LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) Requirements
All development must comply with the County of Los Angeles’ Title 12, Chapter 12.84 (LID).
LID standards are intended to distribute stormwater and urban runoff across developed sites to help reduce adverse water quality impacts and replenish groundwater supplies. The LID Manual is available at the following link: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/web/ Under the NPDES permit (LACBC Section 106.4.3) and the County of Los Angeles LID ordinance, priority projects are required to prohibit the discharge of pollutants from property developments. Preventing these pollutants from entering stormwater discharge system will be accomplished by requiring the installation and maintenance of post-construction treatment controls. (Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Residential development of 4 units or less:
□ New development, hillside development, redevelopment, alterations, or additions which alter 50% or more of impervious surfaces, entire site shall meet LID requirements.
61. Residential development of 4 units or less must implement a minimum of two LID Best Management Practice (BMP) alternatives as indicated in Section 3.2 and Appendix E – Stormwater Quality Control Measure Fact Sheets of the LID Manual. Plans must show complete construction details, materials, manufacturer, model number, dimensions, location, structures, slopes, construction notes, specifications, cross sections, elevations, and setbacks from property lines needed to construct proposed LID BMPs. BMPs should be designed so as not to adversely impact building foundations, pavement, slope stability, or an adjacent property. For hillside properties all catch basins and inlets that discharge into an existing or proposed storm drains must be labeled to discourage illegal dumping of pollutants. Stencils are available at your local Building and Safety office.
a. Permeable Porous Pavement or other impervious surfaces (at least 50% of pavement on lot shall be porous) • Show detail of placement, base, geotextile, subgrade, and soil preparation per manufacturer’s specifications. • The required soils report must address percolation and manufacturer’s recommendations and guidelines. • H-20 loading is required for Fire Department access.
• A minimum of 30” deep impervious liner or edge restraint is required within 5’ of public right of way, property lines, and structures unless otherwise recommended by a soils engineer. b. Downspout routing (choosing one of the options below satisfies 1 of 2 required BMPs) □ Cistern/rain barrel (Option 1)
• Show location of cistern/rain barrels. Rain barrels should be designed to store 200 gallons and be located such that roof run-off is equally distributed. Rain gutters & downspouts shall be shown on plans. • Plans shall show hose bibs or pump systems for discharge and watering of landscaping. (Note: A separate electrical permit is required for pump systems).
• A plumbing permit is required for backflow prevention devices when the discharge system is tied into a landscaping irrigation system served by a potable water source. • H-20 loading is required for underground cisterns located in an area subject to traffic conditions. • Plans should include manufacturer specifications and notes for rain barrels. See provided guidelines. □ Rain garden/Stormwater Planter (Option 2)
• Surface area of flow through type planter box shall be designed and sized to treat 200 gallons. Planter must have a 18” minimum top soil layer and 12” minimum gravel layer. The infiltration type planter box shall be designed to infiltrate 200 gallons over a 48 hour period. c. Divert Runoff/Disconnect Impervious Surfaces (Hillsides > 25% slope must comply with this requirement) • Show driveway, roof, and other impervious surfaces to drain toward pervious landscaped areas. The ratio of impervious to pervious area shall be no less than 2:1. This ratio must be identified on plans for each affected area.
A minimum of 90% of the untreated impervious area shall be routed toward vegetated areas or water quality BMPs. d. Dry well
• Show details including the following: location, cross section details, liner materials, subbase, and all manufacturer’s specifications and/or recommendations from soils engineer. The required soils report shall address dry well and manufacturer’s specification and requirements.
• The system should be designed to store and infiltrate a minimum of 200 gallons of stormwater within a 48 hour period.
• Provide calculations to determine the infiltration volume for sizing of well and determine time of infiltration to percolate 200 gallons.
• A filter or sediment control is required to filter water entering the dry well. • Drywells that are deeper than their widest dimension are defined by the EPA as Class V injection wells, and are subject to inventory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and must be registered at the following link with the EPA as injection wells. http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/groundwater/injection-wells-register.html. If this type of dry well is proposed, provide copy of registration. e. Landscaping and landscape irrigation
• Show a minimum of two 15-gallon trees to be planted and maintained. Trees shall be located near impervious surfaces (10 foot maximum distance). One of the trees may be on the drought-tolerant plant list as required under the County’s Green Building Ordinance (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/green_drought-tolerantgarden.pdf). In Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, applicant should verify compliance with Fire Department’s requirements https://www.fire.lacounty.gov/forestry-division/forestry-fuel-modification/. o Install Smart Irrigation Controllers. (see Comment 86 for requirements) f. Green Roof
• Show area of green roof on site plan.
• Structural calculations for design of green roof will be required at time of building plan submittal. • Fire Department approval will be required as part of building plan check. 205
62. The following is a list of Designated Projects for new development and redevelopment activities that require compliance with LA County’s LID ordinance. (See LID manual for additional information) ❑ All development projects equal to 1 acre or greater of disturbed area and adding more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area
❑ Residential new or redeveloped projects that creates, adds, or replaces >10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. ❑ Industrial parks 10,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Commercial malls 10,000 square feet or more surface area ❑ Retail gasoline outlets 5,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Restaurants (SIC 5812) 5,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area, or with 25 or more parking spaces ❑ Street and road construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area ❑ Automotive service facilities with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Projects located in or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to a Significant Ecological Area (SEA),where the development will discharge storm water runoff that is likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and Create 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface area
❑ Redevelopment projects identified below*:
o Land-disturbing activity that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area
o Development which alters less than 50% of impervious surfaces. Only proposed re-development needs to meet NPDES requirements.
o Development which alters 50% or more of impervious surfaces. Entire site shall meet NPDES requirements.
*Impervious surface replacement, such as the reconstruction of parking lots and roadways which does not disturb additional area and maintains the original grade and alignment, is considered a routine maintenance activity. Redevelopment does not include the repaving of existing roads to maintain original line and grade.
REQUIREMENTS:
A. New Development and Re-Development Projects must control runoff through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use. Project must retain onsite the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) as defined by the greater of the following:
• The 0.75-inch, 24 hour rain event or
• The 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event, as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map (www.dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/hydrologygis) ,.
B. Bioretention and biofiltration systems shall meet the design specifications provided in Appendix E of LA County’s LID manual. (available at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/web/). Biofiltration systems shall be entirely open-bottom.
C. When evaluating the potential for onsite retention, each projects must consider the maximum potential for evapotranspiration from green roofs and rainfall harvest and reuse for both indoor and outdoor use.
D. To demonstrate technical infeasibility, it must be shown that a project site cannot reliably retain 100 percent of the SWQDv onsite. Technical infeasibility may result from the following:
i. The infiltration rate of saturated in-situ soils less than 0.3 inch per hour. ii. Seasonal high ground water is within 5 to 10 feet of the surface. iii. Locations within 100 feet of a ground water well used for drinking water. iv. Brownfield development sites where infiltration poses a risk of pollutant mobilization. v. Locations with potential geotechnical hazards.
E. When technical infeasibility has been demonstrated the site must biofiltrate using the following equation for volume required:
Bv = 1.5 * [SWQDv – Rv] Where: Bv = Biofiltration volume SWQDv = Stormwater runoff as defined in 88 A
Rv = Volume reliably retained onsite (amount infiltrated) Show volumes and flow rates on plans as applicable.
Note: For additional alternative compliance measures see Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R4-2012-0175 section VI.D.7.c.iii (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/index.shtml) F. Project sites that outlet to natural drainage systems that are subject to hydromodification shall be in compliance with LA County’s LID manual, Section 8 (available at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/web/).
G. The plans must show complete construction details, materials, manufacturer, model number, dimensions, location, structures, slopes, construction notes, specifications, cross sections, elevations, GPS x-y coordinates for each BMP, and setbacks from property lines needed to construct proposed LID BMPs. BMPs should be designed as not to adversely impact building foundations, pavement, slope stability, or an adjacent property.
H. Clearly show driveway/access road drainage and provide BMPs for treatment of driveway flows. Provide elevations, cross sections, or slopes as applicable.
I. Submit and obtain approval from Environmental Programs Division, Industrial Waste Unit at 900 S. Fremont, Alhambra, Annex Building, 3rd floor, Alhambra, CA 91803. Please contact EPD by email at [email protected] or call (626) 458-3517 for required fees and submittal requirements. An annual operating permit may be required. , . Please note:
prior to obtaining approval from EPD the location and the design flows for all BMPs must be shown on plans and approved by Building and Safety (This applies to all non-residential projects).
J. Pre-treatment BMPs are required.
206
63. Non-Designated Projects.
Non-residential development (Commercial, Industrial) or a residential development consisting of 5 or more residential units:
□ Development which alters less than 50% of impervious surfaces. Only proposed new impervious areas needs to meet LID requirements.
□ Development which alters 50% or more of impervious surfaces. Entire site shall meet LID requirements.
A. This project is required to retain the Delta Storm Water Quality Design Volume (∆SWQDv), the difference between the stormwater runoff volume pre- and post-condition. The SWQDv, from which the ∆SWQDv is calculated, is defined in item 85A of this grading review sheet. ∆SWQDv is defined as the difference in the runoff volume between undeveloped (1% impervious surface) and post-developed condition. The ∆SWQDv is calculated according to the following equation:
∆SWQDv = Vd – Vu
Where: ∆SWQDv = Increase in stormwater runoff volume from the project [ft3]; Vd = Stormwater runoff volume post-development [ft3]; and Vu = Undeveloped stormwater runoff volume [ft3] (1% impervious).
If ∆SWQDv cannot be infiltrated due to geotechnical or technical feasibility as indicated in Section 7 of the County’s LID Manual; onsite storage or other water conservation requirements must be implemented.
B. Provide calculations for sizing of the proposed BMP’s. Calculations must consider ∆SWQDv, percolation rate, and geotechnical considerations.
C. Plans must show complete construction details, materials, manufacturer, model number, dimensions, location, structures, slopes, construction notes, specifications, cross sections, elevations, GPS x and y coordinates for each BMP, and setbacks from property lines needed to construct proposed LID BMPs. BMPs should be designed as not to adversely impact building foundations, pavement, slope stability, or an adjacent property.
D. Hydrology Calculations to determine the increase in volume due to development is required. For smaller sites, the County’s Hydrocalc Program may be used for determining Pre- and Post-construction volumes. See Section 6 of County’s LID Manual. • A drain system is required for all infiltration basins. Drain systems shall discharge to an approved location and must be shown on site drainage or grading plans. Calculations for sizing of the infiltration basins are required.
64. For LID compliance, all catch basins and inlets that discharge into an existing or proposed storm drain must be labeled to discourage illegal dumping of pollutants. Stencils are available at your local Building and Safety office.
65. All infiltration basins, dry wells, or planters must comply with the following setbacks Infiltration Facility Setbacks*
Setback from Distance in feet
Property lines & Public Right of Way 5’ minimum
Any Foundation 15’ or within a 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of foundation Face of any slope H/2, 5’ minimum (H is height of slope)* Seasonal high ground water 10’ minimum depth to invert
Water wells 100’ minimum
Required Infiltration Time (due to vector control)
BMP Type Duration
Open above ground (includes planting soil or open gravel pit) 48 hours to drain completely Underground retention 96 hours to drain completely
*unless otherwise recommended by a Soils Engineer and approved by Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division.
Note: Infiltration is not allowed in areas where pollutant mobilization is a documented concern, or where undisturbed soil infiltration rates are less than 0.3 inches per hour, or where infiltration could cause adverse impacts to biological resources.
66. An Infiltration Report by a Soils Engineer and the grading plans must be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Geology and Soils Section prior to approval of an Infiltration/Retention - Low Impact Development (LID) BMP. Please see attached GMED Plan Check Referral Form for instructions. The Infiltration Report must comply with GMED Geotechnical Memo GS 200.1 and should be presented as its own report. All recommendations and notes as indicated in the soils engineering report and/or GMED review sheets must be incorporated into the grading plans. The GS 200.1 memo can be found at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/gmed/permits/docs/policies/GS200.1.pdf Gravel Specification for Non-proprietary gravel storage layers must indicate 1.5” to 3” diameter, angular, clean rock compacted to 90% relative compaction or equivalent determined and field verified by a Soils Engineer.
67. Rainwater harvest and reuse systems that are NOT gravity fed require approval from LA County Public Health, Cross Connection & Water Pollution Control Program. The application and further information is found at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/EP/cross_con/cross_con_main.htm. In addition, approval from LA County, Building and Safety Plumbing Section is required. Rainwater harvest design and plans must comply with County of Los Angeles, Plumbing Code, Chapter 16 – Non-Potable Rainwater Catchment Systems.
68. Different types of infiltration facilities such as dry wells, unlined sumps, seepage pits, and infiltration galleries are some of the terms used to describe Class V injection wells as defined by the EPA. Register the proposed infiltration facility at the following online registration form: http://www.epa.gov/uic/forms/underground-injection-wells-registration. 207
May 23, 2024
Project No. 23-3282
Ms. Yukiko Ogasawara
3 Flying Main Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Report Update, Proposed Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California.
Dear Ms. Ogasawara:
Per your request, presented herewith is Hamilton & Associates, Inc. (H&A) Preliminary Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Report for the subject project. H&A’s work was conducted in accordance with the proposal dated September 26, 2023 and your subsequent authorization on December 12, 2023. H&A prepared a comprehensive geotechnical and geological investigation report for the site in 2013. Wildan reviewed and approved the report in 2013/14. An update report was prepared in 2021. This report presents all prior exploration and testing performed by H&A and updates getoechnical / geological analysis and recommendations for the current project scope. This evaluation has concluded that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations and design guidelines presented in this report are incorporated in the project plans and design, and are implemented during construction.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services on this important project and we look forward to assisting you during construction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Karen Duarte Eirik F. Haenschke, PG, CEG
Staff Engineer Engineering Geologist
David T. Hamilton, PE, GE
President/Geotechnical Engineer
208
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 Project Concept.............................................................................................. 1 Existing Site Conditions.................................................................................. 1 Structural Loading .......................................................................................... 1 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE REPORTS................................................................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING................................................ 2 FIELD EXPLORATION......................................................................................... 2 Bucket Auger Borings..................................................................................... 2 Test Pits ......................................................................................................... 3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................... 3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITONS ....................................................................... 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ...................................................................... 3 LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................. 4 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING ......................................................................... 9 SEISMOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................. 9 Ground Shaking Analysis ............................................................................... 9 Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................... 9 Seismic Settlements (Liquefaction) .............................................................. 10 Seismically Induced Landslides.................................................................... 10 Hydro-Consolidation..................................................................................... 10 Expansive Soils ............................................................................................ 10 SLOPE STABILITY....................................................................................................... 10 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 12 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING............................................................... 12 Existing Construction Debris, Undocumented Fill, Disturbed Soils............... 12 Remedial Grading......................................................................................... 13 Hillside Grading ............................................................................................ 13 Temporary Excavations................................................................................ 15 New Fills....................................................................................................... 16 Backfilling and Compaction Requirements ................................................... 16 Imported Soils............................................................................................... 17 Observation and Testing During Construction.............................................. 17 FOUNDATION DESIGN ..................................................................................... 18 Foundation Capacity..................................................................................... 18 Lateral Resistance........................................................................................ 19 Active Loads on Piles ................................................................................... 19 Settlements/Displacements .......................................................................... 19 Slope Setback .............................................................................................. 20 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................... 20 RETAINING WALLS........................................................................................... 20 209
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page ii
POOL RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 21 SLAB-ON-GRADE.............................................................................................. 23 SOIL CORROSIVITY.......................................................................................... 23 SITE DRAINAGE................................................................................................ 24 IRRIGATION / VEGETATION............................................................................. 24 UTILITY TRENCHES ......................................................................................... 25 PLAN REVIEW, OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING............................................ 25 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Regional Geology Map
Figure 3 – Landslide Inventory Map
Figure 4 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 6 – Friction Pile Capacity
Figure 7 – Slope Setbacks
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
Appendix A – Field Exploration, Laboratory Results, Geotechnical / Geological Plates Appendix B – Slope Stability Analysis
210
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of H&A’s geotechnical and geological investigation for the Project (described below in Project Concept) conducted at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California (Site). Figure 1, “Site Location Map” presents the site’s location.
Site exploration was conducted to identify and evaluate select surface and subsurface geological and geotechnical conditions. Geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the Project were developed based on the review of select published and unpublished documents in conjunction with the findings of this field investigation and laboratory analysis. This report summarizes the data collected and presents geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project concept was provided in plans provided by Escher GuneWardena Architecture. Plans as understood by H&A are incorporated into Plate A-1, “Site Plan and Geologic Map”.
Project Concept
It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a single-family residence, swimming pool, stable and an ADU as presented on Plate A-1, “Site Plan and Geologic Map”.
Existing Site Conditions
The subject site occupies a part of a small south-trending ridge immediately west of 29 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California. The site is located at approximately 33.752 degrees north latitude and 118.347 west longitude, and at about elevation 1295 feet above mean sea level. The following information pertaining to site conditions was obtained during the course of performing field, research and laboratory work for this project.
The project area consists of approximately 9.8 acres of property, excluding the Crest Road easement that is situated on the south side of Crest Road East. The property is a vacant lot that has not been developed as of this writing. The subject site is adjoined by similarly developed (residential) properties to the south, east and west.
Structural Loading
In the absence of actual structural loading information, we will assume that the structure will be supported by shallow conventional or cast-in-drilled-hole pile foundations with 211
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
Site
212
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 2
maximum column load on the order of 30 kips and maximum continuous footing loads on the order of 2.5 kips per linear foot.
REVIEW OF AVAILABLE REPORTS
Hamilton & Associates, Inc., performed geotechnical and geologic engineering investigations on the subject site in 2013 and 2014, with respect to the proposed site improvement for a prior owner. Those studies of this property have included, in part, the excavation, logging and sampling of eleven (10) test pits and two (2) borings, plus four (4) percolation borings, most of which were downhole logged by the geologist. A thorough discussion of the geotechnical study has been presented in the reports.
In addition to the studies on the subject property, the writers have been involved with studies on 29 Crest Road East with Hamilton & Associates, and on 17 and 33 Crest Road East with Coastline Geotechnical Consultants.
This office concluded that the site was suitable for the proposed residential developments provided the presented recommendations were implemented during design and construction. The detailed findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this study are presented in the referenced reports.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
The field exploration for this report included surface observations and mapping, advancing exploratory excavations and logging and sampling of Site earth materials.
All excavations were logged by or under the direction of a California Professional Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist. Logs and descriptions were based on visual and tactile field observations. Exploratory excavations were backfilled with the excavated materials. Subsurface exploration locations, as well as the surficial distribution of earth materials were located and recorded based on field mapping techniques. No locations were surveyed. Samples of earth materials were secured and transported to H&A’s certified geotechnical laboratory for further observation and testing.
FIELD EXPLORATION
Bucket Auger Borings
On May 6 and 7, 2013 two (2) 24-inch diameter bucket auger borings were accomplished utilizing a truck mounted drill rig. The bucket auger borings were advanced to 59 feet bgs.
The borings were downhole logged by a California Certified Engineering Geologist. 213
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 3
Relatively undisturbed Modified California Ring and bulk samples were retrieved from the exploratory borings for subsequent laboratory testing and analysis.
Test Pits
On April 4, 2013, a backhoe, subcontracted by Hamilton & Associates, excavated ten (10) exploratory test pits. Test pit depths generally range from 3 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Relatively undisturbed Modified California Ring and bulk samples were retrieved from the exploratory test pits for subsequent laboratory testing and analysis.
Exploration locations are presented on Plate A-1 provided in Appendix A. Logs of subsurface observations are presented on Plates B-1 through B-16.
LABORATORY TESTING
Select field samples were further inspected in Hamilton & Associates’, Inc. geotechnical laboratory for subsequent confirmatory soil classification and engineering property testing. This testing included in-situ moisture content (ASTM D2216), dry unit weight (ASTM D2937), maximum density (ASTM D1557), consolidation (ASTM D2435), direct shear (ASTM D3080) and Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829), as well as corrosion testing per California 422 (Chloride), and California 643 (pH and Resistivity) test procedures on a representative sample of the on-Site soils.
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITONS
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
Twenty-three Crest Road East occupies a part of the terraced and dissected southwestern slope of the Palos Verdes Hills, California (Dibblee, 1999; Figure 2, herein) that form the southwest margin of the Los Angeles basin. The hills are composed of an elevated core of metamorphic rock (Catalina Schist) mantled by marine and non-marine Miocene through Quaternary sedimentary rocks.
The most widespread bedrock unit – and that which underlies the study site -- is the lower (tuffaceous) section of the Miocene-aged Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey Formation (“Altamira Shale,” herein). Thinly to thickly bedded marine shale, siltstone, siliceous shale, sandstone, tuff and occasional hard siliceous and carbonate hard beds typify the sedimentary rock.
Upper Miocene sills and dikes mainly comprised of basalt and diabase intruded the Altamira Shale. Hence, both bedding-parallel and irregular bodies that have disrupted and locally tightly folded the host rock are interspersed within the Altamira Shale. 214
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 2
REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
From: “Geologic map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and vicinity, Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California” by Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr., 1999 N
Site
215
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 4
Typically, these locally warped, brecciated and (“contact”) metamorphosed the host sediments during injection. Associated with the Miocene volcanism are aerial- and waterlaid beds of tuff (volcanic ash) and tuffaceous sandstone. While not observed on the subject site, in some places the tuff has been weathered and altered into bentonite – a clay mineral that becomes quite weak and malleable when saturated. The major such deposits are of sufficient size as to be mappable, including the Portuguese Bend and Miraleste Tuff units shown on some geologic maps of the Portuguese Bend region, but are not shown onsite.
A regional geological feature important to this investigation is the generally seaward inclination of strata within the Altamira Shale caused by the upwarping and folding along the active Palos Verdes fault that is about 3 to 4 miles north of the site. This, along with combinations of such factors as long-term coastal bluff erosion, pluvial episodes, infiltration of anthropic wastewater, and possibly earthquakes, have and are giving rise to generally “bedding-controlled” landslides along parts of the southwest flank of the Palos Verdes Hills. Among these is the well-recognized and at least partly active nearby Portuguese Bend Landside Complex that includes the Klondike Canyon Landslide; and the particularly germane Flying Triangle Landslide. Figure 3 from the California Landslide Inventory Map (2024) illustrates the locations and propensities of these landslides, as well as areas that have are seemingly devoid of landslides owing to a large part the local geological conditions.
LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
Geomorphology
The characteristic topographic aspect of the geomorphically complex southern slope of the Palos Verdes Hills is a flight of 13 wave-cut marine terraces that formed during varying stands of sea level through the last million or so years (for example, Dibblee, 1999; Cleveland, 1976; Woodring, and others, 1946). The youngest being the current shoreline.
Tectonic uplift and to a lesser degree episodic sea level changes have elevated the terraces, giving the local slopes their classic “stair-step” profile, except where locally disrupted by past and current landslides and incised seaward draining canyons.The study site lies atop a typical “flat-topped” south-trending ridge bound by steep, V-shaped canyons (Plate A-1; Figures 1 and 2). The ridge slopes descend to canyon bottoms at ratios varying from about 1.5 (vertical):1 (horizontal) to 2:1 with local steeper and flatter elements. Total site relief is about 230 feet (Plate A-1).
