEST ID: CPT-27
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 DEPTH (ft)
61.78 TEST ID: CPT-28
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5
0 5
10 15
20 25 DEPTH (ft)
77.485
TEST ID: CPT-29
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 DEPTH (ft)
80.324
TEST ID: CPT-30
PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3 4 5
2 3
4 DEPTH (ft)
80.307
APPENDIX B
Geocon Project No. W1121-06-02 April 8, 2021
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the International ASTM, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for direct shear strength, consolidation and expansion characteristics, corrosivity, in-place dry density and moisture content. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Figures B1 through B14. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring log, Appendix A.
Project No.: W1121-06-02
3.44 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@6' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.08 2.30
0.05 Depth (ft) 6' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.80 2.22 3.39 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sandy Clay (CL)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 18.9 18.8 20.2
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.7 104.5 105.2
82.5 90.8
Peak 502 30.5 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 86.0
Ultimate 217 32.7 Final Moisture Content (%) 23.2 22.4
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
22.0 APR. 2021 Figure B1
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
18.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
21.7 APR. 2021 Figure B2
Ultimate 47 32.6 Final Moisture Content (%) 28.2
87.2 94.2
Peak 52 35.5 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 80.5
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 94.7 103.7 112.3 Sandy Clay (CL)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 23.2 20.2 17.5
Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.05 Depth (ft) 15' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.70 1.95 3.25 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05
3.62 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@15' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.75 2.24
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
4.81 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@25' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.24 2.94
0.05 Depth (ft) 25' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.99 2.55 4.25 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Clayey Sand (SC)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 13.0 12.5 12.0
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 119.5 118.8 119.6
80.4 79.5
Peak 324 41.7 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 85.3
Ultimate 155 39.1 Final Moisture Content (%) 15.5 14.4
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
14.6 APR. 2021 Figure B3
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
2.65 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@35' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.86 2.25
0.05 Depth (ft) 35' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.84 2.04 2.50 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sandy Clay (CL)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 20.4 22.3 20.7
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 104.2 105.6 106.1 101.2 95.0
Peak 576 24.1 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 89.3
Ultimate 553 22.4 Final Moisture Content (%) 24.3 21.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
21.6 APR. 2021 Figure B4
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
3.60 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@40' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.97 2.46
0.05 Depth (ft) 40' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.83 2.20 3.59 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sandy Clay (CL)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 19.9 20.8 22.1
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 109.7 107.2 104.6
97.9 97.7
Peak 369 33.3 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 100.2
Ultimate 154 34.2 Final Moisture Content (%) 20.2 19.7
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
18.7 APR. 2021 Figure B5
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
2.87 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@50' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.11 2.07
0.05 Depth (ft) 50' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.88 1.83 2.51 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Clayey Sand (SC)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 39.4 39.5 34.9
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 81.6 80.6 87.1
97.6 100.7
Peak 693 23.8 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 99.8
Ultimate 519 22.1 Final Moisture Content (%) 40.2 33.3
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
38.8 APR. 2021 Figure B6
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
3.30 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@60' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.19 2.48
0.05 Depth (ft) 60' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.82 2.09 2.96 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sandy Clay (CL)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 20.8 21.2 21.3
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 107.8 107.1 105.9
99.7 97.3
Peak 743 27.8 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 99.5
Ultimate 352 28.1 Final Moisture Content (%) 22.5 21.9
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
22.1 APR. 2021 Figure B7
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
3.65 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@70' Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.28 2.31
0.05 Depth (ft) 70' Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.73 2.20 3.54 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Clayey Sand (SC)
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 24.8 19.9 18.8
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.4 109.8 111.0 100.3 98.0
Peak 634 30.7 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf)
Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 98.5
Ultimate 125 34.4 Final Moisture Content (%) 26.4 18.6
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Checked by: JJK
20.0 APR. 2021 Figure B8
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B1@35'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Sandy Clay (CL) 104.5 19.7 20.8
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Checked by: JJK
ASTM D-2435
APR. 2021 Figure B9
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0
Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Clayey Gravel (GC) 128.5 11.7 11.1
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Checked by: JJK
ASTM D-2435
APR. 2021 Figure B10
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0
Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B1@40'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Sandy Clay (CL) 102.0 23.2 22.3
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Checked by: JJK
ASTM D-2435
APR. 2021 Figure B11
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0
Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B1@45'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Clayey Sand (SC) 96.9 26.5 26.4
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Checked by: JJK
ASTM D-2435
APR. 2021 Figure B12
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0
Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B1@55'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Clayey Sand (SC) 102.3 23.6 23.7
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Checked by: JJK
ASTM D-2435
APR. 2021 Figure B13
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0
Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1121-06-02
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B1@65'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Clayey Sand (SC) 116.3 16.0 15.4
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Checked by: JJK
ASTM D-2435
APR. 2021 Figure B14
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0
Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
Sample No:
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
Preparation Method:
Project No.: W1121-06-02
Checked by: JJK
COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS USING
MODIFIED EFFORT TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE ASTM D-1557 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
APR. 2021 Figure B15
56 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6035 6126 6168 6141
TEST NO. 1234
Net Weight of Soil 1904 1995 2036 2010
Weight of Mold 4131 4131 4131 4131
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 571.4 607.8 594.1 622.0
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 603.4 653.3 649.6 691.0
Moisture Content 7.5 9.9 12.1 14.5
Weight of Container 146.4 147.6 137.0 145.6
Wet Density 126.1 132.1 134.8 133.0
A
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 121.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 11.0 B1@35-40' Sandy Clay (CL)
Dry Density 117.2 120.2 120.2 116.2
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
S.G. 2.65
S.G. 2.7
S.G. 2.75
Project No.: W1121-06-02
88.8 Specimen Diameter
Date Time
Non-Expansive
Expansive
Very Low
Low
Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION ** 118.8
108.1
0.6 0.4
74.3 (%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
(cc)
(gm)
(gm)
B1@35-40'
1.0 0
10 0.2345
0.233
Expansion Index ( Report ) =
Expansion Index (EI meas) = 70
70 3/5/2021 11:00 1.0 1490 0.303
1.0 1430
Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.)
502.5
475.5
202.5
9.9 (gm)
107.9
0.7 0.4
MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
4.0 1.0
762.0
368.3
2.7 (in.)
(in.)
(gm)
(gm)
(Assumed)
4.0 Specimen Height
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold
Wt. of Mold
Specific Gravity
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.
Wt. of Container
91-130
>130
125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-4829
* Reference: 2019 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3 ** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B.
Checked by: JJK
Medium
High
Very High
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
APR. 2021 Figure B16
Moisture Content
Wet Density
Dry Density
Void Ratio
Total Porosity
Pore Volume
51-90
0-20
21-50
Degree of Saturation
801.0
358.2
368.3
20.8 130.4
1.1 801.0
368.3
2.7 3/5/2021 10:00 0.303
(%) [Smeas] 48.1 83.9
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
3/4/2021
3/4/2021
10:00
10:10
1.0 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont.
Project No.: W1121-06-02
Sample No.
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate
(% SQ4) Sulfate Exposure*
Chloride Ion Content (%)
0.008
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
EPA NO. 325.3
B1@35-40'
B1@35-40' 0.010 S0
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL
OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643
Sample No.
B1@35-40'
pH
7.9 Resistivity
(ohm centimeters)
1300 (Corrosive)
Checked by: JJK
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA
APR. 2021 Figure B17
ATTACHMENT 2
May 12, 2023
Incomplete Letter from City
1 Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
SENT VIA EMAIL May 12, 2023
Dave Rand
Rand Paster & Nelson LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, 64th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[email protected]
RE: 125 – 129 South Linden Drive – Development Plan Review for Mixed Use Development (PL2300126) Dear Mr. Rand:
Staff has reviewed your application and materials for the Development Plan Review submittal on April 14, 2023, for the proposed construction of a new mixed-use development at 125-129 South Linden Drive. The subject properties are located in the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and High Density Multi-family residential General Plan land use designation. At this time, the application has been deemed incomplete for the reasons set forth below, and the previously filed Preliminary Application relating to the project site is deemed to be of no further effect due to changes in the project. Further, additional applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinances are required to enable processing of the proposed project.
1. Preliminary Application
On October 24, 2022,
1 the property owner (9300 Wilshire LLC) submitted a Preliminary Application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 (the PA) for a housing development to vest the rights of a project under the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time that the preliminary application was submitted. Thereafter, on April 14, 2023, the property owner submitted a formal Development Plan Review (DRP) application for a housing development project, which was within 180 days of the PA submittal date noted above as required to maintain the validity of the PA.
The project that was submitted as part of the PA (the PA project) consisted of a residential-only project that included 200 dwelling units within a 259,547 SF, 16-story building. The building was proposed with a height of 170’ and included 124 parking spaces within a four-level subterranean parking structure.
1 Although the Preliminary Application was submitted on Friday, October 21, 2022, the fees for the application were paid after hours, thus the submittal date is considered to be Monday, October 24, 2022.
2 The project for which the DPR application was submitted (the DA project) is substantially different from the project for which the PA was submitted. The DPR plans submitted entail a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel and hotel restaurant within a 311,197 SF, 19-story building. The building contemplated in the DPR application is now proposed with a height of 200’ and includes 126 parking spaces within a four-level subterranean parking structure.
Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65941.1 (a):
“An applicant for a housing development project … shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information about the proposed project to the city … from which approval for the project is being sought and upon payment of the permit processing fee: ….” (Emphasis added.)
The information required in a preliminary application includes “[t]he proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance.” (Govt. Code Sec. 65941.1(a)(4). (Emphasis added.)) The description of the proposed land uses included in the PA’s proposed project made no mention of any hotel or restaurant use or, for that matter, any other commercial or non-residential uses, and did not contemplate a mixed use project. The PA described the proposed land uses only as follows: “The proposed project will include 200 residential dwelling units in 259,547 (gross) sq. ft .” The DPR application, however, describes a very different project:
“The project consists of the construction of a new 19-story mixed use, multifamily residential and hotel building, with 165 rental apartment units (including 33 affordable housing units) and ancillary residential spaces, 73 hotel rooms and ancillary hotel spaces, and 126 parking spaces.”
Based on the introduction of the new hotel use in the DPR project, which was not contemplated in the PA project, the Department concludes that the DPR project submittal is for a project different from the PA project. Because the DPR project is substantially different from the project described in the PA, the Department concludes that the DPR application, although filed within 180 days of the filing of the PA, is not sufficient to meet the filing requirement of Govt. Code Section 65941.1(d)(1). Therefore, the Department finds that the PA has expired and is of no further force or effect.
2. General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications Required The proposed DPR project does not conform to the City’s General Plan and various provisions of the City’s zoning code. These deviations include, but are not limited to that:
3 • Neither a hotel nor a mixed residential/commercial use project is a permissible use in either the High Density Multifamily Residential General Plan land use designation or the R-4 zoning applicable to the project site.
• The proposed height exceeds the maximum permissible heights allowed in the General Plan and R-4 zoning
• The proposed residential density exceeds the maximum allowed density on the site.
The substantial deviations from the General Plan and applicable R-4 zoning and related ordinance contemplated by the DPR project must be analyzed and processed pursuant to the City’s procedures, and nothing in the Housing Accountability Act (Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5.) divests the City of its authority to require an applicant to follow the City’s procedural and administrative requirements.
Thus, in order to process the DPR project application, the applicant must also submit applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan, and zoning ordinances and/or map for concurrent processing.
The applications for the respective amendments must clearly describe each of the amendments that are necessary to enable the proposed DPR project, including the land use designation and zoning so as to accommodate the mixed use and hotel uses, which are prohibited in the General Plan land use designation and R-4 zone in which the property is located. Further, the amendment applications must address any other necessary changes to related development standards with which the proposed DPR project does not comply, including but not limited to height, density, setbacks, and other standards as described in more detail below.