In turn, imprinted, at least locally, is “landslide” topography (Figure 3) that characterizes the aforementioned landslides. “Deflated”, undulating surfaces that are bound upslope 216
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 3
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP
Landslide Types Landslide Activity
Produced from Landslide Inventory
Retrieved from- https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/app/ Date retrieved: May 23, 2024
Information provided by: County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P,
USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA | California Geological
Survey, USGS, Cooper-Clark Associates | California
Geological Survey
N
Site
217
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 5
by lunate scarps typify the topography. These landslides vary from currently active to dormant to inactive. Generally, the dormant and inactive landslides are eroded and incised by streams and thus have subdued topography; whereas the active slides have sharp definition and geomorphic indicators. Among the active landslides is the Flying Triangle Landslide whose crown is about 150 feet west of the study site’s western boundary and about 425 west of the portion of the site to be developed [(California Landslide Inventory Map, 2024, Figure 3; Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7, Plate A-7).
Stratigraphy
Artificial Fill: The H&A exploration excavations did not encounter artificial fill, for the site is in essence in its natural state. Small, unmappable deposits of artificial fill likely bound the downslope sides of small paths and possibly along Crest Road East. These were not investigated owing to their likely small dimensions, and likely small impact on proposed development.
Surficial Soils: H&A surmises that shallow soils cover much of the site. Where observed in test pits and natural exposures, these soils consist of black to dark gray to brown, silty clay with Altamira siltstone fragments. These soils are slightly moist to moist, generally soft to medium stiff, and commonly contain roots. The test pits exposed up to 3 feet of these soils. It is thus anticipated that the natural soils are likely relatively thin, perhaps ranging from 1- to 5-ft thick, particularly on slopes.
Landslides: No landslides are mapped onsite. The site, however, is northwest of the crown of the well-known active “Flying Triangle Landslide (for example, California Landslide Inventory Map, 2024, Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7), A separate section assessing the landslide relative to the proposed development follows below.
Bedrock – Monterey Formation: Natural and anthropic outcrops, as well as the exploration excavations, expose(d) two principal and distinct rock types within the Altamira Shale, siltstone and basalt, as follows:
Siltstone: Based on Dibblee (1999), Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) and Woodring and others (1946), the site and its environs are underlain by the lower (tuffaceous) part of the Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey Formation (“Altamira Shale”) comprised mainly of interbedded diatomaceous, clayey and siliceous siltstone/shale and occasional hard carbonate/siliceous beds. Bedding within this unit is generally thin with well-developed partings, although the carbonate/siliceous beds are roughly one- to three- feet thick. Regionally, the carbonate beds are lightly to intensively 218
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 6
fractured, and thus locally “blocky”. The carbonate/siliceous beds, where present in graded areas, generally yield tabular boulders during difficult excavation, frequently requiring special handling.
The bedrock exposed in the Test Pits and Borings, as well as that exposed in pathway cut slopes on the ridge slopes, is consistent with the regional, in that generally thinbedded siltstone predominates. These are generally clayey, but porcellaneous and siliceous beds are common. Also, rare sandstone stringers are intercalated in the bedrock.
Importantly, H&A mapping, Test Pits and Borings did not encounter decomposed tuff or bentonite beds. According to Anderson (1987) weak tuff beds above basalt units have acted as slide planes elsewhere in the Portuguese Bend area. Based on local geological investigations (for example, Marseth, Howe and Lockwood and Associates, 1970; and Steiner, 2004), the study site is likely straigraphically below these tuff beds, including the Portuguese Tuff, a local weak unit of decomposed tuff/bentonite ranging from a few to perhaps 60-feet thick that is amenable to landsliding.
The engineering characteristics of the bedrock are given in the Appendix.
Basalt: Intrusive and extrusive basalt and diabase lithosomes are intercalated within the lower Altamira Shale. These occur mainly as sills and dikes injected along stratigraphic units within the Altamira. Slosson and County of Los Angeles (1986/72) suggest that two major basaltic zone occur within the lower Altamira. As the sills were injected, they “burned” and contorted (in essence contact metamorphosed) the host sedimentary rocks.
Relict localized folds and welded zones are yet mappable. These distortions are to some degree responsible for the “undulatory” bedding plane attitudes measured in the Altamira Shale on and near site.
Basalt sills were encountered in both of the H&A Borings. B-1 encountered basalt from 34 to 48 feet below ground surface and B-2 penetrated basalt at 26 to 38 feet and at 55 feet, bottoming in basalt. (Plates A-2, A-3 and B-11 through B-16, herein). The basalt is reported to be massive and fractured. The basalt contacts with the host Altamira are baked (lightly metamorphosed).
Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) mapped two basalt sills near the base of the subject ridge. Note that aforementioned tuff beds noted elsewhere by Anderson are absent at Borings B-1 and B-2.
219
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 7
Geologic Structure
The study site lies on a structural high formed by transpressional deformation along the regional, active Palos Verdes fault zone that is about 4-miles to the northeast. Most investigators (Woodring and others, 1946; Cleveland, 1976; Dibblee, 1999) portray the hills as an anticlinorium composed of many smaller folds generally trending northwest, with local variations. [Figure 2 depicts the regional geology as mapped by Dibblee (1999) and Plate A-7 shows the local geology as interpreted by Slosson/County of Los Angeles].
Accordingly, the south flank of the hills is also the south flank of the Palos Verdes Hills anticlinorium; hence, bedding planes generally dip to the south except where they are locally interrupted by small folds or by basaltic sills and dikes. Near the site, a variety of investigators portray different interpretations of the structure, including the placement of folds that are auxiliary to the major northwest-trending anticlinorium (for example, Dibblee, 1999; Woodring and others, 1946; Marseth, Howe, Lockwood, 1970; Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7). For reference, the former two investigators produced generalized regional geologic maps, whereas the latter two studied the area immediate to the study site. The latter studies therefore added much detail that inevitably led to revision of the work by earlier investigators.
In sum, the through-going local fold axes (Figure 2) mapped by Woodring and others and Dibblee probably are not as mapped. Based on the information provided by Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) and this investigation, the ridge (from Crest Road south) on which the study site lies is underlain by a monocline (Plates A-1 through A-6) that might be part of a larger anticline whose axis is north of the H&A study area.
Importantly, based on the foregoing, bedding planes near the top of the ridge in the area of interest are undulatory but generally dip at low angles to the south or are near horizontal (Plates A-1 through A-6). By inspection, the beds steepen to the south, thereby likely providing planes steep enough to induce a proclivity for south-directed landsliding (Figure 3) as typified by the Flying Triangle, Portuguese Bend and other local landslides to the south.
Small local folds are evident or inferred by mapping of available local outcrops. These appear to a great degree to be penecontemporaneous folds resultant from Miocene-aged slip or from subsequent injection of basalt, or combinations thereof; although later tectonism cannot be entirely ruled out as causation.
No suspected active faults have been mapped in the area applicable to this report (see References). Some investigators have mapped faults in the region but these seem of no practical effect to the study site. For example, Slosson/County of Los Angeles mapped 220
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 8
two faults on- or near-site. One fault is depicted by those investigators as crossing the subject lot in a northeastern manner from the southwestern offsite Flying Triangle scarp.
However, later mapping by DeVries (2004) and Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. (2010) indicates that the fault does not exist. A second fault is mapped as in essence following the bottom of the canyon that borders the site on the west.
Joints in the bedrock are generally high-angle. They vary from wide-spaced to closely spaced.
Flying Triangle Landslide
Owing to its proximity, the Flying Triangle Landslide bears assessment.
The landslide is active and is composed of about 70 acres located downslope of the study site (Figure 3). The crown of the landslide lies about 230 feet west of the west site margin and about 425 feet southwest of proposed site development (Plate A-1). This landslide has been well-studied by, among others: Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates (1970), Ehlig (1987), (Anderson (1987), Keene (1986), Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) and Steiner (2004). That large body of work is not repeated but only briefly summarized herein, so the reader is thus referred to those articles.
In brief, the Flying Triangle Landslide is an ancient landslide of which a part began to slip in the period of 1978 to 1980, causing the removal of about four houses. According to the literature, little has been done since to mitigate the potential for slip.
Investigators agree that the slide mass is to some degree footed by bedding planes within the Altamira Shale that dip seaward at moderate angles; and yet they indicate that part of the sliding has and is occurring across bedding planes. Maximum depth of the slide mass is enigmatic. For example, Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood Associates concluded that the landslide is about 76-feet deep, whereas Ehlig (1987) suggested that a deeper slide plane could be as much as 450-feet below ground surface; thus making it the deepest landslide in the Portuguese Bend area, if true. Based on review of the available literature, both published and proprietary, the slide plane angles dip moderately southerly at angles ranging from about 12- to 15-degrees to about 20 to 25- degrees. Undercutting by streams that removed lateral support and possibly ancient undercutting of the toe area by wave action, combined with the introduction of ground water via rainy cycles and anthropic disposal of water led to the landslide reactivation. The investigators generally agree that the internal structure and hence the movement patterns in this landslide and the adjacent Klondike Canyon Landside (Figure 3) are complex; and that the slide mass consists of several blocks.
221
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 9
The Flying Triangle Landslide has and is moving on planes with moderate to moderately steep inclinations, as opposed to the nearly flat to quite shallow dips of bedding at and near the study site which is on the crest of the aforementioned monocline. This, perhaps aided by disruption of the continuity of the strata by intrusion of basalt, likely accounts for the relative stability of the upper part of the subject ridge.
GROUNDWATER AND CAVING
Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depths explored for this project (59 feet below existing grades). Owing to the elevated position of the site with respect to nearby drainage courses, ground water is not expected to be a factor during construction of the proposed project. However, seasonal and long-term fluctuations in the groundwater conditions may occur as a result of variations in irrigation, rainfall, surface run-off and other factors.
Caving was not observed during test pit excavation and sampling operations during the course of subsurface exploration at the site. Caving may occur in excavations deeper and/or greater in dimension than our test pits.
SEISMOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Ground Shaking Analysis
Neither the location nor magnitude of earthquakes can accurately be predicted at the time of this report. In the past, the site has been periodically subject to moderate to intense earthquake-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. Considerable damage could occur at the site and structural improvements during a strong seismic event.
There are several faults in the region, as presented on Figure 4, Regional Fault Map, that were, at the time of this report, considered ‘active’ and that could produce moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site could be considered as approximately similar to the Southern California region as a whole.
Based on the USGS Degradation Application (2014 V4.2.0), the peak ground acceleration for Site Class “D” earth materials was reported to be 0.41g, with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, and 0.72g for a 2% probabilistic of exceedance in 50 years.
Surface Fault Rupture
The site does not lie within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, Figure 5, Seismic Hazards Map. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture at the Site during the design life of onsite structures is considered low. 222
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 4
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
From: “Fault Activity Map of California,” compiled by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant, California Geological Survey, Map No. 6, California Geologic Data Map Series, 2010 N
Site
Vicinity
223
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 5
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP
N
Approximate
Project Location
224
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 10
Seismic Settlements (Liquefaction)
The term “liquefaction” describes a phenomenon in which a saturated cohesionless soil loses strength and acquires a degree of mobility as a result of strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and depth, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Hazard data published by the State of California is shown on Figure 5 “Seismic Hazard Map” and indicates that the subject site is not within an area identified as having a potential for soil liquefaction.
Seismically Induced Landslides
A landslide is a movement of the ground and is categorized based on the type of material that has failed and the movement type that occurs. A landslide is broadly categorized by its’ failure mode, its’ movement, and the earth materials involved. Predicting where landslides may occur utilizes this information as well as other factors such as slope steepness, slope height, slope orientation, relative density of the earth materials, groundwater level, degree of saturation, as well as location, intensity, and duration of ground shaking.
As shown on Figure 5 the portions of the site lie within an area identified by CGS as having a potential for earthquake induced landslides. According to Figures 2 and 3, no known or inferred landslides are on or project into the site.
Hydro-Consolidation
Hydro-consolidation settlement potential is considered to be low to moderate, as evidenced by subsurface soil properties, and laboratory engineering and index test results.
Expansive Soils
Laboratory testing on a sample of near surface soils indicated a ‘Medium’ soil expansion potential (EI=60) as defined in the latest edition of ASTM D4829. It is H&A’s opinion that a ‘Medium’ soil expansion should be used in project design. The degree of soil expansion should be confirmed by additional tests during or after rough grading operations.
SLOPE STABILITY
Slope stability analysis was performed for Sections A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, D-D’ and E-E’, Plates A-2 through A-6, marked through the site. Analyses were based on laboratory strength properties under saturated conditions, and engineering judgment for the proposed slope configurations. The below table presents strength data for the soil parameters used for the slope stability analysis:
225
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 11
Design Soil Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses
Soil or Bedrock Type Cohesion,c
(psf)
Friction,phi
(degrees)
Bulk Density
(pcf)
Fill / Colluvium 290 20 115
Bedrock (fbc), < 25 ft 400 25 125
Bedrock (fbc), > 25 ft 500 34 125
Bedrock (abc) 200 21 125
Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation. Based on field investigation and SHZR Historic High Groundwater data, groundwater was not incorporated into the slope model and is not anticipated to be a factor in the project’s development.
The SLIDE computer program, using the Bishop Method of Analyses for circular and wedge failure surfaces, was utilized to search for the most critical failure surfaces. The seismic coefficient was based on the County of Los Angeles guidelines utilizing the Special Publication 117A methods. The seismic coefficient procedure assumes a value of k=0.15g with a minimum FS=1.1 required to achieve acceptable results. Results of the analyses are summarized below.
Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Description
Static
Factor of
Safety (FS)
Seismic
Factor of
Safety (FS)
Shear Pin
Reinforcement
A-A’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.78 / 1.94 1.20 / 1.18 -
A-A’ Upper Circular/Wedge 1.77 / 2.05 1.26 / 1.35 -
B-B’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.57 / 1.55 1.11 / 1.10 200 kips shear min 10’ OC, 60 ft bgs
C-C’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.66 / 1.52 1.28 / 1.11 200 kips shear min 10’ OC, 35 ft bgs
D-D’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.69 / 1.77 1.17 / 1.27 -
E-E’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.74 / 1.80 1.35 / 1.40 -
E-E’ Upper Circular/Wedge 2.04 / 2.34 1.49 / 1.70 -
Stability Analyses indicate that the proposed development has a calculated global static factor-of-safety (FS) greater than 1.5 and a calculated global seismic FS greater than 1.1.
Sections B-B’, C-C’ require that the outer row of piles also be designed as shear pins.
Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference.
226
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 12
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of H&A’s field exploration and laboratory testing, combined with engineering analysis, experience and judgment, it is this firm’s opinion that the project may be developed as planned, provided the site grading and foundation criteria discussed herein are incorporated into the project plans and specifications and implemented during construction.
Based on the findings in this report, and provided the recommendations of this report are followed, and the designs, grading and construction are properly and adequately executed, it is our finding that the proposed construction will not be subject to geotechnical hazards from landslides, slippage, or settlement, within the standard limits of geotechnical practice. Further, it is our finding that the proposed construction will not adversely affect the stability of the adjacent properties, with the same provisos listed above.
The major geotechnical considerations that affect the design and construction of the planned construction included the following:
• Soil disturbance as a result of site excavation and preparation operations. • Hillside Grading with keyways, benching, subdrains, and compacted fill. • Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) construction into bedrock. • The outer row of piles are to be designed as stabilization shear pins at various locations.
• Expansive soils that are subject to heave and shrinkage with wetting and drying. • Improvements adjacent to slopes will require maintenance and/or periodic replacement due to slope creep and other movement, unless supported by piles. • Foundation depths to achieve building code setbacks.
It is this firm’s opinion that the proposed residence development may be supported by conventional foundations and/or cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) pile foundation system embedded into competent bedrock. Building slabs shall be structural, supported by perimeter foundations. The following recommendations are provided.
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
Existing Construction Debris, Undocumented Fill, Disturbed Soils Prior to grading operations, it will be necessary to remove designated existing construction, including any remaining buried obstructions, which may be in the areas of proposed construction. Concrete flatwork should also be removed from areas of proposed construction. Concrete fragments from site demolition operations should be disposed of 227
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 13
off-Site. Any undocumented fill or disturbed soils in areas of proposed foundations and slab on grade construction should be excavated to full depth.
Remedial Grading
The proposed buildings shall be supported by foundations into bedrock. Grading to support ancillary improvements located away from slopes should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction above optimum moisture content for clayey soils and near optimum moisture content for granular soils. A six-inch scarification and recompaction of in-place soils to 90 percent relative compaction above optimum moisture contents may be taken equivalent to six-inches of approved compacted fill, when computing total excavation requirements. Expansive clay subgrade shall be pre-soaked prior to slab construction.
The depth of over excavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material encountered during grading, should be immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as recommended. Exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the Geotechnical consultant or his representative.
Hillside Grading
Hillside Grading Recommendations are provided below.
• All Grading shall be performed according to County and City grading codes, approved plans and specifications, and the below recommendations, whichever is more restrictive.
• Prior to commencement of work, a pre-grading meeting shall be held between the contractor, the owner or their representative, and the geotechnical engineer for the purpose of adhering to report recommendations.
• A surveyor shall be retained to layout the proposed grading including but not limited to locating all keys, top of cuts, toe of fills, stability fills, setbacks, easements and areas requiring over excavation of the cut portions of the building pads. • Hillside fills shall have a key placed at the toe of the proposed fill slope. The key should be cut (3) feet into competent bedrock. The base of the key shall be sloped back into the hill. The key should be a minimum of (10) feet wide, except where slope stability analyses results in a wider key. Where slopes are steeper than 5:1 (H:V), horizontal benches shall be cut into competent bedrock in order to provide both lateral and vertical stability.
• All areas to receive compacted fill, including all removal areas, keys and benches, shall be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing compacted fill. 228
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 14
• Materials excavated uphill from where fills are to be placed, shall not be cast over the slope into the fill area. Materials shall be channeled down a ramp to the area to receive compacted fill and the spread in horizontal layers. As compacted fills are placed, this ramp will be trimmed out to expose the dense, tight materials approved by the geotechnical engineer. The minimum vertical height of bench in approved materials shall be (3) feet. This will maintain the proper benching, as fill is placed up the slope.
The ramp will be shifted periodically during the grading operations to allow for complete removal of the loose fill material and for the proper benching. • The fill soils shall consist of select materials approved by the geotechnical engineer.
These materials may be obtained from the excavation areas and any other approved sources, and by blending soils from one or more sources. The material used shall be free from organic vegetable matter and other deleterious material and shall not contain rocks greater than (4) inches.
• On-site and import materials approved for use should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture contents, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the latest edition of ASTM Test Method D1557. The grade that is determined to be satisfactory for the support of the filled ground shall be scarified to a depth of at least six inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the above standard.
• Review of the fill placement should be provided by the geotechnical engineer during grading. In general, density tests will be made at intervals not exceeding (2) feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed.
• The contractor shall be required to obtain a minimum compaction of 90 percent out to the finish face of 2:1 fill slopes. Compaction on slopes may be achieved by overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. Direct compaction on the slope faces shall be accomplished by back-rolling the slopes in (3) foot to (4) foot increments of elevation gain.
• During the inclement part of the year, or during periods when rain is threatening, all fill that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or before stopping because of inclement weather. These fills, once compacted, shall have the surfaces sloped to drain to an area where water can be removed.
• Work may start again, after the rainy period, once the site has been reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and authorization is given to resume. Loose materials not compacted prior to the rain shall be removed and aerated so that the moisture content of these fills will be within (3) percent above the optimum moisture content. 229
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 15
• Surface materials previously compacted before the rain shall be scarified, brought to the proper moisture content and recompacted prior to placing additional fill, if deemed necessary by the geotechnical engineer.
• Hillside fill shall have back drains installed at the compacted fill/competent bedrock contact to dissipate potential subsurface porewater pressure buildup. Backdrains shall consist of (4) inch perforated pipes; placed with perforations down. The pipe should be encased with at least (1) foot of gravel around the pipe. The minimum cover on the pipe should be (1) foot. The gravel should consist of (3/4) to (1) inch crushed rock. The first drain shall be placed no higher than (3) feet above the front cut of the key excavation. Additional back drains shall be placed at intervals roughly equivalent to (10) feet of vertical rise in elevation or where deemed necessary by the project soils engineer. For slopes where less than (20) feet of compacted fill is placed the drains shall be placed in the base of the keyway and at mid-slope. Each drain shall be placed into a trench excavated along the back of a horizontal bench at the compacted fill/competent bedrock contact. The trench bottom shall slope downward to each exit drain with a minimum gradient of (2) percent. The exit pipe shall consist of a (4) inch diameter non-perforated pipe. This pipe need not be encased in gravel. It shall exit at a minimum gradient of (2) percent to the finish face of the fill slope. Exist drains shall be placed at intervals not exceeding (50) feet. A cutoff wall consisting of concrete or soil cement shall be placed at the junction of the perforated pipe and the exit drains to stop seepage and force the water being removed into the perforated pipe.
Temporary Excavations
Excavations of site soils 4 feet or deeper should be temporarily shored or sloped in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements. For the purpose of Cal OSHA soil classification and shoring design, site soils should be considered as Type B.
A. Temporary Slopes:
In areas where excavations deeper than 4 feet are not adjacent to existing structures or public right-of-ways, sloping procedures may be utilized for temporary excavations. It is recommended that temporary slopes in native soils be graded no steeper than 1:1 (H:V) for excavations up to 15 feet in depth. The above temporary slope criteria is based on level soil conditions behind temporary slopes with no surcharge loading (structures, traffic) within a lateral distance behind the top of slope equivalent to the slope height.
It is recommended that excavated soils be placed a minimum lateral distance from top of slope equal to the height of slope. A minimum setback distance equivalent to the slope height should be maintained between the top of slope and heavy excavating/grading equipment.
230
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 16
Should adverse conditions be experienced during excavation operations, flattening of cut slope faces, or other special procedures, may be required to achieve stable, temporary slopes.
Soil conditions should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant as excavation progresses to verify acceptability of temporary slopes. Final temporary cut slope design will be dependent upon the soil conditions encountered, construction procedures and schedule.
B. Shoring:
Temporary shoring will be required for those excavations where temporary slope cuts as specified above are not feasible.
Temporary cantilever shoring, if used, should be designed to resist active earth pressures of 35 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure for level conditions behind shoring.
The design of shoring should also include surcharge loading effects of existing structures and anticipated traffic, including delivery and construction equipment, when loading is within a distance from the shoring equal to the depth of excavation.
In addition to the above, a minimum uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot in the upper ten feet of shoring should be incorporated in the design when normal traffic is permitted within ten feet of the shoring.
New Fills
The upper one foot of site soils should be excavated and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction near optimum moisture content prior to placement of any new fills, where required, to achieve finish grade elevations. Exposed excavation bottoms should be scarified a minimum 6-inches and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content. Excavation bottoms should be firm and unyielding prior to backfilling.
Backfilling and Compaction Requirements
On-site and import materials approved for use should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content for clayey soils and near optimum moisture content for granular soil, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the latest edition of ASTM Test Method D1557. Existing site soils, unless indicated otherwise, are considered suitable for re-use during Site grading and backfilling, provided they are free of debris, particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or 231
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 17
other deleterious materials, and are to a suitable moisture condition to permit achieving the required compaction.
Imported Soils
Any imported soil required to complete grading operations should consist of predominantly granular material which exhibits an Expansion Index (“EI”) of less than 20 when tested in accordance ASTM Expansion Test Procedures and should be free of debris and particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or other deleterious materials, and should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative. Potential import material should be identified, sampled and provided to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 72 hours prior to importation to the site. Final acceptance of any imported soil will be based upon review and testing of the soil actually delivered to the Site.
Observation and Testing During Construction
All foundation, grading, compaction, and backfill operations should be performed under the observation of and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant’s designated representative. The consultant should be notified at least two days in advance of the start of construction. A joint meeting between the contractor and geotechnical consultant is required prior to the start of construction to discuss specific procedures and scheduling.
A. Grading Observation and Testing:
Prior to placing any fill the exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant or their representative. If it is determined during grading that site soils require overexcavation to greater depths for obtaining proper support for the proposed structure, this additional work should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material (such as undocumented fill, natural topsoil, etc…) encountered during grading, should be immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as recommended. Field moisture and density tests should be taken during grading in accordance with this report and local ordinances. All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant's representative to verify minimum embedment depths and competency of bearing soils. Such observations should be made prior to placement of any reinforcing steel or concrete.
B. CIDH Pile Observation and Testing:
General guidelines for pile installation are summarized below:
• Pile excavation will require equipment suitable to penetrate bedrock and/or soil typical to the area.
232
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 18
• Pile excavations should be drilled with suitable equipment and should not be out-ofplumb by more than 0.5 percent of the pier length. The center-to-center distance of constructed piers at the base of pile cap should not vary by more than three inches from the design spacing, or as directed by the Structural Consultant, whichever is more restrictive.
• Methods are the responsibility of the contractor. Casing should be used during drilling of any piles in the event caving conditions are experienced. If casing is used, concrete placement and casing removal should be done in stages such that the casing bottom is always as a minimum 3 feet below the top of concrete. Where applicable, bentonite slurry displacement (with steel casing to avoid caving) should be used for placement of concrete during drilled pier installation. All pile excavations shall be cleaned of loose soils and cuttings.
• A representative of this office should be present during all pile-drilling operations to verify pile embedment depths and acceptability of strata. • The placement of reinforcement and concrete should conform to ACI and other applicable code requirements.
• Pile installation specifications should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
FOUNDATION DESIGN
It is this firm’s opinion that the proposed residence development may be supported by conventional foundations and/or cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) pile foundation system embedded into competent bedrock. Building slabs shall be structural, supported by perimeter foundations. Foundation design details such as concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. should be established by the Project Structural Engineer.
Foundation Capacity
A. Conventional Foundation Capacity
A dead plus live load allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot may be used in the design of both continuous and spread footings, when supported in competent bedrock. Recommended minimum footing embedment is 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade and 12 inches into competent bedrock, whichever is deeper. The above bearing pressures may be increased by one-third when considering short term loading from wind or seismic forces.
B. Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) Friction Piles
Piles shall be at least 24-inch diameter and deepened into bedrock with no support from fill or colluvium. Recommended bearing and uplift capacities for drilled cast-in-place piles are provided on Figure 6. It is recommended that the minimum depth of penetration into 233
FRICTION PILE DESIGN
Project No. 23-3282
Figure 6
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Design values given are for 12 inch diameter, cast-in-place friction piles. For piles of different sizes, the allowable capacity will be directly proportional to the comparative pile diameter.
Uplift capacity will be one half the downward value given. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Embedment into
Allowable Capacity (Kips)
Minimum Embedment 7 Feet
Bedrock
(Ft.)
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
234
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 19
bedrock be 7 feet. The weight of the concrete in the piles may be neglected in considering bearing pressure.
Lateral Resistance
A. Conventional Foundations
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by pressure acting on structural components in contact with bedrock. Lateral resistance on the sides of footings may be computed using a passive pressure of 200 pounds per square foot per foot embedment into bedrock, subject to a maximum of 2,000 pounds per square foot. Friction between the base of the footings, and/or floor slabs, and the underlying material may be assumed as 0.30. Friction and lateral pressure may be combined, provided either is limited to two-thirds of the allowable.
B. Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) Friction Piles
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by passive earth pressure and by friction acting on structural components in permanent contact with the bedrock. Lateral resistance on the sides of piles may be computed using a passive pressure of 400 pounds per square foot per foot embedment into bedrock, subject to a maximum of 4,000 pounds per square foot. Piles shall be tied by gradebeams and in two directions where possible.
Active Loads on Piles
Piles shall be designed for a lateral load of 1,000 pounds per linear foot of shaft exposed to fill and colluvium soils located above bedrock. Depths should be confirmed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction.
Settlements/Displacements
Total settlements for foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the above criteria and supporting maximum assumed column and wall loads of 30 kips and 2.5 kips per linear foot, respectively, are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch. A differential settlement on the order of 1/2 inch is anticipated between similarly loaded pad footings and for continuous wall footings over a distance of approximately 30 feet. Settlement of single piles, or groups of up to three (3) piles, may be estimated to be less than 1/2 inch. Lateral displacement at the top of piers is not expected to exceed 1/2 inch. Most of the estimated settlement will take place rapidly with the first application of load.
This office should be contacted for further evaluation and recommendations, as necessary, should final design structural loads exceed the maximum loads used in our analysis by more than 10 percent.
235
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 20
Slope Setback
The foundation setbacks, required by the Building Department is for the placement of buildings and structures on, or adjacent to, slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) to provide protection from water, mudflow, loose slope debris and shallow slope failures.
These setbacks, shown on Figure 7 are for the horizontal clearance from the face of the foundations to the slope face.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The Site-specific seismic design parameters were determined as a part of this study in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code, which is based on the 2019 International Building Code (IBC). Additionally, seismic design parameters were determined using the Structural Engineering Association (SEA) website which uses the USGS Seismic Design Web Services for the hazard loads. The 2022 CBC seismic design parameters that apply to the Site are as follows:
2022 CBC Seismic Parameters
CBC Seismic Parameter Value or
Classification
Site Classification (per Table ASCE/SEI 7-10 Table 20.3-1) D Mapped Spectral Response at 0.2 Sec Acceleration, Ss 1.559 Mapped Spectral Response at 1.0 Sec Acceleration, S1 0.564 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Acceleration, SMS 1.871 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Acceleration, SM1 *null 5-Percent Damped Design Spectral Acceleration, SDS 1.247 5-Percent Damped Design Spectral Acceleration, SD1 *null *See ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8
The Structural Consultant should review the above parameters and the 2022 CBC to evaluate the seismic design. Final selection of design coefficients should be made by the structural consultant based on the local laws and ordinances, expected structure response, and the desired level of conservatism.
RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls planned should be adequately designed to resist the lateral soil pressures and the anticipated construction loadings and service conditions. The earth pressure acting on retaining walls depends primarily on the allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressure. The following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge loading:
236
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 7
SLOPE SETBACK – Section 1808.7
237
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 21
Soil Type Backfill Slope
Behind Walls
EARTH PRESSURE
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf)
Active(Cantilever) At-Rest (Rigid)
Granular
Non-Expansive Level 40 60
Site Soil
Expansive Level 60 100
Site Soil
Expansive 2:1 (H:V) 80 120
These values are applicable for granular non-expansive fill soils placed between the wall sides and an imaginary plane rising at 45 degrees from below the edges (heel) of wall bottoms. The surcharge effect of anticipated loads on the wall backfill (e.g., traffic, construction equipment, footings) should be included in the wall design. Depending on whether the wall is free to deflect or restrained, 33 or 50 percent, respectively, of a maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the retained height of the wall should be used in design.
If it is determined that retaining walls require an additional seismic design pressure in accordance with the CBC, the following is provided for lateral earth pressures of site retaining walls. A resultant lateral force acting on proposed retaining walls as a result of seismic forces may be computed as 25 pcf-equivalent fluid pressure. This seismic resultant force may be applied to the retaining wall at a point located at (2/3)*H, measured from the bottom of the wall.
Positive drainage measures should be incorporated in design. Retaining wall subdrains should be located below the basement slab elevation and consist of a minimum four-inch diameter perforated ABS-SDR-35 or PVC SCH-40, or equivalent, connected to similar non-perforated outlet pipe. The perforated portion of the pipe should be embedded in at least three cubic feet per lineal foot of 3/4 inch crushed rock or equivalent material which has been wrapped in fabric, consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent, and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. The filter fabric should overlap at least 12 inches at the ends of the fabric. Other subdrainage alternatives may be considered but should first be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to implementation.
POOL RECOMMENDATIONS
It is H&A’s opinion that the proposed pool shall be supported by conventional foundations or piles into competent bedrock, depending on slope setbacks. The shell shall be designed for full loss of soil support on the downhill side. No pipes shall enter the pool or spa from the slope side.
238
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 22
Excavations of site soils should be performed in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements and in a manner to protect adjacent structures and property. The following minimum recommendations apply to pool design and construction:
Pool Shell
Expansive testing generally indicates ‘Medium’ expansion potential of the on-site soils and should be considered for pool design. Swimming pool walls should be designed to resist an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 100 psf both ways. Additionally, the pool shell should be designed as a self-standing structure for total loss of soil support.
Additional loads should be added to the shell design for structures laterally located within the depth of the shell. Consideration should be given to deepening existing or proposed adjacent structure’s footings, so they have no influence on the shell nor derive support from the pool shell.
As the weight of the soil removed for the pool shell exceeds the weight of the pool and water, neither bearing nor settlement due to new loads is an issue.
Decks and Flatwork
Pool decks adjacent to slopes shall be pile supported. Incidental pool decks and flatwork away from slopes, regardless of areas of cut or fill, shall be underlain by a minimum of 2 feet of approved compacted fill beneath existing grade or finish grade, whichever is lower, and extend a minimum of two (2) feet beyond the footprint of the deck/flatwork, where possible. Approved fill materials in these areas should consist of on-site or import suitable material recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction above optimum moisture contents for fine-grained soils and near optimum moisture contents for coarsegrained soils in accordance with the slab recommendations in this report. From a geotechnical standpoint, concrete slabs should be a minimum five (5) inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced at least 24 inches on center. Exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, 1/2” to 3/8” deep, often enough so that no section is greater than ten feet by ten feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint material.
Other Pool Considerations
Hydrostatic relief valves should be incorporated into the pool design. All fittings and pipe joints should be heavy duty and should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the underlying soils. A poorly designed, installed, or maintained waterproofing system could lead to excessive soil movement upon occurrence of the leakage. An elastic waterproof expansion joint should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints.
239
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 23
SLAB-ON-GRADE
Building slabs shall be structural, fully supported by the foundation system.
Incidental concrete slabs should be supported on properly compacted soils in accordance with the site preparation and grading section of this report. Slab subgrade soils should not be allowed to dry out and should be maintained at the placement moisture condition until concreting. From a geotechnical standpoint, as a minimum, slabs should be 5-inches thick and reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars spaced at 12-inches on center each way.
Expansive structural slab and slab-on-grade subgrade should be pre-saturated just prior to construction.
Any interior slab to receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering should include a moisture membrane system. The vapor barrier shall consist of Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier 15 mil extruded poloylefin plastic, or equivalent. No recycled content or woven materials are permitted. Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditioning (ASTM E 1745 section 7.1 and sub-paragraphs 7.1.1 – 7.1.5): less than 0.01 perms [grains/(ft2 · hr · inhg)] and comply with the ASTM E 1745-11 class a requirements. Install vapor barrier according to ASTM E 1643-11 and the manufactures recommendations, unless directed otherwise by the project structural engineer.
Slabs should be properly designed and reinforced for the construction and service loading conditions. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, amount, and type of reinforcements, joint spacing, etc., should be established by the Project Structural Engineer.
SOIL CORROSIVITY
Limited soil constituent tests were performed on a select sample of site soils to give a general idea as to the corrosive nature of on-site soils to proposed concrete foundations, rebar, and any underground metal conduit. A corrosion engineer/specialist should be consulted for any advanced analysis or recommendations relating to corrosion at the site.
Constituent test results are presented in Appendix A.
Concrete Corrosion
Disintegration of concrete may be attributed to the chemical reaction of soil sulfates and hydrated lime and calcium aluminate within the cement. The severity of the reaction resulting in expansion and disruption of the cement is primarily a function of the soluble sulfates and the water-cement ratio of the concrete. A soluble sulfate content of 0.0050% by weight has been recorded from corrosivity testing conducted on on-Site soils, as indicated in the test results provided in Appendix A. In accordance with Table 19.3.1.1 of 240
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 24
ACI 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, soils exhibiting soluble sulfate content less than 0.1% by weight are classified as ‘S0’. ‘S0’ sulfate class has no type restriction on concrete and a minimum requirement of fc’ of 2500 psi.
Metal Corrosion
In the evaluation of soil corrosivity to metal, the hydrogen ion concentrate (pH) and the electrical resistivity of the site and backfill soils are the principal variables in determining the service life of ferrous metal conduit. The pH of soil and water is a measure of acidity or alkalinity, while the resistivity is a measure of the soil’s resistance to the flow of electrical current.
Currently available design charts indicate that corrosion rates decrease with increasing resistivity and increasing alkalinity. It can also be noted that for alkaline soils, the corrosion rate is more influenced by resistivity than by pH.
The resistivity value of 730 ohm-cm, as well as a pH-value of 7.81 classifies the on-site soils tested to be ‘Severely’ to buried ferrous metals. Based on California Test 643, the year to perforation for 18-gauge steel in contact with soils of similar resistivity and pHvalue is approximately 22 years. In lieu of additional testing, alternative piping materials, i.e. coatings, plastic piping, may be used instead of metal if longer service life is desired or required. Where more detailed corrosion evaluation is required, we recommend that a qualified corrosion consultant be engaged to provide further evaluation and recommendations.
A soluble chloride content of 113 ppm was recorded and is considered low to the threshold values of 500 ppm per Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines 2018. Therefore, no special measure in terms of rebar protection against chloride corrosion is recommended herein as a result of the low soluble chloride content tested.
SITE DRAINAGE
In accordance with the CBC, unless exceptions apply, the ground immediately adjacent to buildings should be sloped away from the building not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, the 5% slope should be provided to an alternate method of diverting water from the foundation system, such as swales (sloped at 2%). Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2% away from the building.
IRRIGATION / VEGETATION
As with all properties on, adjacent to, or with slopes, the application of water should be minimized. Plant materials such as ice plants or succulents should not be planted on 241
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 25
slopes. If and whenever possible, drought tolerant, deep rooted plant materials should be utilized on slopes, with California native vegetation being considered first.
UTILITY TRENCHES
All trenches should be backfilled with approved fill material, compacted to relative compaction of not less than 90 percent of maximum density. Care should be taken during backfilling to prevent utility line damage. The on-site soils may be used for backfilling utility trenches from one foot above the top of pipe to the surface, provided the material is free of organic matter and deleterious substances. Any soft and/or loose materials or fill encountered at a pipe invert should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill or adequate bedding material. Imported soils for pipe bedding should consist of nonexpansive granular soils. The walls of temporary construction trenches may not be stable when excavated nearly vertically due to the potential for caving. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes will be required for temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet.
All work associated with trenches, excavations and shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Code.
PLAN REVIEW, OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
As foundation and earthwork plans are completed, Hamilton & Associates should be retained to provide plan review for intent of our recommendations. The review will enable us to modify our recommendations should the final design conditions not be as we understand them. During construction, we should provide field observation and testing to check that site preparation, grading, and foundation installation conform to the intent of our recommendations and to the project plans and specifications. As needed, during construction, we should be retained to consult on geotechnical questions, construction problems, and unanticipated conditions. This would allow us to develop supplemental recommendations as appropriate for the actual subsurface conditions encountered and the specific construction techniques. Furthermore, we would prepare a construction observation and testing report for the building department.
CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Ms. Yukiko Ogasawara for the proposed project at the subject site. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties and may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties.
The Owner or their representatives are responsible for ensuring the information and recommendations contained in this report are brought to the attention of the project engineers and architects, incorporated into the project plans, and implemented by project contractors. This report should be named on project grading plans as a part of the project specifications.
242
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 26
We request and recommend notification should any of the following occur:
1. Final plans for site development indicate utilization of areas not originally proposed for construction.
2. Structural loading conditions vary from those utilized for evaluation and preparation of this report.
3. The site is not developed within 12 months following the date of this report.
4. Change of ownership of property occurs.
If changes or delays do occur, this office should be notified and provided with finalized plans of site development for our review to enable us to provide the necessary recommendations for additional work and/or updating of the report. Any charges for such review and necessary recommendations would be at the prevailing rate at the time of performing review work.
The findings contained in this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the information obtained from the subsurface exploration performed and the results of laboratory testing and engineering analysis. As part of the engineering analysis, it had been assumed, and is expected, that the geotechnical conditions which exist across the area of study are similar to those encountered in the subsurface exploration. However, no warranty is expressed or implied as to the conditions at locations or depths other than those excavated. Should any conditions encountered during construction differ from those described herein, this office should be contacted immediately for recommendations prior to continuation of work.
Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted current professional principles and local practice in geotechnical engineering and reflect our best professional judgment. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.
These recommendations are, however, dependent on the above assumption of uniformity and upon proper quality control of construction. Geotechnical observations and testing should be provided on a continuous basis during temporary and foundation construction at the site to confirm design assumptions and to verify conformance with the intent of our recommendations. If parties other than Hamilton & Associates, Inc., are engaged to provide geotechnical services during construction they must be informed that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations.
243
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 27
This concludes our scope of services as described during our proposal dated September 26, 2023, however, this report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project. Any further geotechnical services that may be required of our office to respond to questions/comments of the controlling authorities after their review of the report will be performed on a time and expense basis as per our current fee schedule. We would not proceed with any response to report review comments/questions without authorization from your office.
We appreciate your business and hope that we can assist you during construction related services.
244
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 References
REFERENCES
Prior Site Reports
Hamilton and Associates, Inc. (2013), Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, Project No. 13-1672, dated July 19, 2023.
Hamilton & Associates, Inc. (2014), Report of Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Tentative Parcel Map 72775 Lots 1 & 2, APN 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, Project No. 13-1672, dated May 29, 2014.
Wildan (2013/14), Approval Letter of Geotechnical / Geological Reports and OWTS Report, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, dated October 23, 2013 (14).
Hamilton and Associates, Inc. (2021), Updated Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation, Proposed Residential Development 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, Project No. 13-1675, dated November 8, 2021.
General and Local References
Anderson, J.L., 1987, The Flying Triangle landslide: Geologic, geomorphologic, and tectonic factors, in, Peter J. Fischer, editor, Geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay: Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Field Trip Guidebook, Los Angeles, CA, June 7, 1987.
Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., August 9, 1995, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Improvements, 33 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA, Project No. 1027C-075.
Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 2004, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Additions, APN 7567-011-018, 17 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated November 10, 2004, Project No.2071C-024.
California Geological Survey, 2002/2011, Interactive probabilistic seismic hazards map:
http://conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rregional/pshamap//html. *Cleveland, G.B., 1976, Geology of the northeast part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County, California: Calif. Div. Mines and Geol. Map Sheet 2.*Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones Special Map, San Pedro 7.5 Minute Quadrangle.
DeVries, G., 2004, Preliminary Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Addition, 17 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated October 29, 2004, Project No. 1281-024.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1999, Geologic map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and vicinity:
Dibblee Foundation Map DF-70.
Ehlert, Keith W., Consulting Engineering Geologist, August 2, 1995, Geologic Investigation for Proposed Residential Improvements, 33 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA, Project No. 1027C-075
245
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 References
Ehlig, P.L., 1986, The Portuguese Bend Landslide: Its mechanism and a plan for its stabilization, in, P.L. Ehlig, compiler, Landslides and landslide mitigation in Southern California: Geol. Soc. Amer., Cordilleran Section, 82nd Annual Meeting.
Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc., 2010, Response to the Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles, Geologic and Soils Engineering Review Sheets Dated August 6, 2008 and August 8, 2008, Grading Plan Check No. 0806110003; Proposed Residential Development, APZ: 7567-011-018, 17 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated August 26, 2010, Project No.:
09-AA-003EGR.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., Revised 2007, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo earthquakes fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones map; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Hamilton & Associates, Inc., Geotechnical and geologic investigation report, proposed swimming pool, garage, retaining walls, propane tank and cabana. 29 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated March 11. 2013, Project No. 12-1644.
Haydon, W.D., 2007, Landslide Inventory Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County, California: Calif. Geol. Surv.
Jennings, Charles, 2010, “Fault Activity Map of California”: Online Keene, A.G, 1986, Flying Triangle Landslide, City of Rolling Hills, California, in, P.L. Ehlig, compiler, Landslides and Landslide Mitigation in Southern California: Geol. Soc.
Amer., Cordilleran Section, 82nd Annual Meeting.
Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates, 1970, Geology and Soils Investigation, Flying Triangle area, City of Rolling Hills, California: Consultants’ Technical Report, dated June 11, 1970, Project No. 4477-FG.Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7, Geologic Map of the Flying Triangle Landslide: Unpublished geologic map on file at County of Los Angeles Public Works: Scale 1”=100’. Note: This map is detailed in Flying Triangle area, but the investigator and date are not known with certainty.
Steiner, E., 2004, The Portuguese Bend Landslide, in, Palos Verdes Peninsula: Fabulous geology in a beautiful setting, A.R. Brown, editor: Los Angeles Basin Geol. Soc., Field Trip. June 26, 2004.
Treiman, J.J., and Lundberg, M.M., 1998b, Fault number 128b, Palos Verdes Fault Zone, Palos Verdes Hills section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States:
U.S. Geol. Survey. Website, http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/faults.
United States Geological Survey, Java ground motion parameter calculator website:
Version 5.1.0., Work Order 02-3401.
Woodring, W.P., Bramlette, M.N., and Kew, W.S.W., 1946, Geology and Paleontology of the Palos Verdes Hills, California: U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 207.
Woods, M. C., and Seiple, W. R., ed., 1995, “The Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994”, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 116.
Ziony, J. I. ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles region – an earth science perspective: U.S. Geol. Surv. Professional Paper 1360. 246
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 References
Aerial Photographs
Date Flight/Frames
2-24-99 C134-37/206, 207
10-15-97 C117-36/135, 136
1-29-95 C102-36/4,5
6-9-93 C93-12/208,209
1-29-92 C85-8/35,36
1-7-88 19279,17980
1-27-86 E/363,364
5-12-79 FCLA-12/139, 140
3-17-78 78047/193,194
1-31-70 61-9/184,185
1-18-68 #4/55, 56
2-20-58 CAA-9/34, 35
8-31-54 19K/18, 19
247
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Plate A-1 Site Plan & Geologic Map
Plate A-2 Cross Section A-A’
Plate A-3 Cross Section B-B’
Plate A-4 Cross Section C-C’
Plate A-5 Cross Section D-D’
Plate A-6 Cross Section E-E’
Plate A-7 Los Angeles County Geologic Map
Plates B-1 through B-16 Logs of Test Pits & Borings
Plates C-1 and C-2 Consolidation Test Results
Plates D-1 through D-8 Direct Shear Test Results
LABORATORY TESTS
After samples were visually classified in the laboratory, a testing program that would provide data for our evaluation was established. The results are presented in the following sections.
MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY TESTS
The undisturbed soil retained within the sampler rings was tested in the laboratory to determine in-place dry density and moisture content. The results are presented below:
Test Pit No. Depth
(feet bgs)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture Content
(%)
TP-1 3.0 DS 14.4
TP-2 0.5 93.5 10.8
TP-2 2.0 69.5 12.7
TP-2 3.0 63.3 10.3
TP-3 1.0 83.3 13.5
TP-3 2.0 74.5 21.7
TP-4 1.0 84.9 12.5
TP-5 3.0 D.S. 9.0
TP-5 4.0 73.8 12.4
TP-6 3.0 82.4 8.8
TP-7 3.0 83.9 11.6
TP-8 4.5 80.9 13.8
TP-9 4.0 68.9 3.8
TP-10 3.0 46.0 14.5
248
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix A
B-1 5.0 DS 12.9
B-1 10.0 107 13.0
B-1 15.0 105.5 15.7
B-1 20.0 98.4 15.9
B-1 30.0 98.3 15.2
B-1 40.0 94.2 21.6
B-1 50.0 105.1 21.4
B-1 59.0 92.8 22.6
B-2 5.0 98.8 20.3
B-2 10.0 104.1 11.1
B-2 20.0 103.7 16.8
B-2 30.0 79.3 41.1
B-2 40.0 105.2 17.6
B-2 50.0 96.6 25.3
B-2 59 83.4 11.2
DS = Disturbed Sample
CONSOLIDATION TESTS
One dimensional consolidation test were performed on selected samples of the bedrock to determine the settlement characteristics and effects when placed in contact with water.
The results of these tests are shown graphically on the appended “C” Plate.
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
Direct shear and repeated shear tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed and remolded samples to determine the shear strength parameters of bedrock soil samples. The results of these tests are shown graphically on the appended “D” Plates.
MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST
The following maximum density test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method A, using 5 equal layers, 25 blows each layer, 10-pound hammer, 18 inch drop in a 1/30 cubic foot mold. The results are as follows:
Test Pit No. Depth
(feet)
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
Material
Classification
TP-1 0’-2’ 103.5 17.3 Clayey Silt
EXPANSION TEST
An expansion test was performed on a soil samples to determine the swell characteristics.
The expansion test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D4829, Expansion Index 249
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix A
Test. The expansion sample was remolded to approximately 50 percent of saturation, subjected to 144 pounds per square foot surcharge load and submerged in water.
Location
Molded Dry
Density
(pcf)
Molded
Moist.
Content
(%)
Saturation
(%)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Classification
TP-1 (0’-2’) 84.4 17.7 48.3 60 Moderate
CORROSIVITY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed by Cal Land Engineering per guidelines of California 417 (Sulfate), California 422 (Chloride), and California 532 (pH and Resistivity test procedures on a representative sample of the on-Site soils. This test was intended to provide data for a preliminary assessment relative to the potential for concrete deterioration due to soil sulfate and metal deterioration due to pH, resistivity of the soil and chloride content. The test results are shown below:
SAMPLE
SULFATE
CONTENT
(% weight, dry soil)
CHLORIDE
(ppm) pH RESISTIVITY(ohms)
TP-6 (0-3’) 0.0050 113 7.81 730
250
LEGEND
Geologic Units
Qls – Lanslide Debris
Tmb – Basaltic Sills
Tma – Altamira Shale
Symbols
Strike and Dip of Bedding;
@40’ Indicates Depth
Measured in Boring
5 Plunging Anticline /
Syncline
Geologic Cross-Section
Location of Exploratory
Boring and Test Pit
B B’
Site plan based on plan prepared Bolton Engineering
Corp., dated December 18, 2023
TP-10
B-6
Tma
TP-6
23 7
14 18
12 A
Tma
Tma
TP-3
TP-2 TP-5
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-1
B-1
15 15
18 20
15 5
B-2
12 5 12
TP-10
5 TP-4
20 8
3 4 8 6
8 14
9 8
7 8
6 5
12 14
A’
B’
B
Tma
Tma
Qls Tma
?
?
Estimated Limits of
Landslide Scarp
Approximate Limit of Flying
Triangle Landside
?
?
@54’
@42’
@42’
@40’
@25’
@20’
@13’
@9’
@6’
@5’ 15
13 17
10 14
8 14
12 8
40 10
4 5
13 10
10 6
12 @52’
@27’
@25’
@19’
@16’
@13’
@8’
@3’
E’
D
D’
Inferred Fault Mapped By
Slosson
?
?
B-4
B-3
B-5
B-6
1170
1200
1300
C
C’
E
E’
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California 23-3282 A-1 May 2024
0 100’ 200’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
Conceptual Fill
Keyway Limits
Shear Pin
Stabilization
Piles
251
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California 23-3282 A-2 May 2024
N 22° E
A
1180’
1120’
1060’
A’
1240’
Crest
Rd
1300’
1360’
1180’
1120’
1060’
1240’
1300’
1360’
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A’
Test Pit TP-2
(Projected 25’)
Test Pit
TP-9
(proj'd)
Test Pit
TP-1
Test Pit
TP-5
Boring
B-1
Dirt Road
Tma
Tmb
Tmb
Existing Grade Tmb
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Tma
Proposed
Grade
Proposed Residence
PL
PL
?
Proposed
Keyway/Benching
Colluvium
Colluvium
Proposed Grade (Fill)
Boring
B-5
Boring
B-2
0 60’ 120’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
Buttress
Fill
252
A-3
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B’
B N 70° E
1180’
1120’
1060’
B’
1240’
Crest Rd
1300’
1360’
1180’
1120’
1060’
1240’
1300’
1360’
Test Pit TP-2
(proj'd)
Dirt Road
Tmb
Existing Grade
Test Pit TP-3
(proj'd)
Test Pit TP-6
(proj'd)
Test Pit TP-7
(proj'd)
Tma
?
?
?
PL
PL
Tmb
B-4
(proj'd)
23-3282
May 2024
Existing Grade
Colluvium
Proposed
Grade
Proposed Residence
with Basement
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Tma
0 60’ 120’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
Shear Pin
Stabilization Piles
Retaining Wall
253
A-4
C C’
1260’
1280’
1300’
1320’
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C’
1260’
1280’
1300’
1320’
Proposed ADU
(Projected)
Existing Grade
Setbacks
Tma
Tma
PL
?
?
?
23-3282
May 2024
Proposed Guest
House
1340’ 1340’
1240’ 1240’
Colluvium
?
?
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Proposed
Grade
Buttress
Fill
0 20’ 40’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
254
A-5
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D-D’
D D’
1200’
1220’
1240’
1260’
Proposed
Grade
Existing Grade
PL
1280’
1300’
1320’
1180’
Tma
Tma
Tma
?
?
?
?
Tma
1200’
1220’
1240’
1260’
1280’
1300’
1320’
1180’
23-3282
May 2024
Colluvium
Proposed Residence
W/ Basement
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Pile-Supported Retaining Wall
to support any proposed infrastructure
adjacent to slopes
0 20’ 40’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
255
A-6
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION E-E’
E E’
1180’
1220’
1260’
1180’
1220’
1260’
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
1300’ 1300’
Tma
Tma
23-3282
May 2024
Proposed Stable
Proposed
Pool
PL
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Tma
?
?
1340’
Bend in Section
Colluvium Crest Road
PL
Proposed Grade
Buttress
Fill
1340’
0 40’ 80’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
256
Schematic Local Geologic Map
Scale: 1”~200’
N
?
Flying Triangle Landslide
Landslide Scarp per Slosson/County
of Los Angeles (1986/7
Project: Ogasawara Residence
Project No. 23-3282 May 2024
Plate A-7
East Klondike Canyon
SYMBOLS OF MAJOR
GEOLOGICAL UNITS
Qols – Older Landslide
(Surmised)
Tmsh – Altamira Shale
Tmb -- Basalt
Revised from Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7)
29 Crest Road East
17 Crest Road East
23 Crest Road East
C
257
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-1
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.5”:SOIL:
Clayey Silt, slightly sandy, dark brown, bedrock fragments, loose, dry.
No. TP-1
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.5”- 3’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan to gray, thinly bedded, well indurated, dry to slightly moist.
Bedding: N45W, 7 SW
258
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-2
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.5: SOIL:
Clayey Silt, slightly sandy, dark brown, bedrock fragments, loose, dry.
No. TP-2
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.5- 4’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone and Shale, diatomaceous, tan/brown to light gray, thinly bedded, locally hard-cemented, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: E-W, 12 South
259
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-3
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-2’.9”:SOIL:
Silty Clay, dark brown, few scattered bedrock fragments, slight moist (upper) to very moist (lower), firm to stiff.
No. TP-3
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’
Bedrock
-0’
2’.9”- 4’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone and Shale, diatomaceous, tan/brown to light gray, thinly bedded, locally hard-cemented, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: N80W, 5 SW
260
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-4
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.9”: SOIL:
Silty Clay, slightly sandy, dark brown, few small bedrock fragments, slightly moist, stiff.
No. TP-4
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.9”- 3’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan to light gray, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: N50W, 12 SW
261
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-5
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-3’.5”: SOIL:
Silty Clay, slightly sandy, dark brown, few small bedrock fragments, slightly moist, stiff.
No. TP-5
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 5’
Bedrock
-0’
3’.5”- 5’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, tan, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: N37W, 20 SW
262
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-6
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’: SOIL:
Silty Clay, dark brown, few scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm.
No. TP-6
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’- 3’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan to light gray, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: N30W, 23 SW
263
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-7
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.6”:SOIL:
Silty Clay, dark brown, few small scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm to stiff.
No. TP-7
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.6”- 3’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: N30E, 15 SE 1
N55E, 16 SE 2
2 1
264
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-8
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-3’: SOIL:
Silty Clay, dark brown, few small scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm to stiff.
No. TP-8
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’.6”
Bedrock
-0’
3’- 4’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan, thinly bedded, well indurated, few hard cemented layers, slightly moist.
Bedding: N-S, 20W 1
N30W, 18SW 2
2 1
265
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-9
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-2’.6: SOIL:
Silty Clay, dark brown, few small scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm to stiff.
No. TP-9
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’
Bedrock
-0’
2’.6”- 4’: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan/brown to beige, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: N60W, 15 SW
266
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-10
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282
TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-2’.6”: SOIL:
Silty Clay, dark brown, scattered small bedrock fragments, slightly moist to moist, firm to stiff.
No. TP-10
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:
SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Soil Test Pit Outline
Total Depth: 3’.6”
Bedrock
-0’
2’.6”- 3’.6”: BEDROCK:
Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan/brown to beige, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.
Bedding: N55W, 5 SW
267
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1
Depth (Ft.)
Description
0-1': Soil (Colluvium):
Silty Clay, dark brown, bedrock fragments, loose, dry.
1'-60': Bedrock:
Siltstone, thinly bedded, beige/gray to tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well indurated.
BEDDING:
@ 3' N45W, 12SW
3.2 5
@ 8' E-W, 10S
3.5 10
@ 13' E-W, 6S
3.9 15 @ 15' N70W, 10SW *@ 15'-17' Very Fractured, Tight and Intact @ 19' N40W, 13NE
1.8 20
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-11
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
U B
Drive
(Kip-Ft.)
268
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description
1.8 20 Bedrock:
Siltstone, thinly bedded, beige/gray to tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well indurated.
BEDDING:
@ 22' E-W, 4S
25 @ 27' N45E, 5SE
4.2 30 @ N-S, 3W
@ 31'-34' sandy siltstone, brown, "baked" apperance, blocky fracture. @ 34'-48' Basalt:
dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured.
35 10.5 40
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-12
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
269
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description
10.5 40 Bedrock:
Basalt, dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured.
BEDDING:
45 @ 48'-52' Siltstone:
sandy, brown, "baked" apperance.
17.5 50
@ 52'-56' Siltstone: @ 52' N70E, 10SE
light gray to brown, thinly bedded.
55 @ 56'-60' Siltstone:
sandy, "baked" apperance, blocky fracture.
17.9 60 End of Boring @ 60 Feet
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-13
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
270
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2
Depth (Ft.)
Description
0-4': Soil (Colluvium):
Silty Clay, dark brown, few bedrock fragments, loose, dry. 4'-60': Bedrock:
Siltstone, thinly bedded, light gray/tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well
3.5 5 indurated.
BEDDING: @ 5' E-W, 15S
@ 6' N85E, 17SE
@ 9' N45W, 14SW
1.8 10
@ 14' N50W, 13SW
15 3.2 20 @ 20' N45W, 10SW
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-14
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
U B
Drive
(Kip-Ft.)
271
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description
3.2 20 Bedrock:
Siltstone, thinly bedded, light gray/tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well indurated.
BEDDING:
@ 20' N45W, 10SW
25 @ 25' N30W, 8SW
@ 29'-38' Basalt:
dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured
4.6 30
35 38'-42' Siltstone:
sandy, brown, "baked" apperance.
8.8 40 @ N30W, 14SW
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-15
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
272
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description
10.5 40 Bedrock:
Siltstone, sandy, brown, "baked" apperance.
BEDDING:
@ 42' N-S, 12W
@ 42'-55' Siltstone
beige/gray to tan/brown.
45 @ 47' N40E, 8NW
17.5 50
@ 54' N60W, 40SW
55 @ 55'-59' Basalt:
dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured.
8.8 60 End of Boring @ 60 Feet
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-16
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
273
Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture
Test Specimen Submerged
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
6.00 7.00
8.00 9.00
10.00 11.00
12.00 0.1 1 10
Consolidation (Percent)
Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot)
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical and GeologicEngineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Roliing Hills, California Plate
Project No.
C-1
23-3282
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TP-2 @ 0.5'
274
Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture
Test Specimen Submerged
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
6.00 7.00
8.00 9.00
10.00 11.00
12.00 0.1 1 10
Consolidation (Percent)
Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot)
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California Plate
Project No.
C-2
23-3282
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TP-7 @ 3'
275
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Siltstone samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 64.5 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 40 % Cohesion = 400 psf
Friction Angle = 25 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-1
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-2 @ 2 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
276
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Clayey Silt samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 79.9 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 32.6 % Cohesion = 175 psf
Friction Angle = 25 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-2
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-4 @ 1 Foot
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
277
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Siltstone samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 65 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 41 % Cohesion = 350 psf
Friction Angle = 31 degrees
Based on 80% Peak
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-3
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-5 @ 5 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
278
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Siltstone samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 76.7 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 39.1 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 27 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-4
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-8 @ 4.5 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
279
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 90 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.1 % Cohesion = 450 psf
Friction Angle = 26 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-5
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 1 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
280
REPEATED SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 92 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.5 % Cohesion = 200 psf
Friction Angle = 21 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-5a
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 1 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
281
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 85.9 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 36.3 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 26 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-6
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 5 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
282
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 92 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.3 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 27 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-7
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
283
REPEATED SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 90 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 36.7 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 25 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-7a
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
284
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.
The samples had a density of 93 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.3 % Cohesion = 350 psf
Friction Angle = 28 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-8
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 20 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram
0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
285
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix B
APPENDIX B
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
286
1.782
160.00 lbs/ft2 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
287
1.209
160.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section A Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
288
1.940
160.00 lbs/ft2 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
289
1.183
160.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
290
1.775
160.00 lbs/ft2 400 300 200 100 0 -100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Circular- Upper Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
291
1.258
160.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Circular- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
292
2.054
160.00 lbs/ft2 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Wedge- Upper Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
293
1.351
160.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Wedge- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
294
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section A
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:
1.782070 00h:00m:01.56s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.209410 00h:00m:01.114s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:
1.940020 00h:00m:00.510s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.183430 00h:00m:00.544s
Circular- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:
1.774880 00h:00m:01.80s
Circular- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.257560 00h:00m:01.145s
Wedge- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:
2.054370 00h:00m:00.539s
Wedge- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.351110 00h:00m:00.513s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Analysis Options
295
All Open Scenarios
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Static
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Seismic
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
296
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Static
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Seismic
3/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
297
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Seismic Loading
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Seismic
4/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
298
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 160
Orientation: Normal to boundary
Materials
5/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
299
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
6/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
300
Name: User Defined 1
Angle From Angle To Material
6 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
12 6 Bedrock abc
90 12 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: User Defined 2
Angle From Angle To Material
6 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
12 6 Bedrock abc
90 12 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
Material
CircularGlobal
Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
CircularUpper
Static
CircularUpper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock
(Aniso) <25 ft
Bedrock
(Aniso) >25 ft
Bedrock abc
Global Minimums
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.782070
Center: 112.478, 718.495
Radius: 597.737
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 167.881, 123.331
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 442.787, 220.313
Left Slope Intercept: 167.881 123.331
Right Slope Intercept: 442.787 227.671
Resisting Moment: 2.24428e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.25937e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 5181.06 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 274.906 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.8466 ft
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
7/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
301
FS 1.209410
Center: 110.553, 720.732
Radius: 600.576
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 166.858, 122.802
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 442.787, 220.421
Left Slope Intercept: 166.858 122.802
Right Slope Intercept: 442.787 227.671
Resisting Moment: 2.18338e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.80532e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 5215.13 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 275.929 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.9002 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.940020
Axis Location: 309.399, 735.567
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 178.130, 128.633
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 716.185, 266.391
Resisting Moment: 6.33393e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.26488e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 19698 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 538.055 ft
Surface Average Height: 36.6097 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.183430
Axis Location: 309.399, 735.567
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 178.130, 128.633
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 716.185, 266.391
Resisting Moment: 6.15423e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 5.20035e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 19698 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 538.055 ft
Surface Average Height: 36.6097 ft
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
8/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
302
FS 1.774880
Center: 605.827, 323.269
Radius: 96.219
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 600.745, 227.184
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 679.676, 261.588
Left Slope Intercept: 600.745 231.336
Right Slope Intercept: 679.676 261.588
Resisting Moment: 5.91793e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.33427e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 850.774 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 78.9306 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.7788 ft
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.257560
Center: 596.239, 366.044
Radius: 138.927
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 600.745, 227.190
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 690.091, 263.611
Left Slope Intercept: 600.745 231.336
Right Slope Intercept: 690.091 263.611
Resisting Moment: 8.87438e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 7.05684e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 919.34 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 89.346 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.2897 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 2.054370
Axis Location: 621.888, 373.512
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 597.303, 227.184
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 724.199, 266.047
Resisting Moment: 2.35422e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.14595e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 2575.34 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 126.896 ft
Surface Average Height: 20.2948 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
9/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
303
FS 1.351110
Axis Location: 624.132, 375.399
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 598.438, 227.184
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 727.287, 265.915
Resisting Moment: 1.88186e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.39283e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 2169.28 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 128.849 ft
Surface Average Height: 16.8358 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
178.13 128.633
191.209 115.554
662.497 212.703
716.185 266.391
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
178.13 128.633
191.209 115.554
662.497 212.703
716.185 266.391
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
597.303 227.184
605.805 218.682
694.931 236.78
724.199 266.047
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
598.438 227.184
602.181 223.441
704.681 243.309
727.287 265.915
Entity Information
10/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
304
Cross Section A
Shared Entities
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary
-0.05, -1.066
851.434, -1.066
851.434, 238.33
851.434, 266.41
851.434, 271.884
806.421, 270.259
758.35, 266.005
736.127, 265.536
711.656, 266.585
691.904, 263.963
673.901, 260.467
640.768, 249.348
603.184, 231.336
600.745, 231.336
600.745, 227.184
570.57, 227.184
570.57, 217.813
487.741, 217.813
457.468, 217.813
442.787, 217.813
442.787, 227.671
434.962, 227.671
434.962, 221.2
426.083, 218.527
405.564, 214.058
361.026, 199.951
333.062, 188.851
308.563, 174.926
293.85, 174.926
276.677, 167.685
249.857, 159.38
223.556, 150.555
186.7, 133.066
128.484, 102.951
79.066, 72.034
61.935, 62.425
47.245, 56.833
29.413, 52.743
17.346, 52.743
-0.05, 58.405
-0.05, 33.377
11/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
305
Material Boundary
-0.05, 33.377
14.663, 33.377
55.937, 33.61
78.928, 46.79
136.717, 84.312
186.643, 108.516
222.976, 126.571
301.398, 149.92
343.968, 167.351
378.987, 182.381
468.712, 199.759
543.985, 209.361
576.41, 214.739
585.937, 218.12
591.627, 221.789
598.532, 225.392
600.745, 227.184
600.745, 225.038
620.7, 225.038
620.7, 229.641
636.966, 229.641
636.966, 234.369
651.998, 234.369
651.998, 238.799
667.486, 238.799
667.486, 243.376
682.64, 243.376
682.64, 248.039
698.289, 248.039
698.289, 252.021
718.486, 252.021
718.486, 256.877
736.499, 256.877
736.499, 260.259
755.712, 260.259
755.712, 263.655
772.809, 263.655
772.809, 266.41
802.093, 266.41
851.434, 266.41
Material Boundary
-0.05, 58.405
12.36, 52.568
20.534, 49.299
31.875, 49.299
53.865, 49.892
71.429, 58.2
107.033, 83.122
153.456, 110.303
185.262, 128.105
240.097, 151.434
300.133, 170.158
347.133, 190.184
397.856, 209.275
417.961, 215.21
442.787, 217.813
12/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
306
Material Boundary
543.985, 209.361
586.652, 210.357
613.826, 210.357
658.317, 214.086
706.271, 225.009
745.434, 238.063
769.678, 241.04
798.033, 241.04
851.434, 238.33
Scenario-based Entities
13/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
307
Type
Coordin
ates
(x,y)
Circular
- Global
Static
Circular
- Global
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Circular
- Upper
Static
Circular
- Upper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
Distribut
ed Load
570.57,
217.813
487.741,
217.813
457.468,
217.813
442.787,
217.813
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Block
Search
Window
578.481,
184.198
739.895,
206.856
739.895,
262.963
578.265,
218.941
Block
Search
Window
185.959,
86.266
406.873,
136.755
406.873,
201.367
185.959,
130.863
Block
Search
Window
694.146,
220.218
833.398,
220.218
833.398,
268.966
693.512,
257.411
Block
Search
Window
582.917,
203.855
648.302,
203.855
648.302,
247.013
582.485,
220.039
14/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
308
1.577 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section B
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
309
1.118 0.15 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section B Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
310
1.556 400 300 200 100 0 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section B
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
311
1.102
0.15 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section B
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
312
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section B
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:
1.577180 00h:00m:01.36s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.118300 00h:00m:01.240s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:
1.555610 00h:00m:00.568s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.101530 00h:00m:00.589s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
313
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
314
Seismic Loading
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
3/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
315
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
4/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
316
Name: Aniso B <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
9 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
13 9 Bedrock abc
90 13 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso B >25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
9 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
13 9 Bedrock abc
90 13 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
Material Circular- Global
Static
Circular- Global
Seismic
Wedge- Global
Static
Wedge- Global
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
B) <25 ft
Bedrock (Aniso
B) >25 ft
Support
Shear Pin 1
Color
Support Type Pile/Micro Pile
Force Application Active
Out-of-Plane Spacing [ft] 10
Failure Mode Shear
Pile Shear Strength [lb] 200000
Force Direction Perpendicular to pile
Global Minimums
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
5/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
317
FS 1.577180
Center: 52.357, 563.379
Radius: 429.130
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 148.390, 145.133
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 320.205, 228.103
Resisting Moment: 1.14611e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 7.26686e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -7.05645e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 3618.57 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 171.815 ft
Surface Average Height: 21.0609 ft
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.118300
Center: 53.146, 564.668
Radius: 430.209
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 148.420, 145.141
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 321.133, 228.122
Resisting Moment: 1.10755e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 9.90388e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -7.09356e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 3670.13 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 172.713 ft
Surface Average Height: 21.2499 ft
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.555610
Axis Location: 152.871, 356.489
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 149.724, 146.662
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 318.845, 228.075
Resisting Moment: 5.40327e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.47341e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -2.89707e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 3666.54 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 169.12 ft
Surface Average Height: 21.6801 ft
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
6/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
318
FS 1.101530
Axis Location: 167.210, 397.239
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 146.257, 144.531
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 356.805, 228.852
Resisting Moment: 1.18209e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.07314e+08 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -4.57135e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 8105.54 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 210.548 ft
Surface Average Height: 38.4973 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
149.724 146.662
159.472 136.914
309.322 218.552
318.845 228.075
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
146.257 144.531
153.39 137.398
296.485 168.532
356.805 228.852
Entity Information
Cross Section B
Shared Entities
Type Coordinates (x,y)
7/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
319
External Boundary
0.86, -2.37
850.54, -2.305
850.382, 250.993
850.54, 275.581
850.54, 283.704
771.479, 279.913
737.093, 279.913
703.52, 275.581
668.592, 268.541
628.265, 261.485
479.623, 238.486
479.623, 231.364
296.625, 227.621
296.625, 229.479
252.053, 209.522
225.375, 199.033
199.087, 187.896
185.859, 180.413
172.046, 171.06
164.707, 164.585
148.463, 145.153
144.663, 144.081
138.545, 144.081
134.951, 145.61
127.837, 153.196
87.143, 168.548
32.314, 181.22
0.86, 189.505
0.86, 182.783
1.165, 162.605
Material Boundary
162.064, 152.67
187.034, 174.33
200.572, 183.055
221.33, 191.779
244.795, 201.105
269.464, 211.334
296.625, 223.905
296.625, 227.621
Material Boundary
703.52, 275.581
750.597, 275.581
811.367, 275.581
850.54, 275.581
Material Boundary