Following the proper amendment process, in addition to the DPR process, is critical to, among other considerations, ensuring that the due process rights of surrounding property owners are respected, and that those property owners may participate in the proceedings, including required public hearings, should they so choose.
3. Land Use – Sheets A01, A06, A07, A14, A15, A16, A28, and A29 The project site is located within the City’s R-4 Zone, and the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation. BHMC Sections 10-3-1202 and 10-3-1203 detail the types of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the R-4 Zone. As proposed, the DPR project2 consists of a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel and hotel restaurant. While residential development is permissible within the R-4 Zone and the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation, subject to the applicable development standards, as noted above, mixed-use developments, including hotel and hotel restaurant uses, are not permissible in the R-4 Zone or the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation.
Revise the project to remove commercial uses in the project or, as noted above, submit Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications to seek consideration of the project, as well as the regulations within the R-4 Zone that do not facilitate the type of proposed mixed-use development. 2 Hereafter, the word “project” refers to the DPR project, unless otherwise noted.
4 4. Density – Sheet A01
The proposed project includes the development of 165 dwelling units on a 21,676.05 square-foot (SF) project site. The application materials submitted for this project note that the proposed project is not a density bonus project and is not seeking incentives, concessions, and/or waivers, or any subdivision which may be contemplated to separate the hotel uses from the residential uses. Specifically, as to density bonus, the PA specifically says “The project does not include a density bonus request under State Density Bonus Law”.
The City’s General Plan details the applicable density requirements for multi-family properties in the city. The applicable density for properties located in Multi-family Residential High Density Area is 50 dwelling units per acre (or 1 unit for every 871.2 SF of lot area). As such, the applicable density requirements would facilitate 25 dwelling units on the project site (21,676.05 / 871.2 = 24.88 units).
Fractional figures are rounded up to the nearest whole number.
As designed, the project exceeds the maximum number of allowable units by over 140 dwelling units.
Revise the project with a reduction in proposed units to comply with applicable density requirements.
Alternatively, the project may seek additional dwelling units above the otherwise applicable requirements by applying for a Density Bonus Permit. A density bonus project would be reviewed in compliance with applicable state density bonus law requirements.
Should the density of the project not be revised to comply with code requirements or pursuant to a density bonus proposal, the project as designed would require a zone change and general plan amendment, as noted above, because the project currently exceeds all applicable development standards for multi-family development in the City’s R-4 Zone and does not conform with the City’s General Plan.
5. Minimum Floor Area for Dwelling Units – Sheet A01 and Sheets A16 through A23 BHMC Section 10-3-2802 details the applicable minimum dwelling unit requirements for new development on properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. The applicable minimum dwelling unit size are as follows:
• Studio/Efficiency Unit: Minimum floor area of 600 SF
• One Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,000 SF
• Two Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,300 SF
• Three Or More Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,500 SF In review of the set of plans, the residential portion of the project consists of 165 dwelling units with a mix of 13 studio, 59 one-bedroom, and 93 two-bedroom units. As noted on Sheet A01, the average size of a studio unit is between 450 SF and 486 SF, the average size of a one-bedroom unit is between 652 SF and 658 SF, and the average size of a two-bedroom unit not located on the penthouse level (19th floor) is between 892 SF to 970 SF. As such, these units do not appear to provide the applicable minimum floor area for an efficiency, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom unit. Revise the project and design of each unit to provide the minimum floor area required.
5 6. Outdoor Living Space – Sheets A01, A08, and A09
a. Required Outdoor Living Space – BHMC Section 10-3-2803 details the applicable open space requirements for new development on properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, 200 SF of outdoor living space is required per dwelling unit. The required outdoor living space can be provided as private outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 6’-0” on all sides, or as common outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides.
While the proposed development of 165 dwelling units exceeds the density allowed for the project site, should the applicant seek a zone change/general plan amendment to facilitate the project, the project would need to provide 33,000 SF of open space. As provided on the Open Space tables on Sheets A01, A08, and A09, the proposed project is proposing 18,228 SF of open space, which is approximately 14,772 SF less than what is otherwise required. Revise the project to provide the applicable area of outdoor living space per unit.
b. Outdoor Living Space Dimensions – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2803, outdoor living space can be provided as private outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 6’-0” on all sides, or as common outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides. Based on the Open Space tables provided on Sheets A08 and A09, it appears that the project is providing open space in both common and private outdoor living areas. While the 18,228 SF of proposed outdoor living area is not sufficient to meet the required outdoor living space required per unit (33,000 SF of outdoor living space is required for 165 dwelling units), the open space diagrams provided do not include any dimensions to show that the minimum outdoor living space dimensions are being provided. Revise the open space diagrams to include the dimensions of each proposed common and private outdoor living space areas. Each area shall provide the minimum dimensions required to count toward the required outdoor living space.
c. Number of Dwelling Units – The number of dwelling units noted on the Open Space tables provided on Sheets A01, A08, and A09 do not match the number of units proposed for the project.
The Open Space tables show that 171 dwelling units are proposed, while the plans for the project show a total of 165 dwelling units proposed. Revise the tables according to reflect the correct number of proposed units. Revise the amount of required open space to reflect the correct unit count.
7. Building Height – Sheets A01, A11, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28, and A29 a. Maximum Allowable Height – The project site is comprised of two properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. BHMC Section 10-3-2804 details the applicable height requirements for properties located in the R-4 Zone. The first property at 125 S. Linden Drive is located within Height District C, which allows for development up to five (5) stories with a maximum height of 55’. The second property at 129 S. Linden Drive is located within Height District B, which allows for development up to four (4) stories with a maximum height of 45’.
In review of the project plans, the new development is designed with 19 stories and at a height of approximately 200’ tall. As designed, the portion of the project located in Height District B exceeds
6 the maximum allowable height by 155’. Similarly, the portion of the project located in Height District C exceeds the maximum allowable height by 145’. Reduce the height of the proposed project to conform to the maximum allowable height for each applicable height district. b. Height of Rooftop Elements – Call out the height of all proposed rooftop elements on all sections and elevations, including the height of the proposed rooftop elevators, rooftop stairs, mechanical equipment screening, and any unoccupied architectural features (e.g., rooftop trellises and similar).
The rooftop elements shall comply with the maximum heights detailed under the definition of "Height of Building" for Multiple-Family Residential Zones in BHMC Section 10-3-100, as provided below, otherwise these features shall not be exempt from height and shall be counted toward the overall height of building:
• Structures enclosing elevator equipment and/or elevator lobbies if such structures are not higher than fifteen feet (15') above the adjacent roof deck and are not larger than the shaft of the elevator or elevators and their respective lobby areas. • Structures enclosing stairs required by law to be carried to the roof if such enclosing structure is used for no other purpose than enclosing the stairs and is no larger than the stair shaft below and if such enclosure is not more than twelve feet (12') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck.
• Penthouse structures used exclusively for mechanical equipment for the building or structure if such penthouse structure is not more than ten feet (10') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck.
• Parapets or handrails not more than forty-five inches (45") in height as measured from the roof or floor which they surround.
c. Mechanical Equipment Screening – Show the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment screening on all sections and elevations, as the proposed screening is not shown on the sections and elevations provided. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-100 (Height), the max height is 15'-0" for mechanical equipment penthouses and enclosures.
8. Alley Dedication – Sheets A11 through A29
As required by the City’s Street Master Plan, a 2’-6” dedication is required along the north side and rear of the project site for widening of the existing 15’ alley to improve vehicular circulation. (See also BHMC Section 10-6-2, regarding street dedication and improvement requirements.) This dedication area needs to be shown on all details of the set of plans. Additionally, any required property setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line, post-alley dedication.
Show the required 2’-6” alley dedication area on all details of the set of plans, including on site plan, floor plans, and all sections and elevations provided. Adjust the location of the property lines adjacent to the required dedication areas accordingly.
7 9. Setbacks – Sheets A01 and A11 through A29
a. Front Setback – The applicable front yard setback for the project site is 15’-0”. As designed, portions of the proposed building located above ground level would encroach into the required setback.
As proposed, complete sections of the building on almost every floor level appear to encroach into the required front yard setback, with a seven-inch (7”) setback shown on the site plan provided on Sheet A11 of the set of plans. Such building encroachment is not permissible within the front yard setback area.
Revise the project to provide the applicable 15’-0” front setback for the project. b. Side Yard Setbacks – BHMC Section 10-3-2807 details the applicable side yard setbacks for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, the development of a project with more than four (4) stories or greater than 45’ in height shall be subject to a cumulative setback of 23’-0’, with a minimum setback of at least 9’ required on one side. When a project is subject to a dedication of land required for improving and widening existing alleys adjacent to the project site, the required setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line post-alley dedication.
As proposed, complete sections of the building on most floor levels appear to encroach into the required side setback, with a 7’-0” side setback provided to the north and an 11’-0” side setback provided to the south. The 18’-0” cumulative setback does not appear to meet the applicable cumulative setback of 23’-0’ required for a project that exceeds four stories and 45’ in height.
Similarly, the 7’-0” setback shown on the north side does not appear to meet the minimum side setback required for properties in the R-4 zone. Revise the project to provide the required minimum and cumulative side yard setback.
c. Rear Setback – BHMC Section 10-3-2808 details the applicable rear yard setback for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, a setback of 15’ is required for all new development in the R-4 zone. When a project is subject to a dedication of land required for improving and widening existing alleys adjacent to the project site, the required setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line post-alley dedication.
As proposed, sections of the building on several floor levels appear to encroach into the required rear setback, with a portion of the building designed with a 2’-6” rear from existing property lines.
Revise the project to provide the applicable 15’-0” rear yard setback to the project. d. Setbacks Throughout Plan Set - Show all applicable front, side, and rear setback lines on the site plan, floor plans, sections, and elevation on the set of plans. These details are missing from several sheets of the plan set.
e. Garage Encroachment in Front Setback – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2811, basement garages are allowed to encroach into the front yard setback area. However, as designed, the portion of the basement garage built into these setback areas needs to be 2'-0” lower than the grade of the adjacent
8 sidewalk. Additionally, that 2'-0” depression shall be used to provide planting areas within the front yard setback area.
As shown on Section 2 on Sheet A29, the portion of the basement garage within the front yard setback is currently designed to be at the same level as the adjacent sidewalk along South Linden Drive, which is not permissible. Revise the design of the basement garage that encroaches into the front yard setback area so that it is 2'-0” lower than the adjacent sidewalk along South Linden Drive. f. Modulation – BHMC Section 10-3-2806 details the applicable front modulation standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. In review of the set of plans provided, no details were included as to the amount of front building modulation provided for the project. As a separate exhibit to the set of plans, provide front modulation diagrams showing the required amount of modulation required and the modulation proposed for the project. Additionally, the diagrams shall show the depth of the modulation provided per floor and calculations for the aggregate principal building area.
Adjust the project design accordingly to provide the applicable front modulation for the project pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2806.
10. “NO BUILD ZONE” Area – Sheets A12 and A13
In reviewing the Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation dated October 7, 2020, previously prepared for the project site, several active earthquake faults were discovered on the properties at 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive. The “Structural Setback Plan” on Page 60 of the document establishes a “NO BUILD ZONE” where no portion of a habitable structure could be built.
Please show this no build zone area on the site plans and floor plans provided for the first floor and every subterranean level of the project to ensure that the proposed building does not encroach into the NO BUILD ZONE.
11. Front Yard Paving – Sheet A14
BHMC Section 10-3-2813 details the applicable front yard paving standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, no portion of any front yard within the R-4 Zone shall be paved, except for not more than one walkway not exceeding five feet (5') in width and one driveway not exceeding the width of its curb cut. Based on the design provided on Sheet A14, the project includes a paved courtyard and walkway to the north side of the property. No driveway paving is proposed within the front yard setback area. Together, these walkways exceed the maximum allowable width for walkways located in the front yard setback area.