0.86, 182.783
34.916, 174.093
81.38, 162.059
116.143, 151.028
126.506, 144.343
134.862, 136.32
143.553, 134.315
152.913, 136.655
162.064, 152.67
8/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
320
Material Boundary
1.165, 162.605
66.216, 136.669
105.926, 118.919
142.629, 110.195
159.476, 113.805
174.701, 130.609
188.38, 147.307
206.407, 157.427
241.605, 176.38
284.574, 189.417
307.729, 198.954
345.43, 204.049
411.712, 204.714
462.789, 210.886
553.781, 226.844
617.96, 236.872
679.131, 243.557
753.626, 248.582
808.274, 250.115
850.382, 250.993
Scenario-based Entities
Type Coordinates
(x,y)
CircularGlobal Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Block Search
Window
126.595,
98.475
239.253,
98.475
239.253,
187.829
126.595,
131.065
Block Search
Window
287.338,
126.949
619.831,
126.949
619.831,
228.224
287.338,
223.192
9/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
321
1.666
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2 125 100 75 50 25 0 -25
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section C
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
322
1.288
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2 250 0.15 200 150 100 50 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section C Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
323
1.524
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section C
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
324
1.109
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 250 200 150 100 50 0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section C
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
325
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section C
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:
1.666370 00h:00m:01.631s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.287760 00h:00m:02.0s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:
1.524060 00h:00m:00.659s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.109170 00h:00m:00.541s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Left to Right
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
326
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
327
Seismic Loading
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 120
Orientation: Vertical
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 120
Orientation: Vertical
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
3/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
328
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
4/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
329
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C)<25
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
Name: Aniso A <25 ft
Angle From Angle To Material
6 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
12 6 Bedrock abc
90 12 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso C <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-15 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
0 -15 Bedrock abc
90 0 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso C> 25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-15 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
0 -15 Bedrock abc
90 0 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
5/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
330
Material Circular- Global
Static
Circular- Global
Seismic
Wedge- Global
Static
Wedge- Global
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock (Aniso
A) <25 ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
C)<25
Bedrock (Aniso
C) >25ft
Support
Shear Pin 1
Color
Support Type Pile/Micro Pile
Force Application Active
Out-of-Plane Spacing [ft] 10
Failure Mode Shear
Pile Shear Strength [lb] 200000
Force Direction Perpendicular to pile
Global Minimums
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.666370
Center: 225.809, 59.559
Radius: 47.328
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 179.408, 50.243
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 235.783, 13.294
Resisting Moment: 2.67653e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.6062e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 598.178 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 56.3755 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.6106 ft
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
6/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
331
FS 1.287760
Center: 258.916, 253.580
Radius: 241.416
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 89.783, 81.314
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 235.979, 13.257
Resisting Moment: 4.08282e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.17048e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -4.55319e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 2258.14 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 146.196 ft
Surface Average Height: 15.446 ft
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.524060
Axis Location: 224.297, 207.783
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 75.786, 81.516
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 236.204, 13.214
Resisting Moment: 5.70623e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.74409e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4318.58 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 160.418 ft
Surface Average Height: 26.9208 ft
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.109170
Axis Location: 225.612, 218.694
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 68.809, 84.424
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 238.946, 12.689
Resisting Moment: 6.07811e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 5.47988e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4579.35 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 170.137 ft
Surface Average Height: 26.9157 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
75.7857 81.5163
129.88 27.422
226.056 3.06597
236.204 13.2136
7/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
332
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
68.809 84.4243
125.735 27.4982
229.427 3.1705
238.946 12.6894
Entity Information
Cross Section C
Shared Entities
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary
0.423, 0.306
223.699, 0.0298297
245.088, 0.00337281
265.451, -0.0218143
280.154, -0.04
280.154, 21.9205
280.154, 26.083
269.263, 21.845
260.488, 17.137
252.622, 14.086
247.199, 13.104
239.685, 12.548
234.387, 13.561
228.036, 16.906
219.888, 23.026
215.86, 25.241
198.375, 36.31
178.602, 50.835
175.631, 50.835
165.511, 50.835
165.511, 53.94
163.441, 53.94
160.973, 53.94
154.599, 56.675
146.683, 61.17
142.989, 62.967
130.105, 69.634
124.572, 72.968
105.501, 76.581
98.557, 81.314
76.132, 81.314
71.665, 83.923
43.992, 88.78
0.423, 99.52
0.423, 96.667
0.423, 75.575
8/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
333
Material Boundary
0.423, 96.667
35.453, 87.777
77.654, 80.25
77.654, 78.548
86.208, 78.548
86.208, 76.418
95.923, 76.418
95.923, 73.198
105.253, 73.198
105.253, 75.469
115.866, 73.544
115.866, 71.726
118.848, 71.726
118.848, 69.186
121.869, 69.186
121.869, 67.114
125.89, 67.114
125.89, 64.092
129.652, 64.092
129.652, 61.137
134.75, 61.137
134.75, 58.262
140.374, 58.262
140.374, 55.267
145.63, 55.267
145.63, 52.259
160.973, 52.259
160.973, 53.94
Material Boundary
175.631, 50.835
187.807, 41.765
200.393, 31.999
217.409, 22.534
222.724, 18.09
228.166, 14.237
232.356, 12.359
235.872, 11.54
239.483, 11.396
247.911, 11.974
253.328, 13.079
258.399, 14.552
265.551, 17.153
276.039, 21.227
278.033, 21.877
280.154, 21.9205
Material Boundary
0.423, 75.575
7.22521, 73.8106
35.555, 66.462
77.404, 58.451
116.178, 49.205
132.715, 45.043
146.459, 39.7691
162.398, 31.6914
185.859, 19.802
196.869, 13.799
223.699, 0.0298297
236.99, 0.0298297
245.088, 0.00337281
9/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
334
Material Boundary 77.404, 58.451
132.715, 45.043
Material Boundary 185.859, 19.802
223.699, 0.0298297
Scenario-based Entities
Type Coordinates
(x,y)
CircularGlobal Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Distributed
Load
78.9579,
80.7551
94.2687,
80.3105
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Distributed
Load
165.511,
50.835
175.631,
50.835
178.602,
50.835
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Block Search
Window
96.933, 21.553
131.324,
21.553
131.324, 66.76
96.933, 79.023
Block Search
Window
208.011,
28.541
208.011, 3.013
234.951, 3.013
234.951,
12.347
10/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
335
1.693
240.00 lbs/ft2 500 400 300 200 100 0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section D
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
336
1.173
240.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 500 400 300 200 100 0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section D Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
337
1.776
240.00 lbs/ft2 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section D
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
338
1.275
240.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section D
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
339
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section D
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:
1.692550 00h:00m:01.143s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.173100 00h:00m:01.530s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:
1.775510 00h:00m:00.494s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.274910 00h:00m:00.431s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Left to Right
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
340
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
341
Seismic Loading
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 240
Orientation: Vertical
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
3/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
342
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
4/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
343
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C)<25
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
Name: Aniso D <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-13 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
-6 -13 Bedrock abc
90 -6 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso D >25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-13 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
-6 -13 Bedrock abc
90 -6 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
5/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
344
Material Circular- Global
Static
Circular- Global
Seismic
Wedge- Global
Static
Wedge- Global
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
D) <25 ft
Bedrock (Aniso
D) >25 ft
Global Minimums
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.692550
Center: 324.838, 549.569
Radius: 533.299
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 22.716, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 262.050, 19.980
Resisting Moment: 1.72676e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.02021e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4377.28 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 239.334 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.2894 ft
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.173100
Center: 326.793, 552.889
Radius: 537.123
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 22.748, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 263.996, 19.449
Resisting Moment: 1.67679e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.42937e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4394.47 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 241.247 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.2156 ft
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
6/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
345
FS 1.775510
Axis Location: 245.909, 289.524
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.968, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 267.080, 18.719
Resisting Moment: 9.14979e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 5.15332e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4502.6 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 225.112 ft
Surface Average Height: 20.0015 ft
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.274910
Axis Location: 245.909, 289.524
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.968, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 267.080, 18.719
Resisting Moment: 8.85262e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 6.9437e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4502.6 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 225.112 ft
Surface Average Height: 20.0015 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
41.9679 110.104
77.4063 74.6656
255.921 7.55893
267.08 18.7188
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
41.9679 110.104
77.4063 74.6656
255.921 7.55893
267.08 18.7188
Entity Information
Cross Section D
Shared Entities
7/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
346
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary
0.673, 84.5458
0.673, -0.465
273.642, -0.465
289.286, -0.465
289.301, 14.7489
289.301, 20.671
285.159, 19.895
281.073, 19.275
276.124, 18.731
271.795, 18.592
266.628, 18.731
262.019, 19.988
254.851, 23.929
247.61, 28.481
240.387, 32.542
219.765, 43.675
206.945, 49.079
193.616, 54.11
108.904, 84.797
86.338, 94.112
67.697, 103.336
58.583, 106.688
58.583, 110.104
0.673, 110.104
0.673, 109.111
Material Boundary
0.673, 84.5458
32.219, 84.5458
68.259, 74.676
97.256, 67.067
139.082, 48.665
208.805, 25.05
242.041, 6.985
273.642, -0.465
Material Boundary
0.673, 109.111
39.047, 109.111
44.296, 109.111
44.296, 106.354
49.187, 106.354
49.187, 104.099
54.838, 104.099
54.838, 102.098
58.726, 102.098
72.946, 96.642
87.036, 89.342
145.203, 68.265
184.332, 54.649
225.293, 37.077
251.148, 21.789
258.523, 19.1952
267.948, 15.88
277.865, 14.7489
285.995, 14.7489
289.301, 14.7489
Scenario-based Entities
8/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
347
Type Coordinates
(x,y)
CircularGlobal Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Distributed
Load
16.8367,
110.104
41.8874,
110.104
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 240
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 240
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 240
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:
VerticalMagnitu
de: 240
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Block Search
Window
51.053, 69.893
88.417, 65.628
86.868, 92.146
51.053, 107.53
Block Search
Window
252.546, 0.838
280.721, 0.838
280.721,
17.834
252.546,
17.834
9/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
348
1.741
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
349
1.356
120.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section E Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
350
2.044
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Upper Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
351
1.491
120.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
352
2.345
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Upper Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
353
1.706
120.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
354
1.808 120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
355
1.401 120.00 lbs/ft2
0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
356
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section E
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:
1.740960 00h:00m:01.241s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.356050 00h:00m:01.646s
Circular- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:
2.044040 00h:00m:01.387s
Circular- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.490620 00h:00m:01.465s
Wedge- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:
2.345000 00h:00m:00.577s
Wedge- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.705630 00h:00m:00.733s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:
1.808180 00h:00m:00.956s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:
1.401250 00h:00m:00.638s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Analysis Options
357
All Open Scenarios
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
2/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
358
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Seismic Loading
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Seismic
3/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
359
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 120
Orientation: Vertical
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
4/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
360
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C)<25
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) <25ft
Color
5/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
361
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
Name: Aniso E <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
5 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
11 5 Berock (fbc) >25ft
90 11 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso E >25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
5 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
11 5 Bedrock abc
90 11 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
Material
CircularGlobal
Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
CircularUpper
Static
CircularUpper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
E) <25ft
Bedrock (Aniso
E) >25ft
Global Minimums
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
6/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
362
FS 1.740960
Center: 48.558, 128.260
Radius: 50.451
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 42.923, 78.125
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 95.611, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 2.89199e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.66115e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 569.777 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 52.6884 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.8141 ft
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.356050
Center: 44.719, 143.180
Radius: 65.150
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 42.822, 78.058
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 100.821, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 3.85405e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 2.84212e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 617.797 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 57.9994 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.6518 ft
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 2.044040
Center: 129.899, 167.880
Radius: 57.826
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 129.089, 110.059
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 174.892, 131.555
Resisting Moment: 1.64348e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 804037 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 322.076 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 45.8027 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.03183 ft
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
7/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
363
FS 1.490620
Center: 125.366, 190.760
Radius: 80.775
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 129.104, 110.071
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 180.316, 131.555
Left Slope Intercept: 129.104 113.478
Right Slope Intercept: 180.316 131.555
Resisting Moment: 2.49492e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.67375e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 365.009 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 51.2118 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.12745 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 2.345000
Axis Location: 134.434, 178.268
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 127.199, 110.059
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 184.660, 131.555
Resisting Moment: 2.4086e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.02712e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 404.199 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 57.4613 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.03429 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.705630
Axis Location: 134.434, 178.268
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 127.199, 110.059
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 184.660, 131.555
Resisting Moment: 2.37027e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.38968e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 404.199 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 57.4613 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.03429 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.808180
Axis Location: 41.973, 158.009
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.999, 78.058
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 105.950, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 5.47568e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.02829e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 723.638 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 63.9507 ft
Surface Average Height: 11.3156 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Seismic
8/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
364
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.401250
Axis Location: 41.973, 158.009
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.999, 78.058
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 105.950, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 5.30989e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.7894e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 723.638 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 63.9507 ft
Surface Average Height: 11.3156 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
127.199 110.059
130.596 106.662
180.418 127.313
184.66 131.555
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
127.199 110.059
130.596 106.662
180.418 127.313
184.66 131.555
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
41.9989 78.058
46.8675 73.1894
87.1654 91.2748
105.95 110.059
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
41.9989 78.058
46.8675 73.1894
87.1654 91.2748
105.95 110.059
9/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
365
Entity Information
Cross Section E
Shared Entities
10/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
366
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary
0.591, 89.234
0.59323, 86.9802
0.613, 67
0.68, -0.712
369.342, -0.712
369.342, 125.422
369.342, 150.831
369.342, 153.223
329.277, 153.223
233.816, 140.471
217.983, 131.555
169.867, 131.555
129.104, 113.478
129.104, 110.059
98.6282, 110.059
87.53, 110.059
42.829, 78.058
41.334, 78.058
38.547, 78.058
22.732, 84.806
Material Boundary
0.59323, 86.9802
22.404, 82.845
39.449, 75.28
42.273, 75.28
45.5, 76.793
87.937, 106.851
98.6282, 110.059
Material Boundary
129.104, 110.059
129.104, 107.441
142.926, 107.441
142.926, 111.541
155.907, 111.541
155.907, 117.519
166.838, 117.519
166.838, 121.447
176.745, 121.447
176.745, 127.218
228.117, 127.218
228.117, 130.685
236.142, 130.685
236.142, 135.389
244.436, 135.389
244.436, 139.131
288.883, 144.796
330.041, 150.831
369.342, 150.831
Material Boundary
0.613, 67
16.19, 58
36.169, 51.236
50.973, 54.141
65.638, 63.272
93.031, 74.34
114.337, 80.428
207.898, 103.627
261.416, 117.709
369.342, 125.422
11/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
367
Scenario-based Entities
Type
Coordin
ates
(x,y)
Circular
- Global
Static
Circular
- Global
Seismic
Circular
- Upper
Static
Circular
- Upper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Distribut
ed Load
178.258,
131.555
210.591,
131.555
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:
Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Block
Search
Window
112.114,
75.608
159.989,
79.201
159.989,
122.156
112.088,
102.891
Block
Search
Window
177.347,
89.997
222.311,
100.33
222.311,
130.304
177.347,
130.304
12/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
368
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN
SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
23 CREST ROAD EAST
Prepared For:
Rolling Hills City Council
Prepared By: Bolton Engineering Corp
DATE: October 2, 2024
369
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN Table of Contents:
1. Existing Conditions 2
2. Proposed Conditions 2
3. Design Considerations 2
4. Design 2
Plate 1 Schematic Diagram
Plate 2 Hydrology Exhibit
Plate 3 Cistern Detail
Plate 4 Hydrologic Map
Plate 5 Hydrologic Map
Plate 6 Runoff Coefficient Curve
Appendix Hydrocalc Computations
1 370
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN
1. Existing Conditions:
The site is 7.8 acres, and is undeveloped. It is bounded by Crest Road to the north and existing single family residences to the west, east and south. The easterly and westerly properties are separated by water courses, which drain to Klondike Canyon.
Regionally, the site sits above, and drains toward, the Flying Triangle landslide.
2. Proposed Conditions:
The project proposes to develop approximately 2.4 acres of the upper portion of the site with a new residence, driveway, guest house and ADU, stable and corral, and pool and other ancillary elements. The proposed imperviously coverage is approximately 31% and is shown on Plate 2.
3. Design Considerations:
The City has directed the project to consider measures to mitigate the runoff from the property. Typically development projects, where mitigation of runoff due to the development is required, are designed to mitigate peak runoff due to priority given to not impacting flood control facilities downstream. However, in this case, it is our understanding that the principal concern is the volume of runoff due to concerns regarding that volume being directed to the landslide mass through fissures downstream.
The evaluation of the landslide and its causes are outside of the scope of our work; based on direction from the City the project proposes to mitigate its runoff through storage onsite of the difference in volume due to the development.
Previously, this property has had projects approved with mitigation of the 25 year storm; the City has asked, based on recent movement, that the project store the 50 year storm difference.
We have prepared Hydrocalc computations and have found the following volumes, in cubic feet, for the 25, 50 and 100 year storms:
4. Design:
On the basis of these calculations, the project proposes storage of 10,000 cubic feet. The project proposes to provide this in two, 10' diameter pipes as tanks (per manufacturer, these tanks allow for 76.05 cubic feet per linear foot of storage):
L required = 10,076cf/76.05 cf/lf
= 132.5'
L provided = 140'
V provided = 10,647 cf
As shown above, the provided tanks as designed will store the excess runoff from the 100 year storm. 2 371
Drawn: TMN
Job: 22311
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 11
T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Date: Aug 14, 2024 25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone:(310) 325-5580
Fax: (310) 325-5581
Scale: AS SHOWN
YUKI OGASAWARA
452 S LORING AVENUE
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
J:\22324_Ogasawara\Hydrology Plans_ Report.dwg 10/2/2024 12:58:07 PM
STORMWATER RUNOFFSCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
3 PLATE 1
372
LEGEND
Drawn: TMN
Job: 22311
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 11
T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Date: Aug 14, 2024 25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone:(310) 325-5580
Fax: (310) 325-5581
Scale: AS SHOWN
YUKI OGASAWARA
452 S LORING AVENUE
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
J:\22324_Ogasawara\Hydrology Plans_ Report.dwg 10/2/2024 12:58:27 PM
STORMWATER RUNOFFHYDROLOGY EXHIBIT
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
80 0 80 160
80 ···
··········
4 PLATE 2
373
MAIN PAD: 70' (2)
Drawn: TMN
Job: 22311
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 11
T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Date: Aug 14, 2024 25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone:(310) 325-5580
Fax: (310) 325-5581
Scale: AS SHOWN
YUKI OGASAWARA
452 S LORING AVENUE
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
J:\22324_Ogasawara\Hydrology Plans_ Report.dwg 10/2/2024 12:58:28 PM
STORMWATER RUNOFFCISTERN DETAILING
5 PLATE 3
374
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN 6 PLATE 4
375
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN 6 PLATE 5
376
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :
Sheet OF 7
Date: October 2, 2024 T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN 7 PLATE 6
377
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East LID.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2867
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4188
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6064
Time of Concentration (min) 19.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2191
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2191
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0404
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 1758.2916
378
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West LID.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2799
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4124
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.5977
Time of Concentration (min) 20.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2459
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2459
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0462
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 2013.9997
379
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Existing 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8672
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8618
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8618
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.148
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 6448.5248
380
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Existing 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8672
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3388
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3388
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1727
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 7523.279
381
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Proposed 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8798
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.9034
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.9034
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2491
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 10852.3858
382
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Proposed 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8794
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.386
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.386
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2876
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12525.9105
383
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Existing 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8831
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3193
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3193
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1865
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 8122.4359
384
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Existing 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8831
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.8726
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.8726
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2175
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9476.1752
385
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Proposed 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8896
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3437
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3437
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2948
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12839.6448
386
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Proposed 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8894
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.9003
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.9003
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3406
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 14834.759
387
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Existing 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8921
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7624
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7624
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2294
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9993.6221
388
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Existing 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8921
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.3895
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.3895
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2677
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 11659.2258
389
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Proposed 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8952
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7751
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7751
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3432
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 14948.4571
390
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Proposed 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8951
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.4039
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.4039
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3969
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 17287.7445
391
23 Crest Road East - ZC 23-070 - Page 1 of 1
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
[email protected]
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Account Number: 5007827
Ad Order Number: 0011695897
Customer's Reference/PO Number:
Publication: Daily Breeze
Publication Dates: 10/04/2024
Total Amount: $618.01
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $618.01
Notice ID: v7e27EKscLtYj0JJcWiB
Invoice Text: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will conduct a public hearing to be held on Monday, October 14, 2024, beginning at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 , for the purpose of discussing the following project: 23 CREST ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 132A-MS) ZONING CASE NO. 23-070: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 14,680-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET (UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 5 FEET), DRIVEWAY WITH PORTIONS THAT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 20 FEET, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE, CORRAL, AND A GUEST HOUSE;
AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE STABLE, CORRAL, SWIMMING POOL, AND
RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD, ALLOW A PORTION OF THE CORRAL
TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM AVERAGE HEIGHT OF TWO-AND-ONEHALF FEET, CONSTRUCT DECKS/PATIOS MORE THAN ONE FOOT ABOVE GRADE, AND ALLOW GRADING EXPORT (OGASAWARA) The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. This project was originally discussed at the August 12, 2024 City Council meeting and continued.
Members of the public are invited to provide comments in-person during the public 392
23 Crest Road East - ZC 23-070 - Page 1 of 1
Daily Breeze
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
0011695897
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
I am a citizen of the United States and
a resident of the County aforesaid; I
am over the age of eighteen years, and
not party to or interested in the aboveentitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of Daily Breeze, a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of
Torrance*, County of Los Angeles, and
which newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of County of Los
Angeles, State of California, under the
date of June 15, 1945, Decree No.
Pomo C-606. The notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type
not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
10/04/2024
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Hermosa Beach, California
On this 4th day of October, 2024.
______________________________
Signature
*Daily Breeze circulation includes the following
cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El
Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne,
Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan
Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa
Monica, Torrance and Wilmington
393
CL_PBN_240812_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_F - Page 1 of 1 2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Torrance, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
[email protected]
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Account Number: 5007827
Ad Order Number: 0011684273
Customer's Reference/PO Number:
Publication: Daily Breeze
Publication Dates: 08/01/2024
Total Amount: $644.37
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $644.37
Notice ID: tuuJtQ4GSEgJwUciiWwR
Invoice Text: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will conduct a public hearing field trip visit starting at 7:30 AM on Monday, August 12, 2024, at the following property for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: 23 CREST ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 132A-MS) ZONING CASE NO. 23-070: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 14,680-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET (UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 5 FEET), DRIVEWAY WITH PORTIONS THAT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 20 FEET, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE, CORRAL, AND A GUEST HOUSE;
AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE STABLE, CORRAL, SWIMMING POOL, AND
RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD, ALLOW A PORTION OF THE CORRAL
TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM AVERAGE HEIGHT OF TWO-AND-ONEHALF FEET, CONSTRUCT DECKS/PATIOS MORE THAN ONE FOOT ABOVE GRADE, AND ALLOW GRADING EXPORT (OGASAWARA) The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. The purpose of this field trip is to hold a public hearing on the site of the project to familiarize members of the City Council and interested parties with the location, topography, size, and scope of the project. Following the field trip, the City Council will reconvene to discuss the 394
CL_PBN_240812_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_F - Page 1 of 1 Daily Breeze
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Torrance, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
0011684273
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
I am a citizen of the United States and
a resident of the County aforesaid; I
am over the age of eighteen years, and
not party to or interested in the aboveentitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of Daily Breeze, a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of
Torrance*, County of Los Angeles, and
which newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of County of Los
Angeles, State of California, under the
date of June 15, 1945, Decree No.
Pomo C-606. The notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type
not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
08/01/2024
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Torrance, California
On this 1st day of August, 2024.
______________________________
Signature
*Daily Breeze circulation includes the following
cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El
Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne,
Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan
Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa
Monica, Torrance and Wilmington
395
19 11
9 6
12 13
7 3
4 2
14 15
16 17
21 22
31 23
32 39
38 30
29 36
34 35
33 28
27 26
24 25
18 10
8 5
1 37
20 LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C1
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
SHEET INDEX
SCALE: 1" = 40'
OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 300'
VICINITY MAP
123456789
10 1112131415
161718
1920
21222324252627282930313233343536
373839
TYPICAL SECTION
CREST
ROAD EAST
396
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C2
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
SCALE: 1" = 40'
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CREST
ROAD EAST
397
LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST
ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'
PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLAN
398
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C4
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B-B
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION C-C
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION D-D
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION E-E
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B1-B1
399
TYPE A2-8 (Modified) MOW CURB
TYPE A1-6 (Modified)
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C5
400
70
0
00
0
70
CRORU DHSWK
AUHD RI )LOO AUHD RI CXW
LEGEND
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST
ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'
EARTHWORK COLOR EXHIBIT
401
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E
1310
1305 1300
1295
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AS102 3/32"=1'-0" DRW CHK 2024/01/01 Proposed Site Plan Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 04/16/24 Site Planning Hearing NORTH 1/32"=1'-0" Site Plan 1 Main House Guest House ADU Motor Court Pool Stable Corral Trellis Basement Outlet 207'-11"
62'-4"
38'-8"
51'-3"
68'-2"
172'-8"
65'-9"
118'-3"
151'-8"
156'-11"
80'-1"
101'-4"
132'-1"
141'-11"
96'-7"
134'-3"
202'-1"
35'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
35'
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT
50'
FRONT YARD
EASEMENT
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage Site Planning Changelog Main House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Apex at 1288’ (Previous 1286’) -Building footprint moved 12’-5” North and 4’-6” East -Pool footprint angled perpendicular to west property line (previously parallel with main house west wing) -Building GSF incl. Basement 21,920 sf (Previous 20,940 sf) Guest House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Building footprint moved 16’ North and 4’ West -Southeast building corner from property line 51’-3” (Previous 39’-9”) -Southeast building corner does not require fill grading (Previously required fill grading) ADU -Finish floor at 1319’ (Previous 1320’) -Building footprint moved 2’-6” North and 0’-8”’ West -Northeast building corner from property line 38’-8” (Previous 37’-5”) -Building footprint 38’-4” x 18’-4” (Previous 36’-0” x 16’-0”) -Building GSF 700 sf (Previous 576 sf) Stable -Finish floor at 1316’ (Previous 1314’) -Building southwest corner 62'4" from the western property line and 207'11" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building. (Previous southwest building corner 39'8" from the western property line and 185'7" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building) -Building footprint 58’-10” x 20’-10” (Previous 70’’-0” x 27’-6”) -Building GSF 1,225 sf (Previous 1,295 sf) -Office space, closet space, and full bath are omitted (Previously included) Civil -Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy) -Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf) -Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf) -Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf) -Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf) -Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf) -Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf) 402
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E
1310
1305 1300
1295
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AS102 3/32"=1'-0" DRW CHK 2024/01/01 Proposed Site Plan Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 04/16/24 Site Planning Hearing NORTH 1/32"=1'-0" Site Plan 1 Main House Guest House ADU Motor Court Pool Stable Corral Trellis Basement Outlet 207'-11"
62'-4"
38'-8"
51'-3"
68'-2"
172'-8"
65'-9"
118'-3"
151'-8"
156'-11"
80'-1"
101'-4"
132'-1"
141'-11"
96'-7"
134'-3"
202'-1"
35'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
35'
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT
50'
FRONT YARD
EASEMENT
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage Site Planning Changelog Main House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Apex at 1288’ (Previous 1286’) -Building footprint moved 12’-5” North and 4’-6” East -Pool footprint angled perpendicular to west property line (previously parallel with main house west wing) -Building GSF incl. Basement 21,920 sf (Previous 20,940 sf) Guest House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Building footprint moved 16’ North and 4’ West -Southeast building corner from property line 51’-3” (Previous 39’-9”) -Southeast building corner does not require fill grading (Previously required fill grading) ADU -Finish floor at 1319’ (Previous 1320’) -Building footprint moved 2’-6” North and 0’-8”’ West -Northeast building corner from property line 38’-8” (Previous 37’-5”) -Building footprint 38’-4” x 18’-4” (Previous 36’-0” x 16’-0”) -Building GSF 700 sf (Previous 576 sf) Stable -Finish floor at 1316’ (Previous 1314’) -Building southwest corner 62'4" from the western property line and 207'11" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building. (Previous southwest building corner 39'8" from the western property line and 185'7" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building) -Building footprint 58’-10” x 20’-10” (Previous 70’’-0” x 27’-6”) -Building GSF 1,225 sf (Previous 1,295 sf) -Office space, closet space, and full bath are omitted (Previously included) Civil -Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy) -Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf) -Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf) -Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf) -Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf) -Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf) -Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf) 403
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E 1293'
1310
1305 1300
1295
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AS102 3/32"=1'-0" DRW CHK 2024/01/01 Proposed Site Plan Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 04/16/24 Site Planning Hearing NORTH 1/32"=1'-0" Site Plan 1 Main House Guest House ADU Motor Court Pool Stable Corral Trellis Basement Outlet 207'-11"
62'-4"
38'-8"
54'-9"
68'-2"
172'-8"
65'-9"
118'-3"
151'-8"
156'-11"
80'-1"
101'-4"
132'-1"
141'-11"
96'-7"
134'-3"
202'-1"
35'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
35'
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT
50'
FRONT YARD
EASEMENT
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage Site Planning Changelog Main House -Building footprint moved 9’-5” North and 3’-5” West. -Southwest building corner from property line 57-9” (Previous 65’-9”) -Southeast building corner from property line 100'-11" (Previous 100'-1") -Building east wing rotated clockwise 5 deg. -Pool deck area 1,100 sf (Previous 1,500 sf) -All basement area under covered porch has been removed. -Basement area 7,428 sf (Previous 7,610 sf) Guest House -Building footprint rotated counterclockwise 12 deg. -Southeast building corner from property line 55’-1” (Previous 51’-3”) Civil -Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy) -Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf) -Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf) -Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf) -Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf) -Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf) -Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf) Site -Mound height 1330’ (Previous 1335’) 57'-9"
51'-3"
100'-11"
100'-1"
404
127(6
'DWH
6FDOH
'UDZQ
&KHFNHG
&23<5,*+7(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1&
2:1(5
7+(6('5$:,1*6$1'63(&,),&$7,216$5(7+(3523(57<2)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& 1R ,VVXDQFH 'DWH
6LOYHU/DNH%RXOHYDUG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7HO
)D[
123$577+(5(2)6+$//%(&23,('2586(',1&211(&7,21:,7+$1<:25.27+(57+$17+(63(&,),('352-(&7:+,&+7+(<+$9(%((135($35(':,7+287:5,77(1&216(172)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& *(1(5$/&2175$&725
(VFKHU
*XQH:DUGHQD
$UFKLWHFWXUH
67$036
$5&+,7(&72)5(&25'
6758&785$/(1*,1((5
&,9,/(1*,1((5
0(3(1*,1((5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
*
$V6KRZQ'5:&+.
&RYHU6KHHW
7HUUHPRWR
*OHQGDOH%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
3$(
&HQWHU'UWK)OU
/RV$QJHOHV&$
%ROWRQ(QJLQHHULQJ&RUS
1DUERQQH$YH6WH
/RPLWD&$
1RXV(QJLQHHULQJ
(DJOH5RFN%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7%'
6WUHHWQDPH6W
/RV$QJHOHV&$
<XNLNR2JDVDZDUD
)O\LQJ0DQH/Q
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
2JDVDZDUD
5HVLGHQFH
&UHVW5RDG
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
&LW\&RXQFLO
X###
X#
X-###
X#
A
B
C
D
SCALE:
'UDZLQJ7LWOH X#
'UDZLQJ,QGH[
*HQHUDO
* &RYHU6KHHW* 6XUYH\* 6LWH3KRWRV* /DQG8VH7DEOHV* 6LWH3ODQQLQJ'LDJUDPV* 9LHZ&RUULGRU'LDJUDPV &LYLO& 2YHUDOO6LWH3ODQ& ([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV& 3UHOLP*UDGLQJ3ODQ& 6LWH6HFWLRQV& &LYLO'HWDLOV& (DUWKZRUN&RORU([KLELW :DWHU0DQDJHPHQW
: 2QVLWH:DVWHZDWHU6\VWHP:5 :DWHU5HVXVH6FKHPDWLF'HVLJQ /DQGVFDSH
/ &RQFHSWXDO/DQGVFDSH3ODQ/ ([LVWLQJDQG3URSRVHG7UHH3ODQ/ /DQGVFDSH'HWDLOV/ /DQGVFDSH'HWDLOV/ 3ODQWLQJ=RQH'LDJUDP/ &RQFHSWXDO3ODQW,PDJHV/ &RQFHSWXDO3ODQW,PDJHV $UFKLWHFWXUDO$6 $UFKLWHFWXUDO6LWH3ODQ$ %DVHPHQW3ODQ2YHUDOO$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ2YHUDOO$ 5RRI3ODQ2YHUDOO$ %DVHPHQW3ODQ(QODUJHG$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ(QODUJHG(DVW$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ(QODUJHG&HQWUDO$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ(QODUJHG:HVW$ 0DLQ+RXVH(OHYDWLRQV$ 6WDEOH3ODQVDQG(OHYDWLRQV$ $'83ODQVDQG(OHYDWLRQV$ *XHVW+RXVH3ODQVDQG(OHYDWLRQV 3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
&RQVWUXFWLRQRIDQHZEHGURRPEDWKURRPSRZGHUURRPUDQFKVW\OHKRXVHZLWKEDVHPHQWDQGSRROJXHVWKRXVHPL[HGXVH VWDEOH
ZLWKFRUUDOWDFNDQGRIILFHDGPLQVSDFH
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
DQGWKH&LW\RI5ROOLQJ+LOOVUHYLHZFULWHULDVRWKDWSUHH[LVWLQJDSSURYHGVWUDWHJLHVIRU ZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW
VHQVLWLYHWRGRZQKLOOSURSHUWLHVLQWKHUXQRII]RQHRI&UHVW5G( PLQLPDOJUDGLQJDQGYLHZSUHVHUYDWLRQZHUH
FHQWUDOWRWKHGHVLJQSURFHVVDQGDUHUHIOHFWHGLQWKLVGHVLJQSURSRVDOIRU&UHVW5RDG(DVW 3URMHFW'LUHFWRU\
2:1(5
<XNLNR2JDVDZDUD
)O\LQJ0DQH/Q
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
7HO
$5&+,7(&7
ƐĐŚĞƌ'ƵŶĞtĂƌĚĞŶĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ
ϴϭϱ^ŝůǀĞƌ>ĂŬĞŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ͕ϵϬϬϮϲ
ĂĚŵŝŶΛĞŐĂƌĐŚ͘ŶĞƚ
KĨĨŝĐĞ͗ϯϮϯͲϲϲϱͲϵϭϬϬ
&Ădž͗ϯϮϯͲϲϲϱͲϵϭϬϯ
&,9,/(1*,1((5
'DQ%ROWRQ%ROWRQ(QJLQHHULQJ
1DUERQQH$YHQXH
/RPLWD&$
7HO
)D[
GEROWRQ#EROWRQHQJLQHHULQJFRP
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7'DYLG*RGVKDOO .DVH\7RRPH\
7HUUHPRWR
*OHQGDOH%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7HO
$SSOLFDEOH&RGHV
5+&$%XLOGLQJ5HJXODWLRQV
5+&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHV
&DOLIRUQLD+LVWRULF%XLOGLQJ&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD5HVLGHQWLDO&RGH
9ROXPHDQG
&DOLIRUQLD(OHFWULFDO&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD0HFKDQLFDO&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD3OXPELQJ&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV&RGH/RV$QJHOHV%XLOGLQJ&RGH 2*$6$:$5$5(6,'(1&(
&5(6752$'($67
52//,1*+,//6&$
&LW\0DS
6\PEROV
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU
'UDZLQJ7LWOH7DJ
6HFWLRQ7DJ
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU
&DOORXW7DJ
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU,QWHULRU(OHYDWLRQ7DJ
/HYHO,'/HYHO(OHYDWLRQ
(OHYDWLRQ/HYHO7DJ
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU
%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQ7DJ
X#
X###
*ULG,'
*ULGOLQH7DJ
5RRP1DPH
5RRP7DJ
5RRP
100
5RRP,'1XPEHU
:LQGRZ7DJ
X##
:LQGRZ,'
D###
'RRU7DJ
'RRU,'
$EEUHYLDWLRQV
$ERYH)LQLVK)ORRU$W
%RWWRPRI
;
%RWWRPRI:DOO
&HQWHU/LQH&RQFUHWH
(TXDO([LVWLQJ
)LQLVK)ORRU)LQLVK6XUIDFH
+HLJKW
,QWHULRU
1RQ5DWHG
6TXDUH)HHW
7R%H'HWHUPLQHG7RSRI
;
7RSRI:DOO7\SLFDO
8QOHVV1RWHG2WKHUZLVH
:LWK
9HULI\,Q)LHOG
$))
#
%2%:
&/&21&
(4(4)))6+7
,17
15 6)
7%'727:7<3
812
:
9,)
&,7<&281&,/5(9,(:
405
127(6
'DWH
6FDOH
'UDZQ
&KHFNHG
&23<5,*+7(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1&
2:1(5
7+(6('5$:,1*6$1'63(&,),&$7,216$5(7+(3523(57<2)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& 1R ,VVXDQFH 'DWH
6LOYHU/DNH%RXOHYDUG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7HO
)D[
123$577+(5(2)6+$//%(&23,('2586(',1&211(&7,21:,7+$1<:25.27+(57+$17+(63(&,),('352-(&7:+,&+7+(<+$9(%((135($35(':,7+287:5,77(1&216(172)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& *(1(5$/&2175$&725
(VFKHU
*XQH:DUGHQD
$UFKLWHFWXUH
67$036
$5&+,7(&72)5(&25'
6758&785$/(1*,1((5
&,9,/(1*,1((5
0(3(1*,1((5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
*
$V6KRZQ'5:&+.
6XUYH\
7HUUHPRWR
*OHQGDOH%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
3$(
&HQWHU'UWK)OU
/RV$QJHOHV&$
%ROWRQ(QJLQHHULQJ&RUS
1DUERQQH$YH6WH
/RPLWD&$
1RXV(QJLQHHULQJ
(DJOH5RFN%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7%'
6WUHHWQDPH6W
/RV$QJHOHV&$
<XNLNR2JDVDZDUD
)O\LQJ0DQH/Q
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
2JDVDZDUD
5HVLGHQFH
&UHVW5RDG
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
&LW\&RXQFLO
406
127(6
'DWH
6FDOH
'UDZQ
&KHFNHG
&23<5,*+7(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1&
2:1(5
7+(6('5$:,1*6$1'63(&,),&$7,216$5(7+(3523(57<2)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& 1R ,VVXDQFH 'DWH
6LOYHU/DNH%RXOHYDUG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7HO
)D[
123$577+(5(2)6+$//%(&23,('2586(',1&211(&7,21:,7+$1<:25.27+(57+$17+(63(&,),('352-(&7:+,&+7+(<+$9(%((135($35(':,7+287:5,77(1&216(172)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& *(1(5$/&2175$&725
(VFKHU
*XQH:DUGHQD
$UFKLWHFWXUH
67$036
$5&+,7(&72)5(&25'
6758&785$/(1*,1((5
&,9,/(1*,1((5
0(3(1*,1((5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
*
$V6KRZQ'5:&+.
6XUYH\
7HUUHPRWR
*OHQGDOH%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
3$(
&HQWHU'UWK)OU
/RV$QJHOHV&$
%ROWRQ(QJLQHHULQJ&RUS
1DUERQQH$YH6WH
/RPLWD&$
1RXV(QJLQHHULQJ
(DJOH5RFN%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7%'
6WUHHWQDPH6W
/RV$QJHOHV&$
<XNLNR2JDVDZDUD
)O\LQJ0DQH/Q
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
2JDVDZDUD
5HVLGHQFH
&UHVW5RDG
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
9LHZIURP6WUHHW &LW\&RXQFLO
9LHZ0DLQ+RXVH$SH[
*DUDJH'ULYHZD\/DQGLQJ
3RRODQG*XHVW:LQJ
9LHZIURP(QWU\'HFN
9LHZIURP6WDEOH
9LHZIURP7UHOOLV
6LWH3ODQ
G103
7 G103
6 G103
4 G103
3 G103
5 G103
2 G103
1 407
127(6
'DWH
6FDOH
'UDZQ
&KHFNHG
&23<5,*+7(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1&
2:1(5
7+(6('5$:,1*6$1'63(&,),&$7,216$5(7+(3523(57<2)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& 1R ,VVXDQFH 'DWH
6LOYHU/DNH%RXOHYDUG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7HO
)D[
123$577+(5(2)6+$//%(&23,('2586(',1&211(&7,21:,7+$1<:25.27+(57+$17+(63(&,),('352-(&7:+,&+7+(<+$9(%((135($35(':,7+287:5,77(1&216(172)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& *(1(5$/&2175$&725
(VFKHU
*XQH:DUGHQD
$UFKLWHFWXUH
67$036
$5&+,7(&72)5(&25'
6758&785$/(1*,1((5
&,9,/(1*,1((5
0(3(1*,1((5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
*
$V6KRZQ'5:&+.
/DQG8VH7DEOHV
7HUUHPRWR
*OHQGDOH%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
3$(
&HQWHU'UWK)OU
/RV$QJHOHV&$
%ROWRQ(QJLQHHULQJ&RUS
1DUERQQH$YH6WH
/RPLWD&$
1RXV(QJLQHHULQJ
(DJOH5RFN%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$
7%'
6WUHHWQDPH6W
/RV$QJHOHV&$
<XNLNR2JDVDZDUD
)O\LQJ0DQH/Q
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
2JDVDZDUD
5HVLGHQFH
&UHVW5RDG
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$
&LW\&RXQFLO
/DQG8VH7DEOHV
408
NOTES
Date:
Scale:
Drawn:
Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC.
OWNER
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC.
No. Issuance Date
815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Escher
GuneWardena
Architecture
STAMPS
ARCHITECT OF RECORD
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
CIVIL ENGINEER
MEP ENGINEERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
G105
As ShownDRWCHK2024/10/14
Site Planning
Diagrams
Terremoto
3401 Glendale Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90039PAE
6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Bolton Engineering Corp.
25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210
Lomita, CA 90717Nous Engineering
5050 Eagle Rock Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90041
TBD
### Streetname St.
Los Angeles, CA #####
Yukiko Ogasawara
3 Flying Mane Ln
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Ogasawara
Residence
23 Crest Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
10/14/24 City Council
409
NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT G106 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 View Corridor Diagrams Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NTS Proposed Site Section 2 NTS 2017 Approved Site Section 1 410
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E 1293'
1310
1305 1300
1295
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
99.16 127.68
374.90
330.37
50 233.57
221.36
S. 71° 40' 40" E.
216.10 S. 18° 19' 20" W.
650.16 S. 42° 41' 40" W.
CREST ROAD EAST NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AS101 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Proposed Site Plan Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/32"=1'-0" Site Plan 1 Main House Guest House ADU Motor Court Pool Stable Corral Trellis Basement Outlet 207'-11"
62'-4"
38'-8"
54'-9"
68'-2"
172'-8"
118'-3"
151'-8"
156'-11"
80'-1"
101'-4"
132'-1"
141'-11"
96'-7"
134'-3"
202'-1"
35'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
35'
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT
50'
FRONT YARD
EASEMENT
25'
SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage
57'-9"
100'-1"
411
UP UP Storage 116 1390 sf Storage 115 203 sf Storage 104 1091 sf Atrium 106 Den 105 Theater 107 Bar 109 Wine 111 Elev. 114 Vest. 112 Pwd 113 Mechanical 108 Meditation 101 22'-5
1 2
" 24'-2"
36'-4" 14'
10'-3"
68'-7
1 2
"
55'-7
7 8
"
3'-3
1 2
" Vestibule 102 Music 102 Bas. Exit 110
53'-11
1 2
"
51'-8
1 2
"
9'-8"
27'-3"
17'-10"
21'-3
3 8
"
33'-1
7 8
" 85'-3"
7'
7'-8"
6'-11" NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A101 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Basement Plan Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 3/32"=1'-0" Basement Plan Overall 1 A104 1 412
DN
DN Toilet 206 Bath 204 Shower 205 Shower 202 Bath 201 Hall 208 Toilet 203 Closet 211 Atrium 209 Bedroom 212 Atrium 213 Study 214 Storage 217 264 Closet263 Bath 261 Bedroom 259 Closet 260 Hall 255 Closet254 Bath 257 Bedroom 256 Mech. 251 Service 242 Atrium 240 Sitting 246 Laundry 244 Toilet 243 Entry 241 Catering 239 Storage238 Entry 235 Pantry 237 Elevator 234 Kitchen 229 Atrium 232 Sitting 233 Dining 228 Garage 230 Living 231 Bar 221 Vestibule 222 Entry 224 Storage 225 Vest. 226 Pwd. 227 Toilet 220 Walled Entry 219 Coat 216 Storage 218 Atrium 215 Library UP UP 236 Toilet ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 11' 13'-6" 15'-6" 11'-8" 11'-9" 15' ## 15' 10' ## 118'-5" Closet 210 Hall 207 258 Bath 262 Bath 266 Gym 267 Pool265 Bedroom ## 15' ## 18'-3" ## ## ## ## ## ###### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 245 Bedroom 247 Toilet 248 Closet 250 Shower 249 Bath 253 Atrium NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A102 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Overall First Floor Plan Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 3/32"=1'-0" Overall First Floor Plan 1 A104
1 A105
1 A106
1 A106
2 A108
6 A108
5 A108
7 A108
1 A108
2 44'-2" A108
3 A108
4 413
NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A103 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Roof Plan Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 3/32"=1'-0" Roof Plan 1 A202
6 A202
5 A202
7 A201
4 A201
1 A201
2 A201
3 209'-11
12 "
44'-2" 134'-10"
98'-2
11 16
"
242'
44'-2"
131'-8"
15'-5
1 2
"
8' 8'
8'
12'-3
1 2
"
8'
28'-2"
3'
6'-10"
18'-3"
8'
3:12 Slope Typ. 3:12 Slope Typ.