Revise the design of the paving proposed in the front yard setback area to include one (1) walkway that does not exceed 5’ in width. Additional walkways not exceeding 5’ in width may be permissible as detailed in BHMC Section 10-3-2813.
9 12. Site Walls and Fences – Sheet A11
Show all proposed site fences and walls on the site plan for the project. Provide additional details and sections on the set of plans showing the design and height of any proposed fences and walls. All site fences and walls shall be designed in conformance with the applicable fence/wall standards provided in BHMC Section 10-3-2814.
13. Parking – Sheets A01, A12 and A13
a. Residential Parking – BHMC Section 10-3-2816 details the applicable parking standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, the project shall provide the following number of parking spaces per dwelling unit type:
• One (1) parking space shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that is an efficiency unit of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet. • Two (2) spaces shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that contains one bedroom.
• Two and one-half (2 ½) parking spaces shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that contains two (2) bedrooms.
In review of the set of plans, the residential portion of the project consists of 165 dwelling units with a mix of 13 studio, 59 one-bedroom, and 93 two-bedroom units. Based on the unit mix proposed, 364 parking spaces would be required for the 165 dwelling units proposed. The total number of required parking spaces will be confirmed once floor plans of the residential portion of the project are provided to confirm an accurate bedroom count. As the project is only designed with 127 parking spaces, the project does not conform to the applicable parking standards. As provided on the set of plans and application materials, this project is not a density bonus project and thus is not eligible for the reduced parking standards under state density bonus provisions.
Revise the project to provide the required number of parking spaces. b. Guest Parking – BHMC Section 10-3-2817 details the applicable parking standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, guest parking shall be provided for the project at a ratio of 0.25 spaces/unit. As proposed, a project with 165 dwelling units would be subject to 42 guest parking spaces (41.25 rounded up to the nearest whole number).
Revise the project to provide the required number of guest parking spaces. Clearly call out which parking spaces for the project are being allocated for only guest parking. c. Hotel and Hotel Restaurant Parking – While previously noted that the hotel and hotel restaurant uses proposed for this project are not permissible within the R-4 Zone, should the applicant seek a Zone Change/General Plan Amendment to facilitate the proposed commercial uses, such uses shall be designed in compliance with the applicable parking requirements detailed in BHMC Section 10- 3-2730. Such parking shall be provided on-site.
10 Based on the plans provided, a 73-room hotel would require 73 parking spaces (1 space/room).
Additionally, the proposed 3,497 SF hotel restaurant would require 14 parking spaces (1 space/350 SF for first 3,000 SF – 1 space/100 SF for portion over 3,000 SF). However, 25% of the spaces required to be provided for the hotel may also be applied toward the hotel restaurant, which can provide a credit of approximately 19 parking spaces for hotel restaurant use.
As designed, the parking garage for the development does not currently provide any parking for the commercial uses of the project. Each space is labeled as “RES”, implying that the parking spaces are reserved for the residential uses of the project and not available to service the proposed hotel and hotel restaurant uses. Should the applicant seek a Zone Change/General Plan Amendment for consideration of this project, parking for the proposed hotel and hotel restaurant uses shall be provided on-site.
d. Parking Stall Dimensions – The City’s parking standards require all parking spaces provided for a project to be provided in standard configuration, with a minimum parking stall width of 9’-0” and a length of 19’-0”. Compact parking stall dimensions are not allowable for any required parking stall associated with the residential use of the property. However, pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3- 2727, the proposed hotel use may provide up to 25% of the required parking as compact parking stalls and through tandem spaces as part of a Conditional Use Permit.
In review of the set of plans, the subterranean parking structure includes compact parking stalls on each of the four levels for the residential uses, which is not permissible. No parking appears to be specifically provided for the commercial hotel and hotel restaurant uses proposed for the project.
Revise the design of the parking garage to include standard parking stalls with the minimum required stall width and length and remove compact stalls for the residential uses. Provide the required parking for the hotel and hotel restaurant uses. e. Parking Aisle Depth – The minimum aisle width required for parking spaces provided at a 90 degree angle is 26’-0” per the City’s parking standards. The drawings prepared for parking levels P1 - P4 show that a 24’-0” parking aisle is proposed where parking spaces are provided with a 90 degree turning angle.
Revise the design of the parking aisle width to provide the 26’-0” wide minimum aisle width. f. Garage Encroachment into Alley Dedication Area – As designed, the basement garage would encroach into the 2’-6” alley dedication area required along the north side and rear of the property.
The garage cannot encroach into the required alley dedication area. Revise the design of the parking garage so that no portions of the building encroach into the required alley dedication areas. g. Replacement Parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd - The project site at 129 S. Linden Drive is currently improved with a surface parking lot that provides required parking for the commercial office building located at 9740 Wilshire Blvd. The original building plans for the commercial building at 9740 Wilshire Boulevard show that the surface parking lot at 129 S. Linden Drive was designed with
11 diagonal parking for 50 vehicles. To facilitate this, a parking covenant was filed with the city and recorded on August 12, 1957, against the properties at 9740 Wilshire Blvd and 129 S. Linden Drive to provide a portion of the required parking off-site. The use of the 129 South Linden Drive site for commercial parking purposes was approved through Variances issued by the City Council in 1941 and 1958 (City Council Resolution Nos. 1061 and 2841).
In review of the project, 126 parking spaces would be provided for the residential portion of the project. No parking is specifically provided for on the set of plans for the proposed the hotel and hotel restaurant uses. Additionally, the plans for the project and the application materials do not address how the required covenanted parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd would be replaced.
However, Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2737, it is not permissible to locate parking required for a commercial use or commercial property on a site that is zoned for residential land uses. As it pertains to the replacement parking for 9740 Wilshire, the replacement parking would either need to be provided on an alternative site zoned for commercial uses, or the applicant would need to seek a code amendment to allow for replacement of the required parking within this new development. As previously noted, in addition to the parking required for the proposed project, a total of 50 parking spaces will need to be provided as replacement parking for the 9740 Wilshire site because the new development is proposing the removal of the existing covenanted parking required for the development on that property.
14. Loading – Sheets A06 and A14
a. Number of Loading Spaces Required – BHMC Sections 10-3-2740 thought 10-3-2743 detail the applicable loading space requirements. Based on the area schedule provided on Sheet A06, approximately 48,034 SF of floor area is proposed for use as hotel and hotel restaurant on the first and second floors. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2741, the number of loading spaces required for the proposed commercial floor area is three (3) truck spaces. Each truck loading space shall have a minimum length of 35’, width of 12’, and overhead clearance of 10’.
As proposed on Sheet A14, the project is designed with what appears to be one (1) loading space accessed from the alley that is 12’ wide by 30’ long. This single loading space provided does not appear to comply with the number of loading spaces required for the project or the minimum dimensions required for a truck loading space.
Revise the project to provide the applicable number of loading spaces at the required minimum dimensions.
b. Loading Study – Provide a loading study that evaluates the loading demands of the proposed project and determines the adequacy of the loading areas proposed. The loading study shall also study vehicle maneuverability into the proposed loading areas, particularly truck maneuverability for accessing the loading space located adjacent to the alley at the rear, as it appears difficult to maneuver a truck in the alley due the existing width. The existing alley measures 15’ in width, but would be widened to 17’-6” feet once the project dedicates land along the alleys.
12 c. Location of Loading Spaces – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2742, when a project site or structure abuts an alley, access to loading spaces shall be provided from the alley. Alley accessed loading spaces shall be parallel to the alley unless the project applicant establishes one of the following:
• Site constraints preclude construction of a parallel loading space or spaces; or, • The alternative loading space configuration proposed by the project applicant meets the functional requirements of the code.
As currently designed, the loading space provided on Sheet A14, is perpendicular to the alley instead of parallel to it. Revise the project to include the required loading spaces in compliance with BHMC Section 10-3-2742. If this cannot be achieved and the applicant is seeking an alternative configuration, provide findings as noted above detailing site constraints and how the alternative loading space will meet the functional requirements of the code. d. Maneuvering – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2740, loading spaces shall be directly accessible for the distribution of goods within the structure or use. For multi-story structures, such access shall be direct to an elevator or stairway serving all stories, and in this case, all stories of the hotel and hotel restaurant. In order to meet the functional requirements, loading spaces shall have a minimum maneuvering area as specified in the MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOADING SPACES table in BHMC Section 10-3-2740. Said maneuvering area shall be contiguous to the end of the loading space and may include the width of the alley or street.
Provide maneuvering diagrams showing truck ingress and egress to the loading spaces provided for the project.
15. Survey – Sheet A10
a. Scale of Plan – In review of the survey provided on Sheet A10, the drawing does not appear to match the scale noted on the plan sheet. When several site features with dimensions are measured at the noted scale (1” = 10’), the dimensions scale out to less than what are noted on the survey. Provide a survey that is drawn to the scale noted on the plan sheet. b. Survey Legibility – The survey provided appears to be scanned from an original of that document and placed on the set of plans. As such, the details and dimensions provided are pixelated and not very legible. Provide a survey that is clear, legible, and not pixelated. c. Surveyor’s License Expiration – The survey provided notes that the surveyor’s license expired on 12/31/2020. Provide an updated survey with an updated expiration date of the surveyor of record.
16. Title Report – Sheet A10
Provide a Title Report of the project site to verify whether any easements exist on the properties at 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive. The survey provided on Sheet A10 notes that there are no easements on the
13 project site, “per referenced preliminary title report.” However, a copy of this title property was not provided. Provide a title report of the project site with project resubmittal.
17. Elevations and Renderings – Sheets A00, A02, A03, A04, A24, A25, A26, and A27 Revise the elevations and renderings provided for the project, as required, to address the corrections and comments provided in this review letter and the redlined set of plans.
18. Floor Plan Layouts for Dwelling Units – Sheets A16 through A23 Provide floor plans layouts for each of the proposed dwelling units in the project. The floor plans provided only have a call out to the number of bedrooms in each unit, but the layout of each unit is not provided. The floor plans shall show the proposed kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and living area of each of the proposed dwelling units.
19. Rubbish Storage – Sheet A14
BHMC Section 9-3-1 details the applicable rubbish storage standards for residential and commercial development. As proposed, the project would include a 592 SF trash room located in the first floor of the building, adjacent to the alley at the rear. However, calculations were not provided on the set of plans or in the application materials to demonstrate that the proposed trash room is of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated demand for waste generated by the project site.
Provide calculations pursuant to BHMC Section 9-3-1 showing the anticipated amount of rubbish that would be generated by the project and the size of the rubbish/trash room needed to accommodate the projected waste quantities that would be generated by the project.
20. Landscape Plans – Not Provided
Provide landscape plans of the proposed project with resubmittal. The landscape plans shall show all proposed landscaping improvements on the project site and in the public right-of-way.
21. Environmental Review
Once all major corrections have been addressed and complete applications have been submitted, the City will review the proposal to determine what review may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant will be responsible for paying the the costs for the preparation of any required environmental document, including but not limited to the costs of any consultants as may need to be retained by the City.
22. Low Impact Development (LID)
Pursuant to BHMC Section 9-4-508, the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are applicable to new developments projects.
As you progress with the design of the project, review the applicable LID requirements and incorporate them into your project and set of plans. This will ensure that the project, as designed, can accommodate the required LID provisions early on and will reduce or eliminate any changes needed once the project is submitted for building plan check.
14 A copy of the Low Impact Development (LID) Fact Sheet is available for download from the City’s website using the following link:
http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/1266023136723167408/ChecklistforLIDRequiremen tsFINAL(6).pdf
For question related to LID requirements, please contact Trevor Alsop at 310-288-2837 or by email at [email protected].