8'
8'
414
UP UP Storage 115 203 sf Storage 104 1091 sf Atrium 106 Den 105 Theater 107 Bar 109 Wine 111 Elev. 114 Vest. 112 Pwd 113 Mechanical 108 Meditation 101 22'-5
1 2
" 24'-2"
36'-4"
14'
10'-3"
68'-7
1 2
"
3'-3
1 2
" Vestibule 102 Music 102 Bas. Exit 110
53'-11
1 2
"
51'-8
1 2
" 9'-8"
27'-3"
17'-10"
21'-3
3 8
" 85'-3"
7'
7'-8"
6'-11" NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A104 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Basement Plan Central Area Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/4" Basement Enlarged Plan 1 18'-3
1 8
"
415
Toilet 206 Bath 204 Shower 205 Shower 202 Bath 201 Hall 208 Toilet 203 Closet 211 Atrium 209 Bedroom 212 Atrium 213 Study 214 Storage 217 219 Coat 216 Storage 218 Atrium 215 Library UP ## ## ## ## ## ## 11' 13'-6" 15'-6" 11'-8" 11'-9" 15' ## 15' 10' ## 118'-5" Closet 210 Hall 207 ## 15' 18'-3" ## ###### NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A105 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 First Floor Plan East Wing Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/4" First Floor - East Wing 1 8'-3
1 2
" 662' 14'-7" 7'-6" A202
6 A202
5 A202
7 stacked washer dryer 3' 14'-11" 44'-4" 26'-5" 5'-3" 16'-5" 20'-4" 416
DN
DN Storage 217 242 Atrium 240 Sitting 241 Catering 239 Storage 238 Entry 235 Pantry 237 Elevator 234 Kitchen 229 Atrium 232 Sitting 233 Dining 228 Garage 230 Living 231 Bar 221 Vestibule 222 Entry 224 Storage 225 Vest. 226 Pwd. 227 Toilet 220 Walled Entry 219 Coat 216 Storage 218 Atrium 215 Library UP 236 Toilet 11' ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A106 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 First Floor Plan Central Area Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/4" First Floor - Central Area 1 A202
5 A201
4 A201
1 18'-3"
417
DN 264 Closet 263 Bath 261 Bedroom 259 Closet 260 Hall 255 Closet 254 Bath 257 Bedroom 256 Mech. 251 Service 242 Atrium 240 Sitting 246 Laundry 244 Toilet 243 Entry 241 Catering 239 Storage 238 Entry 235 237 Pantry Elevator 234 Kitchen 229 Atrium 228 Garage UP 236 Toilet 258 Bath 262 Bath 266 Gym 265 Bedroom 245 Bedroom 247 Toilet248 Closet 250 Shower 249 Bath 253 Atrium 264 Closet 262 Bath 266 Gym 267 Pool 265 Bedroom NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A107 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 First Floor Plan West Wing & Pool Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" First Floor - West Wing 1 NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" First Floor - Pool
2 A201
1 A201
2 A201
3 418
NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A108 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Main Residence Building Elevations Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council 1/8"=1'-0" Southwest Building Elevation 1 1/8"=1'-0" Northwest Building Elevation
2 1/8"=1'-0" South Building Elevation6 1/8"=1'-0" East Building Elevation 7 1/8"=1'-0" North Building Elevation
5 3. Slate, grey 2. Natural stone 2. Natural stone 3. Slate, grey 3. Slate, grey 2. Natural stone 3. Slate, grey 2. Natural stone 3. Slate, grey 2. Natural stone Adjustable louver (for sun shading) ..\..\PlanningSubmittal_R4\Architecture\Models\MaterialKey\Original_Image-Kinney_RandomAshlar_Swatch_EcoOutdoor.jpg Material Key 1 Douglas Fir2 Natural Stone3 Slate, Grey4 Paint, White 1/8"=1'-0" Northeast Building Elevation 1/8"=1'-0" 3 Southeast Building Elevation
4 419
5 4 3 2 1
AB
C 70'-10" 12'-6
12 " 12'-6
12 " 12'-11" 20'
10' 10' 12'
12' 12'
12' 19'-3
12 "
19'-2" 5'
8' 24'-3"
6'-11" 6'-7
12 " Stall 101 Stall 102 Tack Room 103 Storage 106 Corriddor 104 Powder 105 Storage 107 Storage 108 Covered Walk 109 6'-5" 6'-5" 8'-5" 8'-5"
36'-10" 70'-10"
36'-10"
1 2 3 4 5
A
B Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Ridge +14'-2" Top of Plate +10'-0" Finish Floor +0'-0" 5 4 3 2 1 Top of Finish Floor +0'-0"
B
A Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Ridge +14'-2" Top of Plate +10'-0" NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A109 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Stable Plans and Elevations Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" First Floor Plan 1 NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" Roof Plan
2 1/4"=1'-0" North Building Elevation
3 1/4"=1'-0" West Building Elevation4 1/4"=1'-0" South Building Elevation5 1/4"=1'-0" East Building Elevation6 5 A1093 A109
6 A109
4 A109
420
4 3 1
B
A 11'-10" 11'-10" 13'-10"
17'-6"
2 Finish Floor +0'-0"
1 2 3 4 Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Top of Retaining Wall +3'-0" Ridge Line +13'-4" Top of Plate +9'-6"Finish Floor +0'-0" A
B Top of Retaining Wall +3'-0" Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Ridge Line +13'-4" Top of Plate +9'-6"Finish Floor +0'-0" 4 3 2 1 Top of Retaining Wall +3'-0" Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Ridge Line +13'-4" Top of Plate +9'-6" B
A Finish Floor +0'-0" Top of Retaining Wall +3'-0" Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Ridge Line +13'-4" Top of Plate +9'-6" NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A110 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 ADU Plans and Elevations Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" First Floor Plan 1 NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" Roof Plan2 1/4"=1'-0" North Building Elevation 3 1/4"=1'-0" West Building Elevation
4 1/4"=1'-0" South Building Elevation
5 1/4"=1'-0" East Building Elevation6
3 A110
5 A110
6 A110
4 A110
421
4 3 2 1
C
B 9'-5" 6'-8"
9' 18'-5" 102 Kitchenette 103 Powder 104 Closet 101 Main Room5' A
4 3 2 1
C
BA 9'-5" 5' 6'-8"
18'-5" 9' 8'-5" 8'-4" 6'-5" 6'-5" Finish Floor +0'-0" Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Ridge +15'-0" Top of Plate +10'-0" Finish Floor +0'-0" Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Top of Plate +10'-0" Ridge +15'-0" Finish Floor +0'-0" Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Top of Plate +10'-0" Ridge +15'-0" Finish Floor +0'-0" Bottom of Eave +8'-0" Top of Plate +10'-0" Ridge +15'-0" NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:
COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A111 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 Guest House and Trellis Plans and Elevations Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" First Floor Plan 1 NORTH 1/4"=1'-0" Roof Plan
2 1/4"=1'-0" North Building Elevation
3 1/4"=1'-0" West Building Elevation
4 1/4"=1'-0" South Building Elevation5 1/4"=1'-0" East Building Elevation6 5 A111
3 A111
6 A111
4 A111 1/4"=1'-0" Trellis Roof Plan
7 1/4"=1'-0" Trellis Floor Plan8 1/4"=1'-0" Trellis South Elevation9 1/4"=1'-0" Trellis Section A-A 10 9 A111 A111 10 Finish Floor +00'-0" B/ Retaining Wall -02'-6" T/ Retaining Wall +02'-6" B/ Trellis Structure +08'-0" Finish Floor +00'-0" B/ Retaining Wall -02'-6" T/ Retaining Wall +02'-6" B/ Trellis Structure +08'-0" T/ Trellis Structure +09'-0" T/ Trellis Structure +09'-0" 10'-0
1 4
" 26'-5"10'-0
1 4
" Lattice trellice roof Partial height retaining wall Trellis support columns 3:12 Slope Typ. 3:12 Slope Typ. Ridge Height +115'-0 1
4 " +1208'-0 14" Top of Eave +109'-4" +1202'-4" Top of Roof at Building +111'-5 1/4" +1204'-5 1/4" 422
19 11
9 6
12 13
7 3
4 2
14 15
16 17
21 22
31 23
32 39
38 30
29 36
34 35
33 28
27 26
24 25
18 10
8 5
1 37
20 LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C1
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
SHEET INDEX
SCALE: 1" = 40'
OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 300'
VICINITY MAP
123456789
10 1112131415
161718
1920
21222324252627282930313233343536
373839
TYPICAL SECTION
CREST
ROAD EAST
10/14/24
423
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C2
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
SCALE: 1" = 40'
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CREST
ROAD EAST
10/14/24
424
LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST
ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'
PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLAN
100 YEAR STORM 100 YEAR STORM 10/14/24
425
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581 C4 SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION A-A SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION B-B SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION C-C SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION D-D SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION E-E SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION B1-B1 10/14/24 426
TYPE A2-8 (Modified) MOW CURB
TYPE A1-6 (Modified)
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C5
70' LONG
10/14/24
427
70
0
00
0
70
CRORU DHSWK
AUHD RI )LOO AUHD RI CXW
LEGEND
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST
ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'
EARTHWORK COLOR EXHIBIT
10/14/24
6 428
STABLE
ADU
GUEST
HOUSE
MAIN HOUSE
=ʇ̜ʆʆ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
429
STABLE
ADU
GUEST
HOUSE
MAIN HOUSE
=ʇ̜ʆʇ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
430
L1.50
TERRE
OGASAWARA
MOTO
1 SITE SECTION ABOVE HOUSE2 SITE SECTION BELOW HOUSE
SEE 2/L1.50
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
SEE 1/L1.50
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
431
=ʈ̜ʆʆ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
1 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 2 COBBLESTONE DRIVEWAY 3 DRY STACK STONE RETAINING WALL 5 PT TIMBER STEPS SECTION 6 PT TIMBER STEPS CLOSE-UP
4 STONE VENEERED RETAINING WALL
8 HANDRAIL AT RAMPS 9 CONCRETE STEPS
7 PT TIMBER TRAIL SECTION
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
432
=ʈ̜ʆʇ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
2 TREE PLANTING 3 HILLSIDE TREE PLANTING
4 BIOSWALE DETAIL 5 SHRUB PLANTING 6 PERENNIAL PLANTING 1 WATER FEATURE
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
433
STABLE
ADU
GUEST
HOUSE
MAIN HOUSE
=ʉ̜ʆʆ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
MATRIX 1: NATIVE MEADOW
24,000 SQ FT = 2,780 PLANTS
(200) ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM (L) (600) BACCHARIS PILULARIS (L) (200) BOUTELOUA GRACILIS (L)(100) CEANOTHUS 'SKYLARK' (M)(600) CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' (L) (400) FESTUCA CALIFORNICA (L) (30) HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (L)(250) LAVANDULA DENTATA (L) (200) LUPINUS SUCCULENTUS (L)(200) SALVIA SPATHACEA (L) MATRIX 2: NATIVE GARDEN
20,000 SQ FT = 2,480 PLANTS
(150) AGAVE VILMORINIANA (VL)(300) DUDLEYA LANCEOLATA (VL)(25) OPUNTIA FICUS-INDICA (VL) (150) ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM (L) (250) BACCHARIS PILULARIS (L)(25) CEANOTHUS 'RAY HARTMAN’ (L)(300) CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' (L) (150) DICHELOSTEMMA CAPITATUM (VL) (150) ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA (VL) (200) FESTUCA CALIFORNICA (L) (30) HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (L)(150) LAVANDULA DENTATA (L)(150) LUPINUS SUCCULENTUS (L)(300) OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE' (L) (150) SALVIA SPATHACEA (L) MATRIX 3: NATIVE CHAPARRAL
21,000 SQ FT = 2,500 PLANTS
(200) ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA (VL) (150) ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS (VL) (150) CALOCHORTUS CATALINAE (VL) (150) ENCELIA CALIFORNICA (VL) (200) ERIOGONUM FASICULATUM (VL)(200) ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM (VL)(30) HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (L)(150) ISOMERIS ARBOREA (VL)(150) LOTUS SCOPARIUS (VL)(200) MIMULUS AURANTIACUS (VL)(300) RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA (VL)(200) SALVIA APIANA (VL)(200) SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA (VL)(200) SALVIA MELLIFERA (VL)(50) SAMBUCUS MEXICANA (VL) (5) LYONOTHAMNUS FLORIBUNDUS
Max Height - 20'Max Width - 12'
(6) QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
Max Height - 30'Max Width - 30'
(4) CERCIS CANADENSIS 'FOREST PANSY'
Max Height - 12'Max Width - 12'
EXISTING TREE
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
434
=ʉ̜ʆʇ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
MAX HEIGHT: 20'
MAX WIDTH: 12'
MAX HEIGHT: 30'
MAX WIDTH: 30'
MAX HEIGHT: 12'
MAX WIDTH: 12'
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
435
=ʉ̜ʆʈ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
MAX HEIGHT: 2'
CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
436
October 24, 2024
Yukiko Ogasawara
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City of Rolling Hills
Mayor and Members of the City Council
2 Portuguese Bend Rd
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
RE: Zoning Case No. 23-070
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (Lot 132A-MS)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Thank you for taking time to review my new home, especially with all that is happening in the city. The impacts to the residents of the city due to land movement is devastating, and I certainly hope things will begin to resolve quickly.
There were many technical questions during the last City Council meeting regarding my project from the City Council members and from the residents. My group of design / engineer professionals answered these as best could be done during the meeting, but I know that the sheer number of questions seems daunting and creates doubt for you to approve the project. However, my understanding is that the prescribed process for resolving these questions in detail is through the city’s plan check process in which the plans and reports prepared by my experts are reviewed by the city’s experts. 437
The residents should have faith in the city’s professionals and that everything will be scrutinized, will be proper, and in full knowledge of the recent land movement in the city.
I am thankful for the observations relayed to the City Council by our neighbors regarding the stormwater that flows onto the property from the public catch basins and pipe and into a ravine. However, the ravine is far outside the area where my project is being built and is not part of the review process for my home. As I committed to the City Council and residents at the last meeting, I will support and participate in whatever solution is determined to be best for the community, whether it be an easement, financial contribution, or otherwise, to create a complete storm drain system from Crest Road East to the ocean.
During the recent City Council meeting, the issue of the findings required to approve the various applications was discussed. Again, it is my understanding and I have been informed that making, or not making, the findings is the only legal allowed means to decide upon the project. In the report to the City Council, staff has detailed each finding and how each finding can be made, and staff has recommended approval of the project. The Planning Commission also reviewed each finding and approved the project on June 18, 2024.
It seems that the focus of the review has shifted away from the required findings and into areas, such as regional geology or disappearing water, which are not part of the required process. I would ask that you concur with staff and the Planning Commission, your experts in the findings, and approve the project.
With sincere regards,
Yukiko Ogasawara
438
From: Charlie Raine
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 10:06 AM
To: Karina Banales <[email protected]>
Cc: frederick Lorig
; duncan mcbride ; Brooke Nash
; Abas Goodarzi ; Shanashine
; Alfred Visco ; Allison Maguire
; Allison Smart ; Amy Zimmerman
; Andrew Castaneda
Ann Bellis ; Arthur Young ; Bill Rogers
; Bill Ruth ; Carmen Schaye
; Carol Marrone ; Charlie Raine
; Chay Lapin ; Chloe Bell-Wilson
; Chloe Bell-Wilson ; Connie Schwartzman
; Dallas Taft ; Damoder Reddy ;
Debbie Tull ; Deena Ruth Don Crocker
; Eliot Harary ; Fram Virjee ;
Fred Lorig ; Gordon Schaye ; Greg Stager
; Greg Stager ; Gretchen Goldsmith
; Hanna Raine Carlson ; Heidi
Mackenbach ; Heidi Stager ; Henry Wilson
; Houske ; Jackie Ellis
; James Bellis ; James Wald
; James Wald ; Jasmine Fournier
; Jeff Millman ; Jim Partridge
; Jim Partridge ; Joe & Erna Johnson
; Joey Kramer John Loiseaux Witte
; Jon Ward ; Julie Virjee ;
Justin Carlson ; Karl Frykman ; Kathy Conzen
; Leah Mirsch <[email protected]>; Linda Tripp
; Lynne Macer Rhodes ; Mahnaz
Tashakori ; Marie Rogers ; Marita
Geraghty ; Matthew Fournier ;
Maureen Hill ; Melissa McNabb ; Michael
Nash ; Michael Nash Sales ; Michelle McBride
; Nancy Hoffman Nina Ritter
; Pat Wilson Paul Rajewski
; Pia Raine ; Randa Marin
; Raymond Abracosa ; Richard Folsom
Ron & Diane Montalto ; Ron
Montalto ; Rox Santos Ryan Brown
; Sandy Sherman ; Terry Rhodes
; Tracy Keim ; Van Schwartzman
; Waylon Smart ; alitashakori
;
; Rob K
Subject: FINAL VOTE TONIGHT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 439
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
P1223980.MOV
P1223981.MOV
Karina,
Please distribute to the City Council members.
All others..
Once again..the final vote is supposed to be tonight. Below is the letter directed to the City Council. I am told this will be it. Either our interests are protected or our safety and homes are jeopardized. I hope you add your voice to this critical issue. 23 Crest Development
October 28th,2024
23 Crest Development
October 28th,2024
Dear City Council membersFor many years I have been in front of you for the various projects planned for the property at 23 Crest Road and I remain an advocate for the current project coming to fruition ONLY if it can be done in a way that does not cause further damage to the properties below. That can be accomplished in only one way, which is by not adding ONE SINGLE DROP OF WATER INTO THE SLIDE PLANE.
The applicant has had a litany of experts tell you that the 23 Crest project is safe. It very well may be, but it is a disaster in the making for all the properties below that are currently affected (Flying Triangle), recently affected (Cinchring, Spur and Quailridge So) and potentially affected (Southfield, Packsaddle and Ringbit) by the increase in stormwater that will be generated by the 37,000 ft.² of newly created impermeable surfaces. 440
The development will generate an additional 23,000 gallons of water per inch. Multiplied by the 30 inches of rain last year it is an additional 690,000 gallons of water that will be pouring down into the landslide below. Certainly you can deduct the 80,000 gallons that will fill the cisterns, accounting for 3 1/2 inches of water but all the rest of it will be a negative effect on the properties below. In its natural state, the water percolates in over the whole of the 6 acres and does not cause the issues that will arise post development. See my 2017 videos attached to this letter. In a natural state there is virtually NO sheet flow off the property (right side of the canyon in the video). All the water coming down is on the left side- the 18 Crest Drain side..that is where the water comes from. That is what is causing the damage and THAT is the water that this past Winter and the Winter before virtually all sinks into cracks or fissures in the 23 Crest Little Klondike tributary ON the 23 Crest SITE. THAT IS THE WATER THAT NO LONGER FLOWS DOWN THE
CANYON, IT NOW GOES INTO THE GROUND ABOVE THE VISIBLE SLIDE PLANE, ALMOST ALL OF IT DISAPPEARING ON THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY.
THAT is why all hell broke loose in Rolling Hills this year.
There can ONLY be damage from this development unless the additional runoff created is channeled safely out of the landslide area. IN THAT SITUATION ALONE, it has the potential to be a benefit for all of us.
The city of Rolling Hills has lost one lawsuit for its contributing cause of land movement in the Flying Triangle. That lawsuit was lost, but at that time at least the city had a defense of ignorance of the ramifications of its decisions. That is no longer the case.
You go into this vote whether to approve or deny with full knowledge of what you have done in the past, the effects on so many other properties in the City this year, including your ownwhether you live in the affected areas or not, and whether or not this development as presented will harm other properties in the City. You are representing all of us in this vote, Can you vote yes and still have our best interest? Yes, but ONLY with a condition of safe transport of that excess storm water that doesn't fit into the cisterns.
Ask their “experts” if this will harm the properties below? Ask their experts if more water coming down into an active landslide can harm the properties below? Ask yourselves, if you live in one of the properties below would you want that water coming down and triggering more movement?
An approval without Conditions will break the City. Protect the City and protect the residents, that is your job. YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY SUGGESTS. . This time, do what is right. His advice has been catastrophic in the past, 51 of us are still reeling from that. Put a condition on an approval. If you don’t have the guts to do that, then have the guts to do the alternative and vote no. 441
Protect us.