23. Shade and Shadow Study
Provide a shade and shadow study for the proposed project. Diagram the shadows from the proposed structure during the winter and summer equinoxes, from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., at three-hour intervals. The study shall show adjacent properties and the projected shadow on those properties during the noted intervals.
24. Rooftop Operations Plan
Provide the following information for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas proposed:
• Indicate the types of uses proposed for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas. • Indicate the proposed hours of operation of all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas. • Indicate whether the rooftop area will be used exclusively by the residential portion of the project or if hotel rooftop access will be provided.
• If the hotel will have access to the rooftop, indicate the type, frequency (yearly, monthly, daily, etc.) of rooftop events, appointments, etc.
• If the hotel will have access to the rooftop, indicate maximum occupancy anticipated for each type of event.
25. Arborist Report
Provide an Arborist Report detailing all existing trees located within adjacent public right-of-way along South Linden Drive. The arborist report shall also detail all proposed removal and/or installation of new trees in the public right-of-way.
26. Transportation/Traffic Studies
Pursuant to the City’s Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1901, the following transportation/traffic studies are required:
a. Transportation Impact Analysis – Based on the City’s screening criteria, the project does not appear to be screened out from providing a Transportation Impact Analysis. Please provide a Transportation Impact Analysis that evaluates potential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-related impacts associated with the proposed Project.
b. Local Transportation Assessment – For projects that generate over 75 peak hour trips, a local transportation assessment/traffic study shall be required using Level of Service (LOS) metric to evaluate signalized and unsignalized intersection operation and use the percentage increase in
15 traffic volumes to evaluate impacts on local residential streets. Analyzed locations should primarily consist of major signalized intersections that are likely to be affected by the project. Additionally, the study area should also look at roadways providing access to the project site, such as the roadway(s) containing the project’s primary driveway or secondary access point, or the intersection(s) immediately adjacent to the project site along with the surrounding area. Such report shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for review and comment by the City’s Traffic Engineer.
27. Transportation and Trip Reduction Measures
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-7-301, the applicant is required to incorporate various measures to provide for transportation demand management and trip reduction. As the project appears to provide more than 50,000 SF of gross floor area for commercial uses, the applicant shall incorporate all required measures into this project, which includes but is not limited to, providing bicycle parking, spaces reserved for vanpool, and information on rideshare and public transit opportunities.
Revise the project to incorporate the applicable transportation and trip reduction measures accordingly.
28. Geotechnical/Soils Report
Provide a geotechnical/soils report for the project and project site. The geotechnical/soils report shall evaluate the proposed project and provide recommendations for the construction of the proposed building based on existing soil conditions. The report should also address the site-specific fault issues and constraints.
29. Construction Management Plan
Provide a construction management plan that provides relevant project construction details, including but not limited to:
• Anticipated timelines for the different construction phases of the project (e.g., demolition, grading, shoring and excavation, construction of the basement, foundations, and above grade work).
• Proposed locations for the staging of construction materials and equipment. • Anticipated closures of any right-of-way area (alley/street) and timelines for such closures.
30. Noise Study
Provide a noise study of the project to evaluate projected construction noise and noise levels anticipated post-construction with the proposed rooftop outdoor living space uses.
31. Metro Adjacent Development Review
The project site is located within close proximity to the upcoming Metro Purple (D Line) subway, which is currently under construction. The subway line is projected to run under Wilshire Boulevard and travel southwest to a station located in Century City, potentially under the project site. To ensure safety, developers, utility companies, and other third parties must consult with Metro for development,
16 construction, and maintenance activities occurring within 100 feet from Metro right-of-way (ROW) and other real estate assets.
For information on how to request and obtain Metro Adjacent Development Review, please contact Metro’s Development Review Team at (213) 418-3484 or by email at [email protected]. Additional information can be obtained by visiting https://www.metro.net/about/adjacent-development-review/.
32. Public Works Stormwater/Environmental Compliance/Sustainability Comments Below are Stormwater/ Environmental Compliance/ Sustainability comments provided by the Public Works Department:
• Project to use available 100% renewable energy from local utilities. • Sewer system capacity requirement. Require hydraulic modeling to assess sewer capacity issues for the development. Improvement to wastewater system if it impacts sewer system flow. • If permanent dewatering system is needed, design the project to re-use groundwater for nonpotable water systems as required pursuant to BHMC Section 9-4-610.B.2. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and may require a permit from the City of Beverly Hills.
• Appropriate number of approved Meter Service Protection backflow prevention assemblies for Domestic, Irrigation and Fire Meters required.
• Must implement Low Impact Development (LID) meeting requirements of LID ordinance to mitigate stormwater runoff.
• The applicant is required to install a grease interceptor for food service establishment use.
Grease interceptor design shall meet the Los Angeles County Public Works Industrial Waste Program requirements. Placement should be accessible for maintenance operation. • Water discharged from a loading dock and trash enclosure shall be directed through grit/oil separator. A loading dock is not to be confused with a loading zone or designated parking space for loading and unloading.
• Organic residuals from daily operations and water used to wash trash rooms cannot be discharged to surface public right of way.
• Condensate from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Trevor Alsop, Environmental Compliance Inspector, at (310) 288-2837 or by email at [email protected].
33. Building and Safety – Building and Technical Code Comments Below are comments provided by Building and Safety regarding compliance with applicable building and technical codes:
• These comments reflect high-level conceptual review comments. Complete code compliance review will be forthcoming upon plan check submittal.
• The review comments are in accordance with 2022 California Building Code and its references.
17 • General contractor must submit Construction Management Plan for review and approval prior to any building permit issuance. The plan needs to address how to the building to be built including demolition, excavation, shoring, access to site for ingress and egress, haul route, tower crane if needed, pedestrian protection, sanitary facilities, a temporary or permanent stairway, standpipe, fire watch during construction, traffic control plan (will be reviewed by Public Works), etc. Refer to California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 33. • The project to comply with requirements of Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 10 and Chapter 6, STREET, ALLEY, AND HIGHWAY DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. • Survey map is required to show all easements on the properties. • Comply with the City’s applicable parking standards.
https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/563485925821755963/ParkingStandards(R EV2.18).pdf
• The project requires LID (Low Impact Development) plan check. • On site plan, confirm the location of seismic fault line with dimensions per the seismic fault investigation report.
• Provide complete Fire department and vehicle access.
• Hotel will be classified as R-1 occupancy. CBC 310.
• The project is required to be designed in compliance with requirements of CBC 403, High-rise building and CBC 405, Underground Building.
• The project is required to provide separate accessible parking requirements per CBC 11A and CBC 11B for residential and nonresidential, respectively. Additionally, the project shall provide accessible and standard EV charging parking spaces. Show the location of these required EV parking spaces in the proposed garage.
• The project shall comply with both residential and nonresidential requirements of California Green Building Standards Code in accordance with Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 2 and Article 11.
• The project is required to fully comply with California Energy Code. • The project is required fully comply with accessibility provisions of CBC 11A and CBC 11B for residential and nonresidential, respectively.
• The hotel shall be designed in compliance with CBC 11B-224. • The project building shall be designed in compliance with requirements of CBC 705.5 and CBC 705.8.
• The project shall fully comply with requirements of CBC Chapter 10. No exiting analysis was provided.
• The project shall comply with accessible means of egress requirements per CBC 1009. • The enclosed parking structure shall be designed in compliance with CBC 406.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Ocean Kwon, Senior Plan Review Engineer, at (310) 285-1153 or by email at [email protected].
18 34. Building and Safety – Right of Way Comments
Below are comments provided by Building and Safety regarding areas in the public right-of-way:
• Provide a water demand study to evaluate anticipated water demand for project and for the City to evaluate the types of upgrades and improvements that will be necessary to existing infrastructure.
• Obtain will serve letter from the Public Works Water Division. • Coordinate with Edison to evaluate necessary upgrades to existing infrastructure to facilitate the project and provide the City a proposal of all upgrades required to provide service to the project.
• Provide a Construction Management Plan with a narrative detailing the types of temporary encroachments that the project would require during project construction. Based on the proposal, the project would require working areas for the staging and storage of construction materials, equipment, crane(s), trailers, deliveries, and for a laydown area for transport and maneuvering of vehicles.
• Provide a plan showing the proposed haul routes and delivery route to the project site. To limit construction impacts to residential properties within the vicinity of the project site, all construction-generated traffic should provide ingress and egress to and from the project site directly to Wilshire Boulevard.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Ara Retchian, Senior Plan Review Engineer, at (310) 285-1106 or by email at [email protected].
35. Fire Department Comments
Below are comments provided by the City’s Fire Department:
• The project shall be designed in compliance with all applicable California Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC) requirements for high rise buildings. Although these are preliminary drawings, all applicable high rise requirements shall be considered and incorporated into the project during the design process.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Cecilia Sohn, Plan Check Inspector, at (310) 281-2716 or by email at [email protected].
36. Responses to Corrections Required
On a separate sheet, provide a detailed response to each correction noted in this letter clarifying how each correction was addressed. Submit this response letter when resubmitting your project.
37. Additional Corrections
Based on the responses to this incomplete letter and changes to the project plans, additional corrections may result from the review of the revised project.
19 38. Additional Comments
See redlined set of plans for additional comments.
In order for staff to continue processing the case, the foregoing list of corrections must be addressed on a resubmittal of plans and/or application materials, and additional entitlement applications. Before resubmitting your project to the Planning Division, please ensure that all corrections have been addressed and that each correction has been initialed as acknowledged by the architect team.
Once the items above have been addressed and submitted, the application will once again be assessed for completeness. In your response resubmittal, please provide a copy of this letter.
Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to call me at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT 3
October 13, 2023
Incomplete Letter from City
1 Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
SENT VIA EMAIL October 13, 2023
Dave Rand
Rand Paster & Nelson LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, 64th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[email protected]
RE: 125 – 129 South Linden Drive – Development Plan Review for Mixed Use Development (PL2300126) Dear Mr. Rand:
Staff has reviewed your application and materials for the Development Plan Review resubmittal received on September 15, 2023,
1 for September 15, 2023, for the proposed construction of a new mixed-use development at 125-129 South Linden Drive. The subject properties are located in the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and High Density Multi-family residential General Plan land use designation. At this time, the application has been deemed incomplete for the reasons set forth below, and the previously filed Preliminary Application relating to the project site is deemed to be of no further effect due to changes in the project. Further, additional applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinances are required to enable processing of the proposed project.
1. Preliminary Application
As part of the resubmittal received on September 15, 2023, the materials included a response letter dated August 9, 2023 with Attachment B, which includes written responses to the incomplete letter issued by the City. Attachment B included the following response to this correction:
“Per the explanation provided in the cover letter, the responses to the remaining comments reject the need to apply for additional entitlements or to comply with any provisions of the General Plan or zoning code (BHMC Title 10).”
1 Please note that the submittal attempt on August 9, 2023, was not received by the City until September 15, 2023, because the information apparently was caught by the City’s email security filter system. The City only became aware that a submittal attempt was made upon receipt of the September 15, 2023 letter asserting that the application was deemed complete by operation of law. In light of those facts, the City has concluded that the 30-day period to review the resubmitted information began no earlier than September 15, 2023, and that the application is not and was not deemed complete by operation of law. Nonetheless, at this time the City is not conceding that the submittal was timely.
2 The City disagrees with the position that the Preliminary Application submitted on October 24, 2022 remains valid, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and provided below.
As stated in the prior letter, on October 24, 2022,2 the property owner (9300 Wilshire LLC) submitted a Preliminary Application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 (the PA) for a housing development to vest the rights of a project under the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time that the preliminary application was submitted. Thereafter, on April 14, 2023, the property owner submitted a formal Development Plan Review (DRP) application for a housing development project, which was within 180 days of the PA submittal date noted above as required to maintain the validity of the PA.
The project that was submitted as part of the PA (the PA project) consisted of a residential-only project that included 200 dwelling units within a 259,547 SF, 16-story building. The building was proposed with a height of 170’ and included 124 parking spaces within a four-level subterranean parking structure.
The project for which the DPR application was submitted (the DA project) is substantially different from the project for which the PA was submitted. The DPR plans submitted entail a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel and hotel restaurant within a 311,197 SF, 19-story building. The building contemplated in the DPR application is now proposed with a height of 200’ and includes 126 parking spaces within a four-level subterranean parking structure.
Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65941.1 (a):
“An applicant for a housing development project … shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information about the proposed project to the city … from which approval for the project is being sought and upon payment of the permit processing fee: ….” (Emphasis added.)
The information required in a preliminary application includes “[t]he proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance.” (Govt. Code Sec. 65941.1(a)(4). (Emphasis added.)) The description of the proposed land uses included in the PA’s proposed project made no mention of any hotel or restaurant use or, for that matter, any other commercial or non-residential uses, and did not contemplate a mixed use project. The PA described the proposed land uses only as follows: “The proposed project will include 200 residential dwelling units in 259,547 (gross) sq. ft .” The argument in the August 9th letter that the PA remained valid even though it made no mention of any nonresidential development, as specifically required by Government Code Section 65941.1(a)(4), is flawed.
2 Although the Preliminary Application was submitted on Friday, October 21, 2022, the fees for the application were paid after hours, thus the submittal date is considered to be Monday, October 24, 2022. 3 The DPR application describes a very different project:
“The project consists of the construction of a new 19-story mixed use, multifamily residential and hotel building, with 165 rental apartment units (including 33 affordable housing units) and ancillary residential spaces, 73 hotel rooms and ancillary hotel spaces, and 126 parking spaces.” Based on the introduction of the new hotel use in the DPR project, which was not contemplated in the PA project, the Department continues to conclude that the DPR project submittal is for a project different from the PA project. Because the DPR project is substantially different from the project described in the PA, the Department continues to conclude that the DPR application, although filed within 180 days of the filing of the PA, is not sufficient to meet the filing requirement of Govt. Code Section 65941.1(d)(1). Therefore, the Department continues to find that the PA has expired and is of no further force or effect.
Further, as a separate and independent ground, the PA is expired and of no further effect because, for the reasons described below, the application remains incomplete. The September 15, 2023 resubmittal materials did not include all of the necessary information required in order to deem the application complete, and any subsequent submittals in response to this incomplete letter will necessarily be submitted well outside of the 90 days period following the City’s initial incompleteness letter dated May 12, 2023. Thus the application submittals have not and cannot meet the requirements of Govt. Code Section. 65941.1(d)(2).
2. General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications Required The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not necessary, as the project retains its vesting rights to proceed with a Development Review Permit in conjunction with the Builder’s Remedy.”
The City disagrees with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and provided below. The City continues to believe it has the authority to require the applications to be filed and processed as part of an overall project, even if, assuming arguendo, that it may be constrained by state law in its ability to deny a project on consistency bases.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
The proposed DPR project does not conform to the City’s General Plan and various provisions of the City’s zoning code. These deviations include, but are not limited to that:
4 • Neither a hotel nor a mixed residential/commercial use project is a permissible use in either the High Density Multifamily Residential General Plan land use designation or the R-4 zoning applicable to the project site.
• The proposed height exceeds the maximum permissible heights allowed in the General Plan and R-4 zoning
• The proposed residential density exceeds the maximum allowed density on the site.
The substantial deviations from the General Plan and applicable R-4 zoning and related ordinance contemplated by the DPR project must be analyzed and processed pursuant to the City’s procedures, and nothing in the Housing Accountability Act (Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5.) divests the City of its authority to require an applicant to follow the City’s procedural and administrative requirements.
Thus, in order to process the DPR project application, the applicant must also submit applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan, and zoning ordinances and/or map for concurrent processing.
The applications for the respective amendments must clearly describe each of the amendments that are necessary to enable the proposed DPR project, including the land use designation and zoning so as to accommodate the mixed use and hotel uses, which are prohibited in the General Plan land use designation and R-4 zone in which the property is located. Further, the amendment applications must address any other necessary changes to related development standards with which the proposed DPR project does not comply, including but not limited to height, density, setbacks, and other standards as described in more detail below.
Following the proper amendment process, in addition to the DPR process, is critical to, among other considerations, ensuring that the due process rights of surrounding property owners are respected, and that those property owners may participate in the proceedings, including required public hearings, should they so choose.
3. Land Use – Sheets A01, A06, A07, A14, A15, A16, A28, A29, A30, A31, L1.10, and L1.13 The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not necessary, as the project retains its vesting rights to proceed with a Development Review Permit in conjunction with the Builder’s Remedy.”
For the reasons noted above, the City disagrees with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required to facilitate commercial uses on a residentially zoned lot, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
The project site is located within the City’s R-4 Zone, and the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation. BHMC Sections 10-3-1202 and 10-3-1203 detail the types of 5 permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the R-4 Zone. As proposed, the DPR project3 consists of a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel and hotel restaurant. While residential development is permissible within the R-4 Zone and the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation, subject to the applicable development standards, as noted above, mixed-use developments, including hotel and hotel restaurant uses, are not permissible in the R-4 Zone or the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation.
Revise the project to remove commercial uses in the project or, as noted above, submit Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications to seek consideration of the project, as well as the regulations within the R-4 Zone that do not facilitate the type of proposed mixed-use development.
4. Density – Sheet A01
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not necessary, as the project retains its vesting rights to proceed with a Development Review Permit in conjunction with the Builder’s Remedy.”
For the reasons provided above, the City disagrees with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required to facilitate a project that exceeds the allowable density for a project site, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
The proposed project includes the development of 165 dwelling units on a 21,676.05 square-foot (SF) project site. The application materials submitted for this project note that the proposed project is not a density bonus project and is not seeking incentives, concessions, and/or waivers, or any subdivision which may be contemplated to separate the hotel uses from the residential uses. Specifically, as to density bonus, the PA specifically says “The project does not include a density bonus request under State Density Bonus Law”.
The City’s General Plan details the applicable density requirements for multi-family properties in the city. The applicable density for properties located in Multi-family Residential High Density Area is 50 dwelling units per acre (or 1 unit for every 871.2 SF of lot area). As such, the applicable density requirements would facilitate 25 dwelling units on the project site (21,676.05 / 871.2 = 24.88 units).
Fractional figures are rounded up to the nearest whole number.
As designed, the project exceeds the maximum number of allowable units by over 140 dwelling units.
Revise the project with a reduction in proposed units to comply with applicable density requirements. 3 Hereafter, the word “project” refers to the DPR project, unless otherwise noted. 6 Alternatively, the project may seek additional dwelling units above the otherwise applicable requirements by applying for a Density Bonus Permit. A density bonus project would be reviewed in compliance with applicable state density bonus law requirements.
Should the density of the project not be revised to comply with code requirements or pursuant to a density bonus proposal, the project as designed would require a zone change and general plan amendment, as noted above, because the project currently exceeds all applicable development standards for multi-family development in the City’s R-4 Zone and does not conform with the City’s General Plan.
5. Minimum Floor Area for Dwelling Units – Sheet A01 and Sheets A16 through A23 The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.” The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the standards for minimum floor area for dwelling units is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
BHMC Section 10-3-2802 details the applicable minimum dwelling unit requirements for new development on properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. The applicable minimum dwelling unit size are as follows:
• Studio/Efficiency Unit: Minimum floor area of 600 SF
• One Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,000 SF
• Two Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,300 SF
• Three Or More Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,500 SF In review of the set of plans, the residential portion of the project consists of 165 dwelling units with a mix of 13 studio, 59 one-bedroom, and 93 two-bedroom units. As noted on Sheet A01, the average size of a studio unit is between 450 SF and 486 SF, the average size of a one-bedroom unit is between 652 SF and 658 SF, and the average size of a two-bedroom unit not located on the penthouse level (19th floor) is between 892 SF to 970 SF. As such, these units do not appear to provide the applicable minimum floor area for an efficiency, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom unit. Revise the project and design of each unit to provide the minimum floor area required.
6. Outdoor Living Space – Sheets A01, A08, and A09
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
7 “Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.
For informational purposes, the plans have been updated to include dimensions on the open space areas that are provided and to revise the data discrepancy in the tables to reflect the correct number of units.
Refer to sheets A08 and A09.”
The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the outdoor living space requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
a. Required Outdoor Living Space – BHMC Section 10-3-2803 details the applicable open space requirements for new development on properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, 200 SF of outdoor living space is required per dwelling unit. The required outdoor living space can be provided as private outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 6’-0” on all sides, or as common outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides.
While the proposed development of 165 dwelling units exceeds the density allowed for the project site, should the applicant seek a zone change/general plan amendment to facilitate the project, the project would need to provide 33,000 SF of open space. As provided on the Open Space tables on Sheets A01, A08, and A09, the proposed project is proposing 18,228 SF of open space, which is approximately 14,772 SF less than what is otherwise required. Revise the project to provide the applicable area of outdoor living space per unit.
b. Outdoor Living Space Dimensions – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2803, outdoor living space can be provided as private outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 6’-0” on all sides, or as common outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides. Based on the Open Space tables provided on Sheets A08 and A09, it appears that the project is providing open space in both common and private outdoor living areas. While the 18,228 SF of proposed outdoor living area is not sufficient to meet the required outdoor living space required per unit (33,000 SF of outdoor living space is required for 165 dwelling units), the open space diagrams provided do not include any dimensions to show that the minimum outdoor living space dimensions are being provided. Revise the open space diagrams to include the dimensions of each proposed common and private outdoor living space areas. Each area shall provide the minimum dimensions required to count toward the required outdoor living space.
c. Number of Dwelling Units – The number of dwelling units noted on the Open Space tables provided on Sheets A01, A08, and A09 do not match the number of units proposed for the project.
The Open Space tables show that 171 dwelling units are proposed, while the plans for the project show a total of 165 dwelling units proposed. Revise the tables according to reflect the correct number of proposed units. Revise the amount of required open space to reflect the correct unit count.
8 7. Building Height – Sheets A01, A11, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28, A29, A30 and A31 The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.
For informational purposes, the plans have been revised to include additional data on the height and screening of the roof structures. Refer to sheets A23-A31.” The materials included new plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding building height. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the height requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
a. Maximum Allowable Height – The project site is comprised of two properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. BHMC Section 10-3-2804 details the applicable height requirements for properties located in the R-4 Zone. The first property at 125 S. Linden Drive is located within Height District C, which allows for development up to five (5) stories with a maximum height of 55’. The second property at 129 S. Linden Drive is located within Height District B, which allows for development up to four (4) stories with a maximum height of 45’.
In review of the project plans, the new development is designed with 19 stories and at a height of approximately 200’ tall. As designed, the portion of the project located in Height District B exceeds the maximum allowable height by 155’. Similarly, the portion of the project located in Height District C exceeds the maximum allowable height by 145’. Reduce the height of the proposed project to conform to the maximum allowable height for each applicable height district. b. Height of Rooftop Elements – Call out the height of all proposed rooftop elements on all sections and elevations, including the height of the proposed rooftop elevators, rooftop stairs, mechanical equipment screening, and any unoccupied architectural features (e.g., rooftop trellises and similar).
The rooftop elements shall comply with the maximum heights detailed under the definition of "Height of Building" for Multiple-Family Residential Zones in BHMC Section 10-3-100, as provided below, otherwise these features shall not be exempt from height and shall be counted toward the overall height of building:
• Structures enclosing elevator equipment and/or elevator lobbies if such structures are not higher than fifteen feet (15') above the adjacent roof deck and are not larger than the shaft of the elevator or elevators and their respective lobby areas. • Structures enclosing stairs required by law to be carried to the roof if such enclosing structure is used for no other purpose than enclosing the stairs and is no larger than the stair shaft below and if such enclosure is not more than twelve feet (12') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck.
9 • Penthouse structures used exclusively for mechanical equipment for the building or structure if such penthouse structure is not more than ten feet (10') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck.
• Parapets or handrails not more than forty-five inches (45") in height as measured from the roof or floor which they surround.
c. Mechanical Equipment Screening – Show the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment screening on all sections and elevations, as the proposed screening is not shown on the sections and elevations provided. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-100 (Height), the max height is 15'-0" for mechanical equipment penthouses and enclosures.
8. Alley Dedication – Sheets A11 through A29 L1.10 through L1.15 Sheets A11 though A29 have been updated to reflect the required alley dedication on the north side and rear. However, the new landscape plans submitted for this second round of review (Sheets L1.10 – L1.15) do not have these dedication areas shown and show landscaping and site paving in the required alley dedication area. Revise the landscape plans accordingly per the city’s correction issued on May 12, 2023 and listed below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
As required by the City’s Street Master Plan, a 2’-6” dedication is required along the north side and rear of the project site for widening of the existing 15’ alley to improve vehicular circulation. (See also BHMC Section 10-6-2, regarding street dedication and improvement requirements.) This dedication area needs to be shown on all details of the set of plans. Additionally, any required property setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line, post-alley dedication.
Show the required 2’-6” alley dedication area on all details of the set of plans, including on landscape plans site plan, floor plans, and all sections and elevations provided. Adjust the location of the property lines adjacent to the required dedication areas accordingly.
9. Setbacks – Sheets A01 and A11 through A29, A30, A31, and L1.10 through L1.15 The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.
For informational purposes, the plans have been revised to include additional data on the proposed setbacks, relative to the new property line location after the dedication. Refer to sheets A11-A23.” The materials included new plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding required setbacks. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the setback requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
10 Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
a. Front Setback – The applicable front yard setback for the project site is 15’-0”. As designed, portions of the proposed building located above ground level would encroach into the required setback.
As proposed, complete sections of the building on almost every floor level appear to encroach into the required front yard setback, with a seven-inch (7”) setback shown on the site plan provided on Sheet A11 of the set of plans. Such building encroachment is not permissible within the front yard setback area.
Revise the project to provide the applicable 15’-0” front setback for the project. b. Side Yard Setbacks – BHMC Section 10-3-2807 details the applicable side yard setbacks for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, the development of a project with more than four (4) stories or greater than 45’ in height shall be subject to a cumulative setback of 23’-0’, with a minimum setback of at least 9’ required on one side. When a project is subject to a dedication of land required for improving and widening existing alleys adjacent to the project site, the required setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line post-alley dedication.
As proposed, complete sections of the building on most floor levels appear to encroach into the required side setback, with a 7’-0” side setback provided to the north and an 11’-0” side setback provided to the south. The 18’-0” cumulative setback does not appear to meet the applicable cumulative setback of 23’-0’ required for a project that exceeds four stories and 45’ in height.
Similarly, the 7’-0” setback shown on the north side does not appear to meet the minimum side setback required for properties in the R-4 zone. Revise the project to provide the required minimum and cumulative side yard setback.
c. Rear Setback – BHMC Section 10-3-2808 details the applicable rear yard setback for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, a setback of 15’ is required for all new development in the R-4 zone. When a project is subject to a dedication of land required for improving and widening existing alleys adjacent to the project site, the required setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line post-alley dedication.
As proposed, sections of the building on several floor levels appear to encroach into the required rear setback, with a portion of the building designed with a 2’-6” rear from existing property lines.
Revise the project to provide the applicable 15’-0” rear yard setback to the project. d. Setbacks Throughout Plan Set - Show all applicable front, side, and rear setback lines on the site plan, floor plans, sections, and elevation on the set of plans. These details are missing from several sheets of the plan set.
e. Garage Encroachment in Front Setback – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2811, basement garages are allowed to encroach into the front yard setback area. However, as designed, the portion of the basement garage built into these setback areas needs to be 2'-0” lower than the grade of the adjacent 11 sidewalk. Additionally, that 2'-0” depression shall be used to provide planting areas within the front yard setback area.
As shown on Section 2 on Sheet A29, the portion of the basement garage within the front yard setback is currently designed to be at the same level as the adjacent sidewalk along South Linden Drive, which is not permissible. Revise the design of the basement garage that encroaches into the front yard setback area so that it is 2'-0” lower than the adjacent sidewalk along South Linden Drive. f. Modulation – BHMC Section 10-3-2806 details the applicable front modulation standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. In review of the set of plans provided, no details were included as to the amount of front building modulation provided for the project. As a separate exhibit to the set of plans, provide front modulation diagrams showing the required amount of modulation required and the modulation proposed for the project. Additionally, the diagrams shall show the depth of the modulation provided per floor and calculations for the aggregate principal building area.
Adjust the project design accordingly to provide the applicable front modulation for the project pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2806.
10. “NO BUILD ZONE” Area – Sheets A12 and A13
Area of no build zone added to the set of plans.
In reviewing the Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation dated October 7, 2020, previously prepared for the project site, several active earthquake faults were discovered on the properties at 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive. The “Structural Setback Plan” on Page 60 of the document establishes a “NO BUILD ZONE” where no portion of a habitable structure could be built.
Please show this no build zone area on the site plans and floor plans provided for the first floor and every subterranean level of the project to ensure that the proposed building does not encroach into the NO BUILD ZONE.
11. Front Yard Paving – Sheets A14, L1.10 and L1.13
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.” The materials included new plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding front yard paving. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the front yard paving requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
12 Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
BHMC Section 10-3-2813 details the applicable front yard paving standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, no portion of any front yard within the R-4 Zone shall be paved, except for not more than one walkway not exceeding five feet (5') in width and one driveway not exceeding the width of its curb cut. Based on the design provided on Sheet A14, the project includes a paved courtyard and walkway to the north side of the property. No driveway paving is proposed within the front yard setback area. Together, these walkways exceed the maximum allowable width for walkways located in the front yard setback area.
Revise the design of the paving proposed in the front yard setback area to include one (1) walkway that does not exceed 5’ in width. Additional walkways not exceeding 5’ in width may be permissible as detailed in BHMC Section 10-3-2813.
12. Site Walls and Fences – Sheets A11, A14, L1.10, and L1.13 The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.
For informational purposes, the plans have been revised to show details on the site walls and fences. Refer to sheets A11 and A14.”
The materials included new plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding front yard paving. Sheets A11 and A14 were revised to show a proposed 6’ tall security gate and fence at the rear of the property, however, the revised plans did not include details or sections showing the height or design of the wall. Provide sections and details for the proposed site fences and gate at the rear of the property. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the site fence and wall requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
Show all proposed site fences and walls on the site plan for the project. Provide additional details and sections on the set of plans showing the design and height of any proposed fences and walls. All site fences and walls shall be designed in conformance with the applicable fence/wall standards provided in BHMC Section 10-3-2814.
13. Parking – Sheets A01, A12 and A13
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.” 13 The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the parking standards is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below. Further, we note that the provisions of Assembly Bill 2097 do not apply to this project because the project includes a hotel component. (Cal.
Govt. Code Sec. 65863.2(e)(6).)
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
a. Residential Parking – BHMC Section 10-3-2816 details the applicable parking standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, the project shall provide the following number of parking spaces per dwelling unit type:
• One (1) parking space shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that is an efficiency unit of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet. • Two (2) spaces shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that contains one bedroom.
• Two and one-half (2 ½) parking spaces shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that contains two (2) bedrooms.
In review of the set of plans, the residential portion of the project consists of 165 dwelling units with a mix of 13 studio, 59 one-bedroom, and 93 two-bedroom units. Based on the unit mix proposed, 364 parking spaces would be required for the 165 dwelling units proposed. The total number of required parking spaces will be confirmed once floor plans of the residential portion of the project are provided to confirm an accurate bedroom count. As the project is only designed with 127 parking spaces, the project does not conform to the applicable parking standards. As provided on the set of plans and application materials, this project is not a density bonus project and thus is not eligible for the reduced parking standards under state density bonus provisions.
Revise the project to provide the required number of parking spaces. b. Guest Parking – BHMC Section 10-3-2817 details the applicable parking standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, guest parking shall be provided for the project at a ratio of 0.25 spaces/unit. As proposed, a project with 165 dwelling units would be subject to 42 guest parking spaces (41.25 rounded up to the nearest whole number).
Revise the project to provide the required number of guest parking spaces. Clearly call out which parking spaces for the project are being allocated for only guest parking. c. Hotel and Hotel Restaurant Parking – While previously noted that the hotel and hotel restaurant uses proposed for this project are not permissible within the R-4 Zone, should the applicant seek a Zone Change/General Plan Amendment to facilitate the proposed commercial uses, such uses shall be designed in compliance with the applicable parking requirements detailed in BHMC Section 10- 3-2730. Such parking shall be provided on-site.
14 Based on the plans provided, a 73-room hotel would require 73 parking spaces (1 space/room).
Additionally, the proposed 3,497 SF hotel restaurant would require 14 parking spaces (1 space/350 SF for first 3,000 SF – 1 space/100 SF for portion over 3,000 SF). However, 25% of the spaces required to be provided for the hotel may also be applied toward the hotel restaurant, which can provide a credit of approximately 19 parking spaces for hotel restaurant use.
As designed, the parking garage for the development does not currently provide any parking for the commercial uses of the project. Each space is labeled as “RES”, implying that the parking spaces are reserved for the residential uses of the project and not available to service the proposed hotel and hotel restaurant uses. Should the applicant seek a Zone Change/General Plan Amendment for consideration of this project, parking for the proposed hotel and hotel restaurant uses shall be provided on-site.
d. Parking Stall Dimensions – The City’s parking standards require all parking spaces provided for a project to be provided in standard configuration, with a minimum parking stall width of 9’-0” and a length of 19’-0”. Compact parking stall dimensions are not allowable for any required parking stall associated with the residential use of the property. However, pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3- 2727, the proposed hotel use may provide up to 25% of the required parking as compact parking stalls and through tandem spaces as part of a Conditional Use Permit.
In review of the set of plans, the subterranean parking structure includes compact parking stalls on each of the four levels for the residential uses, which is not permissible. No parking appears to be specifically provided for the commercial hotel and hotel restaurant uses proposed for the project.
Revise the design of the parking garage to include standard parking stalls with the minimum required stall width and length and remove compact stalls for the residential uses. Provide the required parking for the hotel and hotel restaurant uses. e. Parking Aisle Depth – The minimum aisle width required for parking spaces provided at a 90 degree angle is 26’-0” per the City’s parking standards. The drawings prepared for parking levels P1 - P4 show that a 24’-0” parking aisle is proposed where parking spaces are provided with a 90 degree turning angle.
Revise the design of the parking aisle width to provide the 26’-0” wide minimum aisle width. f. Garage Encroachment into Alley Dedication Area – Correct addressed. Basement garage no longer encroaches into alley dedication area.
As designed, the basement garage would encroach into the 2’-6” alley dedication area required along the north side and rear of the property. The garage cannot encroach into the required alley dedication area. Revise the design of the parking garage so that no portions of the building encroach into the required alley dedication areas.
15 g. Replacement Parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd –
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Project provides parking which can be shared between multiple uses. Additionally, the Project and the existing office building are eligible for a total reduction of parking requirements per recent updates to state law (Assembly Bill 2097), so in providing 126 spaces it provides more parking than is required.”
First, as noted above, Assembly Bill 2097 does not apply to this project because the project includes a hotel component. (Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 65863.2(e)(6).) Thus, the City disagrees with the position that AB 2097 impacts the obligation to provide replacement parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below. Furthermore, even if AB 2097 did apply, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2(h)(1), the city retains the ability to enforce a covenant or contractual agreement for parking. As noted in the city’s May 12, 2023, incomplete letter, “…a parking covenant was filed with the city and recorded on August 12, 1957, against the properties at 9740 Wilshire Blvd and 129 S. Linden Drive to provide a portion of the required parking off-site. The use of the 129 South Linden Drive site for commercial parking purposes was approved through Variances issued by the City Council in 1941 and 1958 (City Council Resolution Nos. 1061 and 2841).”
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
The project site at 129 S. Linden Drive is currently improved with a surface parking lot that provides required parking for the commercial office building located at 9740 Wilshire Blvd. The original building plans for the commercial building at 9740 Wilshire Boulevard show that the surface parking lot at 129 S. Linden Drive was designed with diagonal parking for 50 vehicles. To facilitate this, a parking covenant was filed with the city and recorded on August 12, 1957, against the properties at 9740 Wilshire Blvd and 129 S. Linden Drive to provide a portion of the required parking off-site. The use of the 129 South Linden Drive site for commercial parking purposes was approved through Variances issued by the City Council in 1941 and 1958 (City Council Resolution Nos. 1061 and 2841).
In review of the project, 126 parking spaces would be provided for the residential portion of the project. No parking is specifically provided for on the set of plans for the proposed the hotel and hotel restaurant uses. Additionally, the plans for the project and the application materials do not address how the required covenanted parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd would be replaced.
However, Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2737, it is not permissible to locate parking required for a commercial use or commercial property on a site that is zoned for residential land uses. As it pertains to the replacement parking for 9740 Wilshire, the replacement parking would either need to be provided on an alternative site zoned for commercial uses, or the applicant would need to seek a code amendment to allow for replacement of the required parking within this new 16 development. As previously noted, in addition to the parking required for the proposed project, a total of 50 parking spaces will need to be provided as replacement parking for the 9740 Wilshire site because the new development is proposing the removal of the existing covenanted parking required for the development on that property.
14. Loading – Sheets A06, A14, L1.10, and L1.13
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.” The materials included new plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding the proposed loading area. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the loading requirement is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below. In addition, the loading study and maneuvering information is necessary to disclose the potential effects of the project and to provide decision-makers adequate information to conduct the required discretionary review of the project.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
a. Number of Loading Spaces Required – BHMC Sections 10-3-2740 [through] 10-3-2743 detail the applicable loading space requirements. Based on the area schedule provided on Sheet A06, approximately 48,034 SF of floor area is proposed for use as hotel and hotel restaurant on the first and second floors. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2741, the number of loading spaces required for the proposed commercial floor area is three (3) truck spaces. Each truck loading space shall have a minimum length of 35’, width of 12’, and overhead clearance of 10’.
As proposed on Sheet A14, the project is designed with what appears to be one (1) loading space accessed from the alley that is 12’ wide by 30’ long. This single loading space provided does not appear to comply with the number of loading spaces required for the project or the minimum dimensions required for a truck loading space.
Revise the project to provide the applicable number of loading spaces at the required minimum dimensions.
b. Loading Study – Provide a loading study that evaluates the loading demands of the proposed project and determines the adequacy of the loading areas proposed. The loading study shall also study vehicle maneuverability into the proposed loading areas, particularly truck maneuverability for accessing the loading space located adjacent to the alley at the rear, as it appears difficult to maneuver a truck in the alley due the existing width. The existing alley measures 15’ in width, but would be widened to 17’-6” feet once the project dedicates land along the alleys. 17 c. Location of Loading Spaces – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2742, when a project site or structure abuts an alley, access to loading spaces shall be provided from the alley. Alley accessed loading spaces shall be parallel to the alley unless the project applicant establishes one of the following:
• Site constraints preclude construction of a parallel loading space or spaces; or, • The alternative loading space configuration proposed by the project applicant meets the functional requirements of the code.
As currently designed, the loading space provided on Sheet A14, is perpendicular to the alley instead of parallel to it. Revise the project to include the required loading spaces in compliance with BHMC Section 10-3-2742. If this cannot be achieved and the applicant is seeking an alternative configuration, provide findings as noted above detailing site constraints and how the alternative loading space will meet the functional requirements of the code. d. Maneuvering – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2740, loading spaces shall be directly accessible for the distribution of goods within the structure or use. For multi-story structures, such access shall be direct to an elevator or stairway serving all stories, and in this case, all stories of the hotel and hotel restaurant. In order to meet the functional requirements, loading spaces shall have a minimum maneuvering area as specified in the MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOADING SPACES table in BHMC Section 10-3-2740. Said maneuvering area shall be contiguous to the end of the loading space and may include the width of the alley or street.
Provide maneuvering diagrams showing truck ingress and egress to the loading spaces provided for the project.
15. Survey – Sheet A10
Comments regarding survey have been addressed. New survey file submitted in response to comments. a. Scale of Plan – In review of the survey provided on Sheet A10, the drawing does not appear to match the scale noted on the plan sheet. When several site features with dimensions are measured at the noted scale (1” = 10’), the dimensions scale out to less than what are noted on the survey. Provide a survey that is drawn to the scale noted on the plan sheet. b. Survey Legibility – The survey provided appears to be scanned from an original of that document and placed on the set of plans. As such, the details and dimensions provided are pixelated and not very legible. Provide a survey that is clear, legible, and not pixelated. c. Surveyor’s License Expiration – The survey provided notes that the surveyor’s license expired on 12/31/2020. Provide an updated survey with an updated expiration date of the surveyor of record.
16. Title Report – Sheet A10
Title report provided with resubmittal. No easements recorded against property per title report. 18 Provide a Title Report of the project site to verify whether any easements exist on the properties at 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive. The survey provided on Sheet A10 notes that there are no easements on the project site, “per referenced preliminary title report.” However, a copy of this title property was not provided. Provide a title report of the project site with project resubmittal.
17. Elevations and Renderings – Sheets A00, A02, A03, A04, A24, A25, A26, and A27 The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required.” The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the city’s development standards is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
Revise the elevations and renderings provided for the project, as required, to address the corrections and comments provided in this review letter and the redlined set of plans.
18. Floor Plan Layouts for Dwelling Units – Sheets A16 through A23 The floor plans have been revised to provide the interior layout of each unit. Correction addressed by applicant.
Provide floor plans layouts for each of the proposed dwelling units in the project. The floor plans provided only have a call out to the number of bedrooms in each unit, but the layout of each unit is not provided. The floor plans shall show the proposed kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and living area of each of the proposed dwelling units.
19. Rubbish Storage – Sheets A14, L1.10, L1.13
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“This requirement will be satisfied once Construction Documents are drafted as this requirement is derived from the Building Code. The project will incorporate these requirements as required during the construction document phase.”
The City requires this information to be provided at this stage to determine if the required amount of rubbish storage is being provided for the project. Please provide this requested information to verify compliance with the applicable requirement, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
19 BHMC Section 9-3-1 details the applicable rubbish storage standards for residential and commercial development. As proposed, the project would include a 592 SF trash room located in the first floor of the building, adjacent to the alley at the rear. However, calculations were not provided on the set of plans or in the application materials to demonstrate that the proposed trash room is of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated demand for waste generated by the project site.
Provide calculations pursuant to BHMC Section 9-3-1 showing the anticipated amount of rubbish that would be generated by the project and the size of the rubbish/trash room needed to accommodate the projected waste quantities that would be generated by the project.
20. Landscape Plans – Not Provided Sheets L1.00 through L1.15 Landscape plans provided for review. Please review the other sections of this letter for comments and corrections applicable to the landscape plans, along with the redlined set of plans for this round of review. Also note that the alley dedication area is not shown on these plans. Instead, the landscape plans show landscaping and project site hardscaping the in the future alley area. The area to be dedicated for widening of the alley shall be paved with a surface approved by the Public Works Department for alleys, which is generally asphaltic concrete.
Revise the landscape plans accordingly.
Provide landscape plans of the proposed project with resubmittal. The landscape plans shall show all proposed landscaping improvements on the project site and in the public right-of-way.
21. Environmental Review
Once all major corrections have been addressed and complete applications have been submitted, the City will review the proposal to determine what review may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant will be responsible for paying the the costs for the preparation of any required environmental document, including but not limited to the costs of any consultants as may need to be retained by the City.
22. Low Impact Development (LID)
To be provided in Building Plan Check.
Pursuant to BHMC Section 9-4-508, the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are applicable to new developments projects.
As you progress with the design of the project, review the applicable LID requirements and incorporate them into your project and set of plans. This will ensure that the project, as designed, can accommodate the required LID provisions early on and will reduce or eliminate any changes needed once the project is submitted for building plan check.
A copy of the Low Impact Development (LID) Fact Sheet is available for download from the City’s website using the following link:
20 http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/1266023136723167408/ChecklistforLIDRequiremen tsFINAL(6).pdf
For question related to LID requirements, please contact Trevor Alsop at 310-288-2837 or by email at [email protected].
23. Shade and Shadow Study – Sheet A32
In review of the shade and shadow study provided, see the following comments provided below:
a) Show the property lines, addresses, and street names on all pages of the shade and shadow study.
Show property lines and addresses for all properties shown on the study. b) Show the fully extent of the shadow cast by the proposed building. The exhibits provided are small and do not appear to fully depict the extent of the shadow cast by the proposed building.
Provide a shade and shadow study for the proposed project. Diagram the shadows from the proposed structure during the winter and summer equinoxes, from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., at three-hour intervals. The study shall show adjacent properties and the projected shadow on those properties during the noted intervals.
24. Rooftop Operations Plan
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The 18th and 19th floor rooftop areas include passive seating areas and landscaping. The rooftop areas will be used for residential users only. The maximum occupancy will be confirmed by the City during the plan check phase once construction documents are prepared.” The narrative provided in the response letter does not provide sufficient detail as to the proposed operations on the rooftop areas for the project. This information is necessary to disclose the potential effects of the project and to provide decision-makers adequate information to conduct the required discretionary review of the project. Please provide a detailed Rooftop Operation Plan that addresses the items detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
Provide the following information for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas proposed:
• Indicate the types of uses proposed for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas. • Indicate the proposed hours of operation of all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas. • Indicate whether the rooftop area will be used exclusively by the residential portion of the project or if hotel rooftop access will be provided.
21 • If the hotel will have access to the rooftop, indicate the type, frequency (yearly, monthly, daily, etc.) of rooftop events, appointments, etc.
• If the hotel will have access to the rooftop, indicate maximum occupancy anticipated for each type of event.
25. Arborist Report
As no trees are being removed from the Public Right-of-Way, no arborist report is required.
Provide an Arborist Report detailing all existing trees located within adjacent public right-of-way along South Linden Drive. The arborist report shall also detail all proposed removal and/or installation of new trees in the public right-of-way.
26. Transportation/Traffic Studies
A Transportation Impact Analysis was submitted with this second round of review. Further comments on the Transportation Impact Analysis may result as part of the preparation of environmental documents as required under CEQA.
Pursuant to the City’s Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1901, the following transportation/traffic studies are required:
a. Transportation Impact Analysis – Based on the City’s screening criteria, the project does not appear to be screened out from providing a Transportation Impact Analysis. Please provide a Transportation Impact Analysis that evaluates potential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-related impacts associated with the proposed Project.
b. Local Transportation Assessment – For projects that generate over 75 peak hour trips, a local transportation assessment/traffic study shall be required using Level of Service (LOS) metric to evaluate signalized and unsignalized intersection operation and use the percentage increase in traffic volumes to evaluate impacts on local residential streets. Analyzed locations should primarily consist of major signalized intersections that are likely to be affected by the project. Additionally, the study area should also look at roadways providing access to the project site, such as the roadway(s) containing the project’s primary driveway or secondary access point, or the intersection(s) immediately adjacent to the project site along with the surrounding area. Such report shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for review and comment by the City’s Traffic Engineer.
27. Transportation and Trip Reduction Measures - Transportation Impact Analysis The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Please see the enclosed Transportation Impact Analysis by LLG (Attachment E), dated July 31, 2023 in response to this comment.”
22 In review of the Transportation Impact Analysis provided, Pages 62-64 of the report provides a copy of BHMC Section 10-7-301. However, the Transportation Impact Analysis of the set of plans do not show how the project will comply with the applicable trip reduction measures, including but not limited to, where the required bicycle parking will be provided. The analysis only states on Page 64 that “The Project will comply with the required TDM and trip reduction measures detailed in Section 10-7-301 of the BHMC,” but provided no information on how the project will comply or what measures are incorporated into the project to achieve compliance.
Revise the Transportation Impact Analysis and the set of plans to show how these requirements are implemented in the project. Show the location of the required bicycle parking on the set of plans.
Please provide this requested information to verify compliance with the applicable requirement, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-7-301, the applicant is required to incorporate various measures to provide for transportation demand management and trip reduction. As the project appears to provide more than 50,000 SF of gross floor area for commercial uses, the applicant shall incorporate all required measures into this project, which includes but is not limited to, providing bicycle parking, spaces reserved for vanpool, and information on rideshare and public transit opportunities.
Revise the project to incorporate the applicable transportation and trip reduction measures accordingly.
28. Geotechnical/Soils Report
A Geotechnical Investigation Report was provided. Comments on the report are provided below.
Provide a geotechnical/soils report for the project and project site. The geotechnical/soils report shall evaluate the proposed project and provide recommendations for the construction of the proposed building based on existing soil conditions. The report should also address the site-specific fault issues and constraints.
a. Discrepancy in Project Scope
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a Geotechnical Investigation Report dated April 8, 2021. In review of the Geotechnical Investigation Report, there appears to be an error in the type of project analyzed by the Geotechnical Engineer in preparation of this document. The proposed project is a 19-story building with four levels of subterranean parking provided at an approximate depth of 41’ at parking level P4 and about 50’ in depth at the hotel elevator well. However, the Geotechnical Investigation Report notes that the project is a nine-story residential structure with three levels of subterranean parking, which does not match the project submitted as part of the Development Plan Review application. Additionally, the excavation depths noted in the report at 35’ do not match the project that was submitted to the city for review. Specifically, Page 3 of the report states the following:
23 “Based on information provided to us by the client, we understand that the proposed development consists of one nine-story residential structure over three subterranean parking levels that will extend to depths of approximately 35 feet below ground surface.” Furthermore, Item 7.1.16 in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report (Page 18) stated the following:
“7.1.16 - Any changes in the design, location or elevation, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.”
Revisions by the geotechnical engineer to the Geotechnical Investigation Report and its recommendations are required to accurately analyze the correct project scope and the currently submitted plans. See comments provided on Geotechnical Investigation.
29. Construction Management Plan
Provide a construction management plan that provides relevant project construction details, including but not limited to:
• Anticipated timelines for the different construction phases of the project (e.g., demolition, grading, shoring and excavation, construction of the basement, foundations, and above grade work). Provided and in receipt.
• Proposed locations for the staging of construction materials and equipment. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted. • Anticipated closures of any right-of-way area (alley/street) and timelines for such closures.
Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
30. Noise Study
The preparation of a noise study will be commissioned by the city as part of the preparation of an environmental report for the project.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
Provide a noise study of the project to evaluate projected construction noise and noise levels anticipated post-construction with the proposed rooftop outdoor living space uses.
31. Metro Adjacent Development Review
The project site is located within close proximity to the upcoming Metro Purple (D Line) subway, which is currently under construction. The subway line is projected to run under Wilshire Boulevard and travel southwest to a station located in Century City, potentially under the project site. To ensure safety, developers, utility companies, and other third parties must consult with Metro for development, construction, and maintenance activities occurring within 100 feet from Metro right-of-way (ROW) and other real estate assets.
24 As noted on Page 2 of the Geotechnical Investigation report, “Due to the location of the Metro tunnels for the Purple Line Extension, it is possible that portions of the proposed structure will be situated within the influence zone defined by Section 4.1-A of the MTA Design Criteria and Standards, Volume III, Adjacent Construction Design Manual Adjacent Construction Design Manual. New construction within or near the MTA influence zone, must not impose a surcharge on the subterranean MTA facilities in excess of what the structure is designed to withstand. If proposed subterranean levels are not sufficiently deep then building loads could exceed the surcharge allowable by MTA; therefore, the new loads will have to be transferred below or outside of the defined MTA Surcharge Influence Zone projection.” Provide information to the city of the applicant’s outreach efforts with Metro documenting that the proposed project would not impact Metro’s Purple Line facilities or exceed allowable surcharge limits.
Also, as noted on Item 28.A, the project evaluated in the Geotechnical Investigation does not match the project that has been submitted to the city for review. As the project has changed from the nine-story building with three subterranean levels evaluated in the Geotechnical Investigation to the 19-story project with four subterrean levels that was submitted to the city, the larger project may have the ability to result in increased surcharges to Metro facilities and requires their review.
For information on how to request and obtain Metro Adjacent Development Review, please contact Metro’s Development Review Team at (213) 418-3484 or by email at [email protected]. Additional information can be obtained by visiting https://www.metro.net/about/adjacent-development-review/.
32. Public Works Stormwater/Environmental Compliance/Sustainability Comments To be reviewed in Building Plan Check.
Below are Stormwater/ Environmental Compliance/ Sustainability comments provided by the Public Works Department:
• Project to use available 100% renewable energy from local utilities. • Sewer system capacity requirement. Require hydraulic modeling to assess sewer capacity issues for the development. Improvement to wastewater system if it impacts sewer system flow. • If permanent dewatering system is needed, design the project to re-use groundwater for nonpotable water systems as required pursuant to BHMC Section 9-4-610.B.2. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and may require a permit from the City of Beverly Hills.
• Appropriate number of approved Meter Service Protection backflow prevention assemblies for Domestic, Irrigation and Fire Meters required.
• Must implement Low Impact Development (LID) meeting requirements of LID ordinance to mitigate stormwater runoff.
• The applicant is required to install a grease interceptor for food service establishment use.
Grease interceptor design shall meet the Los Angeles County Public Works Industrial Waste Program requirements. Placement should be accessible for maintenance operation. 25 • Water discharged from a loading dock and trash enclosure shall be directed through grit/oil separator. A loading dock is not to be confused with a loading zone or designated parking space for loading and unloading.
• Organic residuals from daily operations and water used to wash trash rooms cannot be discharged to surface public right of way.
• Condensate from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Trevor Alsop, Environmental Compliance Inspector, at (310) 288-2837 or by email at [email protected].
33. Building and Safety – Building and Technical Code Comments Below are comments provided by Building and Safety regarding compliance with applicable building and technical codes:
• These comments reflect high-level conceptual review comments. Complete code compliance review will be forthcoming upon plan check submittal. Building Plan Check Item • The review comments are in accordance with 2022 California Building Code and its references.
Building Plan Check Item
• General contractor must submit Construction Management Plan for review and approval prior to any building permit issuance. The plan needs to address how to the building to be built including demolition, excavation, shoring, access to site for ingress and egress, haul route, tower crane if needed, pedestrian protection, sanitary facilities, a temporary or permanent stairway, standpipe, fire watch during construction, traffic control plan (will be reviewed by Public Works), etc. Refer to California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 33. Building Plan Check Item
• The project to comply with requirements of Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 10 and Chapter 6, STREET, ALLEY, AND HIGHWAY DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Alley dedications inconsistently shown on resubmitted plans. All sheets must identify location of alley dedications.
• Survey map is required to show all easements on the properties. Provided • Comply with the City’s applicable parking standards.
https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/563485925821755963/ParkingStandards(R EV2.18).pdf Not addressed. See Planning’s comments related to adherence with the City’s parking requirements.
• The project requires LID (Low Impact Development) plan check. Building Plan Check Item • On site plan, confirm the location of seismic fault line with dimensions per the seismic fault investigation report. Provided on revised Architectural Plans. • Provide complete Fire department and vehicle access. Building Plan Check Item • Hotel will be classified as R-1 occupancy. CBC 310. Building Plan Check Item • The project is required to be designed in compliance with requirements of CBC 403, High-rise building and CBC 405, Underground Building. Building Plan Check Item 26 • The project is required to provide separate accessible parking requirements per CBC 11A and CBC 11B for residential and nonresidential, respectively. Additionally, the project shall provide accessible and standard EV charging parking spaces. Show the location of these required EV parking spaces in the proposed garage. EV parking spaces not provided on parking plans.
Revise parking plans to call out all EV parking spaces within the project. • The project shall comply with both residential and nonresidential requirements of California Green Building Standards Code in accordance with Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 2 and Article 11. Building Plan Check Item
• The project is required to fully comply with California Energy Code. Building Plan Check Item • The project is required fully comply with accessibility provisions of CBC 11A and CBC 11B for residential and nonresidential, respectively. Building Plan Check Item • The hotel shall be designed in compliance with CBC 11B-224. Building Plan Check Item • The project building shall be designed in compliance with requirements of CBC 705.5 and CBC 705.8. Building Plan Check Item
• The project shall fully comply with requirements of CBC Chapter 10. No exiting analysis was provided. Building Plan Check Item
• The project shall comply with accessible means of egress requirements per CBC 1009.
Building Plan Check Item
• The enclosed parking structure shall be designed in compliance with CBC 406. Building Plan Check Item
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Ocean Kwon, Senior Plan Review Engineer, at (310) 285-1153 or by email at [email protected].
34. Building and Safety – Right of Way Comments
Below are comments provided by Building and Safety regarding areas in the public right-of-way:
• Provide a water demand study to evaluate anticipated water demand for project and for the City to evaluate the types of upgrades and improvements that will be necessary to existing infrastructure. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted. • Obtain will serve letter from the Public Works Water Division.Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
• Coordinate with Edison to evaluate necessary upgrades to existing infrastructure to facilitate the project and provide the City a proposal of all upgrades required to provide service to the project. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted. • Provide a Construction Management Plan with a narrative detailing the types of temporary encroachments that the project would require during project construction. Based on the proposal, the project would require working areas for the staging and storage of construction materials, equipment, crane(s), trailers, deliveries, and for a laydown area for transport and maneuvering of vehicles. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
• Provide a plan showing the proposed haul routes and delivery route to the project site. To limit construction impacts to residential properties within the vicinity of the project site, all 27 construction-generated traffic should provide ingress and egress to and from the project site directly to Wilshire Boulevard. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Ara Retchian, Senior Plan Review Engineer, at (310) 285-1106 or by email at [email protected].
35. Fire Department Comments
Below are comments provided by the City’s Fire Department:
• The project shall be designed in compliance with all applicable California Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC) requirements for high rise buildings. Although these are preliminary drawings, all applicable high rise requirements shall be considered and incorporated into the project during the design process. Fire Plan Check Item For questions regarding these comments, please contact Cecilia Sohn, Plan Check Inspector, at (310) 281-2716 or by email at [email protected].
36. Responses to Corrections Required
On a separate sheet, provide a detailed response to each correction noted in this letter clarifying how each correction was addressed. Submit this response letter when resubmitting your project.
37. Additional Corrections
Based on the responses to this incomplete letter and changes to the project plans, additional corrections may result from the review of the revised project.
38. Additional Comments
See redlined set of plans for additional comments.
In order for staff to continue processing the case, the foregoing list of corrections must be addressed on a resubmittal of plans and/or application materials, and additional entitlement applications. Before resubmitting your project to the Planning Division, please ensure that all corrections have been addressed and that each correction has been acknowledged by the architect team.
Once the items above have been addressed and submitted, the application will once again be assessed for completeness. In your response resubmittal, please provide a copy of this letter. 28 Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to call me at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Attachments:
A. Redlined plans
B. Comments on Geotechnical Investigation Report