Charlie Raine
--
Charlie Raine
FOUNDER/REALTOR®
Lic. #00982925
I have not verified any of the information contained in those documents that were prepared by other people. You will never receive wire instructions or changes to previously provided wire instructions from myself or my team. 442
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 11:48 AM
To: 'Charlie Raine' ; Karina Banales <[email protected]> Cc: 'frederick Lorig' ;
; 'duncan mcbride' ; 'Brooke Nash'
; 'Abas Goodarzi' ; 'Shanashine'
; 'Alfred Visco' ; 'Allison Maguire'
; 'Allison Smart' ; 'Amy Zimmerman'
; 'Andrew Castaneda'
'Ann Bellis' ; 'Arthur Young' 'Bill Rogers'
'Bill Ruth' ; 'Carmen Schaye'
'Carol Marrone' ; 'Charlie Raine'
'Chay Lapin' ; 'Chloe Bell-Wilson'
; 'Chloe Bell-Wilson' 'Connie Schwartzman'
'Dallas Taft' 'Damoder Reddy'
; 'Debbie Tull' ; 'Deena Ruth' 'Don
Crocker' 'Eliot Harary' 'Fred Lorig'
'Gordon Schaye' ; 'Greg Stager' ; 'Greg Stager'
; 'Gretchen Goldsmith' ; 'Hanna Raine
Carlson' 'Heidi Mackenbach' 'Heidi Stager'
; 'Henry Wilson' 'Houske'
'Jackie Ellis' 'James Bellis'
; 'James Wald' ; 'James Wald'
'Jasmine Fournier' ; 'Jeff Millman'
'Jim Partridge' ; 'Jim Partridge'
; 'Joe & Erna Johnson' ; 'Joey Kramer'
; 'John Loiseaux Witte' ; 'Jon Ward'
; 'Julie Virjee' ; 'Justin Carlson'
; 'Karl Frykman' ; 'Kathy Conzen'
; Leah Mirsch <[email protected]>; 'Linda Tripp'
; 'Lynne Macer Rhodes' 'Mahnaz
Tashakori' ; 'Marie Rogers' ; 'Marita
Geraghty' 'Matthew Fournier'
'Maureen Hill' 'Melissa McNabb'
'Michael Nash' ; 'Michael Nash Sales' ; 'Michelle
McBride' ; 'Nancy Hoffman' ; 'Nina Ritter'
'Pat Wilson' ; 'Paul Rajewski'
; 'Pia Raine' 'Randa Marin'
'Raymond Abracosa' 'Richard Folsom'
; 'Ron & Diane Montalto' 'Ron
Montalto' 'Rox Santos' ; 'Ryan Brown'
; 'Sandy Sherman' 'Terry Rhodes'
'Tracy Keim' ; 'Van Schwartzman'
; 'Waylon Smart' 'alitashakori'
; 'Rob K'
Subject: RE: FINAL VOTE TONIGHT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 443
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Dear City Council ,
I write to acknowledge, add my voice, and agree without reservation with the letter below from Charlie Raine to the City Council. While there is no need to repeat what he has laid out so clearly, I will emphasize one point.
The City Council is fully on notice of this issue. If the City Council fails to take these indisputable facts into account and, as a result, limit and condition the project at 23 Crest Road to a project with complete remediation of all rainwater run off as described by Charlie’s letter, then going forward, the City’s actions will constitute a direct and substantial contributing cause to any resulting damage to the homes in the affected areas. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Knowledge of the ramifications of the City’s actions will be undisputed because the City has been warned so completely and so repeatedly. This fact alone, and the resulting effect in any subsequent legal actions, should be enough to convince all residents in the City of Rolling Hills – for all of us will be ultimately financially responsible for the City’s actions – of the folly of any action by the City other than the limited conditional approval that Charlie Raine suggests. For anyone wondering if their home may be next, I simply invite you to Cinchring, Spur or Qualridge to take a look. 6 months ago, all was well. Now, not so much.
Please City Council. Do the right thing. All residents of Rolling Hills deserve it. To do otherwise actively and effectively abandons those homes in the Flying Triangle, on Cinching, Spur and Quailridge, and I can’t imagine that such an abandonment will go unanswered.
Best regards,
Fram Virjee
Rolling Hills
444
From: Abas Goodarzi
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; 'Charlie Raine' Cc: 'frederick Lorig' ; 'duncan mcbride'
'Brooke Nash' 'Shanashine'
'Alfred Visco' 'Allison Maguire'
Abas Goodarzi 'Allison Smart'
'Amy Zimmerman' ; 'Andrew
Castaneda' ; 'Ann Bellis' 'Arthur Young'
'Bill Rogers' ; 'Bill Ruth'
; 'Carmen Schaye' ; 'Carol Marrone'
; 'Charlie Raine' ; 'Chay Lapin'
; 'Chloe Bell-Wilson' ; 'Chloe Bell-Wilson'
; 'Connie Schwartzman' 'Dallas Taft' ;
'Debbie Tull' ; 'Deena Ruth' 'Don Crocker'
; 'Eliot Harary' ; 'Fred Lorig' ; 'Gordon
Schaye' 'Greg Stager' ; 'Greg Stager'
; 'Gretchen Goldsmith' ; 'Hanna Raine
Carlson' ; 'Heidi Mackenbach' ; 'Heidi Stager'
; 'Henry Wilson' >; 'Houske'
; 'Jackie Ellis' ; 'James Bellis'
; 'James Wald' ; 'James Wald'
; 'Jasmine Fournier' ; 'Jeff Millman'
; 'Jim Partridge' ; 'Jim Partridge'
; 'Joe & Erna Johnson' ; 'Joey Kramer'
; 'John Loiseaux Witte' ; 'Jon Ward'
; 'Julie Virjee' ; 'Justin Carlson'
; 'Karl Frykman' ; 'Kathy Conzen'
Leah Mirsch <[email protected]>; 'Linda Tripp'
; 'Lynne Macer Rhodes' ; 'Mahnaz
Tashakori' ; 'Marie Rogers' ; 'Marita
Geraghty' ; 'Matthew Fournier' ;
'Maureen Hill' ; 'Melissa McNabb'
'Michael Nash' >; 'Michael Nash Sales' ; 'Michelle
McBride' ; 'Nancy Hoffman' ; 'Nina Ritter'
; 'Pat Wilson' ; 'Paul Rajewski'
; 'Pia Raine' ; 'Randa Marin'
>; 'Raymond Abracosa' ; 'Richard Folsom'
; 'Ron & Diane Montalto' ; 'Ron
Montalto' ; 'Rox Santos' ; 'Ryan Brown'
; 'Sandy Sherman' ; 'Terry Rhodes'
; 'Tracy Keim' ; 'Van Schwartzman'
; 'Waylon Smart' ; 'alitashakori'
>;
'Rob K'
Subject: Urgent Consideration of Storm Water Management in Development Decisions 445
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Please forward to city council and add to the agenda.
Dear City Council,
I am writing to emphasize the critical importance of comprehensive storm water management in any new developments, particularly regarding the project at 23 Crest Road. It is essential that the city fully understands the existing/lack-of storm water management system and its implications on our community.
My evaluations, along with observable subsidence issues at the intersection of Portugues Bend Road and Ranchero Road, indicate that water from the Crest drains is infiltrating underground, causing significant damage before it reaches Paintbrush Canyon. This not only contributes to erosion but also affects the integrity of our properties.
It appears that the City Council may not fully recognize the geological risks involved. Should the council proceed without addressing these concerns and implementing necessary remediation for stormwater runoff, it could lead to further damage to homes in the area. This would make the city liable for the consequences, especially since the community has repeatedly raised these issues.
I am in the process of conducting underground cavity detection to better understand the sources of subsidence and sinkholes in our area. This step underscores the need for informed decision-making by the council. Neither city nor RHCA has done any study, analysis and seek plans for storm water management system to better understand the issues and keep talking about the aftereffects of measuring land movement, with no regards for understanding the cause, which is directly coupled with storm water.
Our community deserves careful consideration of these factors. A lack of understanding of storm water management has already lost over $800 million in property devaluations in our region. Let’s take lessons from other communities and ensure that Rolling Hills does not face similar challenges. I urge you to make decisions rooted in the interest of community welfare with knowledge or lack of.
Please note that our utilities were cut off within 48 hours’ notice only a short while ago and city and associations were helpless in any support for the community, and you are now subjecting the same flying triangle community to same faith pretending not knowing. What is more urgent getting our utilities back or making a rush decision for the development that may sink to the bottom of hill in near future.
Sincerely,
Abas Goodarzi, Ph.D., PE.
446
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
1 October 28, 2024
City of Rolling Hills
City Council
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Cc Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear City of Rolling Hills:
This letter opposes the development of 23 Crest Rd. Prior to allowing any further development in and near the Greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex, the city council should agendize and vote on a development and tree removal moratorium (proposed moratorium area shown on Figure 8 in this letter).
Pursuant to Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii), a city cannot enforce a moratorium that would limit housing development until it has submitted the ordinance to and received approval from HCD. Conditions for imposing a moratorium, or similar restrictions on housing development, must demonstrate “an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium” (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B)(i)). The City of Rolling Hills and its elected and appointed officials can demonstrate and know that there is an imminent threat to the Rolling Hills residents living in the vicinity of the Greater Portuguese Landslide Complex.
I continue to submit this same letter. Until the City can prove that development is safe, not adversely affecting other properties, and not contributing to an existing and expanding landslide issue, should the moratorium be lifted.
I AGAIN REQUEST, THE CITY AGENDIZE A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVAL OF 3+ INCH DIAMETER TREES, PUBLICALLY DISCUSS THE ITEM, AND VOTE ON THE ITEM.
Sincerely,
James and Ann Bellis
S., Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Enclosed
Table of Figures
447
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
2 Figure 1: September 9, 2024 Crack between 3 and 5 Quail Ridge Rd. S................................................2 Figure 2: September 9, 2024 Crack and movement on Quail Ridge Rd. S. ............................................3 Figure 3: September 24th, 2024 Showing Expanding Crack and vertical movement ........................4 Figure 4: September 29, 2024 showing crack widening and vertical movement ...............................5 Figure 5:September 29, 2024 showing crack all the way through property and damaging fence .......5 Figure 6: September 30, 2024 Crack running through retaining wall ................................................6 Figure 7: Greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex Overview Map ...........................................7 Figure 8: Proposed Rolling Hills Moratorium Area...........................................................................8 Figure 1: September 9, 2024 Crack between 3 and 5 Quail Ridge Rd. S. 448
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
3 Figure 2: September 9, 2024 Crack and movement on Quail Ridge Rd. S. 449
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
4 Figure 3: September 24th, 2024 Showing Expanding Crack and vertical movement 450
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
5 Figure 5:September 29, 2024 showing crack all the way through property and damaging fence Figure 4: September 29, 2024 showing crack widening and vertical movement 451
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
6 Figure 6: September 30, 2024 Crack running through retaining wall 452
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex Overview Map
453
James and Ann Bellis
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Proposed Rolling Hills Moratorium Area
454
From: Brooke Nash
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 3:33 PM
To: Karina Banales <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: Re: FINAL VOTE TONIGHT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 455
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hello,
What time is the meeting tonight? We have an appointment but will try to make it.
Karina, please share this letter with the council. Thank you.
Dear City Council,
We are in agreement with Charlie’s letter. This project as is currently would be a disaster. We cannot believe the city would even consider such a project without storm drain mitigation, especially under the current land movement and our loss of utilities, which the city lawyer allowed to happen. We believe your role as City Council members is to protect the rights of the majority of the city, rather than one single property owner. The time is NOW to solve the drainage issues. You are aware of the existing potential hazards and issues. This will exacerbate existing issues. Protect your residents and city properties. So far, the city lawyer has not protected this area of residents. We are suffering greatly and unnecessarily- we deserve your support now and always. Please do not approve this project unless it includes proper storm drainage and the water mitigation is resolved. We appreciate you advocating for the greater good. It is your civic duty as council members.
Best,
Mike and Brooke Nash
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:59 AM Karina Banales <[email protected]> wrote:
456
From: Paul Rajewski
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 2:38 PM
To: ; Karina Banales <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: Re: FINAL VOTE TONIGHT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 457
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Hey all,
I cannot make tonight meeting, but I too am very concerned and think this should be approved with the conditions Charlie has recommended.
Anything short will do significant damage to many more properties and CRUSH all of our property values. I know this may not “seem fair” to the homeowner that is simply trying to use their property, but in this case I believe we need to address this issue that should have been addressed 70 years ago.
Quit putting it off.
Paul
Paul Rajewski
Managing Director
Pinnacle Investments
(310) 400-3400 D
(310) 779-7000
(310) 400-313
“Today is a Good Day for a Good Day!!"
458
From: Nina Ritter
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:18 PM
To: Karina Banales <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: Re: FINAL VOTE TONIGHT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING/7pm EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
The same attorney who continues to waste RH $$ and risk insurance companies dropping us by refusing to admit defeat in Colyear. The same attorney who recently applied to the CA Supreme Court to have the Colyear decision overturned — and was denied reconsideration. Yet still continues to fight on-- increasing the legal fees RH will owe due to refusing to accept the reality: that since the 1940s RHCA has failed to ’take care of business’ ? Whether it’s arrogance or greed — it’s at the RH homeowner's expense.
RHCA/RH lost a lawsuit in the 1980s about its failure to address and mitigate damage due to water runoff and the damage it did. RH/RHCA can no longer plead ignorance. Please stop this now. The legal fees are going to sink us if the water doesn’t get us first.
Nina Ritter
459
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 10/28/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING'S INC. (PAE) REQUEST
FOR ADDITIONAL BUDGET TO COMPLETE RESPONSES TO PLAN
REVIEW COMMENTS; ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 1379
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE $4,000.00 IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
FUNDED FROM A TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES
AND APPROVE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH PAE COVERING ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR
THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
DATE: October 28, 2024
BACKGROUND:
On May 31, 2023, the City Hall ADA Improvement project plans were re-submitted to Los Angeles County Building & Safety (LACBS) after addressing initial plan review comments. The expectation was that reviews and approvals by LACBS would be completed in July 2023 and ready to solicit construction bids in late summer.
On June 26, 2023, staff presented an update on the status of the City Hall ADA Improvement project to the City Council. Due to a backlog at LACBS, as well as coordination with other County departments requiring project review, the plan check continued through November 2023.
On November 9, 2023, the City received notification from Pacific Architecture and Engineering (PAE) that LACBS had returned plan review comments requesting ADA upgrades/grading in the parking lot and path of travel to the sidewalk at Palos Verdes Drive North, additional structural details, and some other minor comments. PAE also informed staff that the Los Angeles County Health and Fire Departments required payment of fees for their portion of the plan check before documents could be finalized. While LACBS can waive review fees for public projects, the other departments cannot.
460
PAE notified the City that the plan review comments required additional design work outside the existing project scope; therefore, additional budget is required to complete the improvement plans for this project. Staff requested and received a comprehensive itemized cost to complete the additional service requests covering plan completion through LACBS approval. This additional service request is attached.
On January 9, 2024, City Staff met with PAE to discuss the additional costs addressing LACBS comments. The City also contacted LACBS to discuss several plan review comments and determine if any of the requested ADA improvements would be required for the City Hall Improvement project or could be waived/deferred.
At the January 22, 2024, City Council meeting, City Staff updated the Council on the project and presented a list of eight additions to the scope from PAE. Based on internal discussion as well as information provided by LACBS staff, the recommendation included removing three of the proposed scope changes. Two of these were specific to the preparation of the ADA Parking layout ($3,000) and preparation of the path of travel ($4,000) per plan check comments. The City Council voted 4/1, with Councilmember Black dissenting, to approve five additions to the scope of work at a not-to-exceed amount of $11,500.
At the February 12, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council voted 4/1, with Councilmember Black dissenting, to approve Resolution No. 1356 authorizing a budget modification for the $11,500.
DISCUSSION:
On July 29, 2024, LACBS Senior Civil Engineer Mike Dorta visited the City Hall campus to inspect plan check comments that conflicted with previous communications made to City Staff.
The previous miscommunication had led to a finding that the City could enact changes to the ADA parking and path of travel at a later time. This, in turn, led to the January 22 staff recommendation not to include those line items in the proposed scope of work.
During the visit and a subsequent email on July 31, 2024 to PAE, Mr. Dorta stated, "...Originally I believed the City Hall scope of work was solely for the purpose of adding ADA restrooms. In that case there is an exception in the code for removing ADA barriers. But since the scope of work includes further tenant improvements to other areas/items in the City Hall, and the valuation is well over $200k, there is no exception to providing a fully compliant ADA parking space and path of travel to the entrance..."
During the month of August, staff discussed resolving this issue with PAE and LACBS. As originally presented on January 22, 2024, the proposed cost to complete both requirements totaled $7,000. On August 27, 2024, PAE sent an Additional Services proposal for the scope of work necessary to complete these final two requirements at a discounted rate of $4,000.
The Scope of work includes:
Examine survey for existing grade for compliance
Include in the scope of work correction of Cross Slope at one square foot of area from root upheaval
Addition of Van-accessible parking striping on drawing detail 461
Addition of Van-accessible parking striping on the site plan Addition of (1) Signage detail showing graphics of the required sign Addition of (1) Footing detail for the new signpost
Striping for the path of travel area
Revision showing the compliant path of travel on-site plan Specifications revision for sign, post, grading, paint
Revision of Scope of Work Description
Revision of Sheet Index
Additional plan check time
The City Hall ADA Improvement Project plans are nearly complete but require these final modifications to gain approval from LACBS. Staff is requesting approval of the additional scope and adoption of the budget amendment in Resolution No.1379.
At the September 9, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Council present voted to continue this item to the next meeting with a full council present.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Council action is required to amend the budget and increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund by $4,000 through a transfer from available General Fund Reserves. The use of General Fund Reserves is consistent with City policy.
Total Cost for PAE through the 5th Amendment would be a not-to-exceed amount of $211,723.01.
NOTE:
This not-to-exceed total includes services outside the design scope of the City Hall ADA Improvement Project. The not-to-exceed total includes:
$4,096.43 (part of Amendment No. 1) was for the evaluation of the existing emergency generator and providing recommendations
$58,897.01 (Amendment No. 2) was for a Solar Power System, of which only $28,286.63 of this budget was used before the project was put on hold as the City evaluated other options
$20,293 of the $96,485 budget (Amendment No. 3) remains unused/allocated for bid phase support and Construction Administration support.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file. Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1379_CityHallADA_PAE_BudgetAmendment_F.pdf
CA_AGR_240909_PAE_5thAmendment_F.pdf
CA_AGR_240827_PAE_5A_ScopeChange_Proposal.pdf
CL_AGN_240909_CC_Item12A_PublicComment01.pdf
462
RESOLUTION NO. 1379
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE
$4,000.00 IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
FUNDED BY A TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE
GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR ADDITIONAL
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FROM
PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR ADA IMPROVEMENT DESIGN AT CITY
HALL CAMPUS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
A. On February 24, 2020, the CITY entered into a Professional Services Agreement with CONSULTANT (“Agreement”) for architectural and engineering design services to prepare ADA improvement plans for the CITY.
B. On February 22, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a First Amendment to expand the scope of work in the Agreement, clarify the term, and increase the cost for the CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for the replacement of the generator at City Hall (the “First Amendment”).
C. On June 28, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Second Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for (1) the installation of a photovoltaic system per the General Assessment Report dated April 18, 2019 and (2) upgrades needed for existing structure which houses the generator (the “Second Amendment”).
D. On May 9, 2022 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Third Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City.
E. On February 12, 2024 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Fourth Amendment to clarify the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City.
463
F. To meet additional requirements from the Los Angeles County Building and Safety plan check process, the CITY must provide a path of travel to the building before any final approvals.
G. The City desires to appropriate $4,000.00 in the Capital Projects Fund funded from a transfer of General Fund reserves to additionally fund the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. attached as Exhibit “A.” Section 2. The sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) is hereby appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to further fund the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book or original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 2024 ______________________________
LEAH MIRSCH
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
464
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1379 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE
$4,000.00 IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
FUNDED BY A TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE
GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR ADDITIONAL
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FROM
PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR ADA IMPROVEMENT DESIGN AT CITY
HALL CAMPUS
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of September 2024, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
465
Exhibit A
466
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT (“Fourth Amendment”) is made and entered into this 9th day of September 2024 in the City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter the “CITY”), and Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (hereinafter the “CONSULTANT”).
RECITALS:
A. On February 24, 2020, the CITY entered into a Professional Services Agreement with CONSULTANT (“Agreement”) for architectural and engineering design services to prepare ADA improvement plans for the CITY; and
B. On February 22, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a First Amendment to expand the scope of work in the Agreement, clarify the term, and increase the cost for the CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for the replacement of the generator at City Hall (the “First Amendment”); and C. On June 28, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Second Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for (1) the installation of a photovoltaic system per the General Assessment Report dated April 18, 2019 and (2) upgrades needed for existing structure which houses the generator (the “Second Amendment”); and
D. On May 9, 2022 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Third Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City; and
E. On February 12, 2024 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Fourth Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City; and
D. CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to amend the Agreement a fifth time (the “Fifth Amendment”) to clarify the remaining scope of work and increase the cost by $4,000.00 so that CONSULTANT may provide services for the CITY; and
E. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education, training, and experience to perform such services; and
467
F. CONSULTANT is willing to render such professional services as hereinafter defined.
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agrees to perform the services set forth in this Fourth Amendment.
1. CITY and CONSULTANT agree to supplement Exhibit A (Scope of Work) that was attached to the First Amendment, Exhibit A (Scope of Work – Supplemental) that was attached to the Second Amendment, Exhibit A (Scope of Work - Supplemental) that was attached to the Third Amendment and Exhibit A (Scope of Work - Supplemental) that was attached to the Fourth Amendment with Exhibit A (Scope of Work – Supplemental) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference to this Fifth Amendment.
2. Paragraph 3 (COST) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
3. COST
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for the services required by this Agreement on a Time and Materials basis in an amount not to exceed $4,000 for the scope of services identified by this Fifth Amendment, $11,500 for the scope of services identified by the Fourth Amendment, $96,485.00 for the scope of services identified by the Third Amendment, $58,897.42 for the scope of services identified by the Second Amendment, and $40,840.59 for the scope of services identified by the First Amendment. Now, the current amended and increased not to exceed amount is $211,723.01. This not to exceed amount includes all expenses, consisting of all incidental blueprinting, photography, travel, attendance at meetings, and miscellaneous costs, estimated to be accrued during that period. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated. Any increase in Agreement cost or scope of work shall be by express written amendment approved by the CITY and CONSULTANT.
3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment or this Fifth Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment on the date and year first above written.
468
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND
ENGINEERING, INC.
CITY MANAGER: PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER
__________________________ __________________________
KARINA BAÑALES JUN FUJITA HALL
ATTEST:
__________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
PATRICK DONEGAN
CITY ATTORNEY
469
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work - Supplemental
470
Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc.
1137 Second St, Suite 214
Santa Monica, CA 90403
(310)424-9658
August 27, 2024
Subject: Proposal for for Rolling Hills ADA Improvement_ Additional Services 2 Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc., is pleased to submit this proposal for engineering services for improvements for the ADA improvements at City Hall. Our understanding of the scope of work is described below.
Scope of Work:
Examine survey for existing grade for compliance
Include in scope of work correction of Cross Slope at one square foot of area from root upheaval Addition of Van accessible parking striping on drawing detail Addition of Van accessible parking striping on site plan Addition of (1) Signage detail showing graphics of required sign Addition of (1) Footing detail for new sign post
Striping for path of travel area
Revision showing compliant path of travel on site plan
Specifications revision for sign, post, grading, paint
Revision of Scope of Work Description
Revision of Sheet Index
Additional plan check time
Amendment Fee
$4,000
We appreciate the opportunity to offer this proposal. If you have any questions please contact me for any further information you may need at (310)405-3878 or [email protected] Sincerely,
Jun Fujita Hall, AIA, LEED AP BD & C, Lic#C 30954
Principal Project Manager, Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. 310-405-3878
[email protected]
Required note: Architects are licensed and regulated by the California Architects Board located at 2420 Del Paso Road, Suite 105, Sacramento, CA 95834
471
September 9, 2024
Rolling Hills City Council
2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Esteemed Members of the Rolling Hills City Council, As the Women’s Community Club of Rolling Hills, we are thrilled to see the ongoing improvements at City Hall. The progress is a testament to the care and dedication that our city officials put into enhancing our community spaces.
We understand that our suggestions come very late in your project. But with our recent success at our events, we have realized the need is great for a larger area for the City and Clubs to host resident gatherings and meetings, such as holiday parties, Block Captain meetings, neighborhood meetings, etc.
Towards this end, we respectfully submit the following minor modifications to the existing plan, which would provide an improved functional space for meetings and events:
1. Flip the locations of the kitchen and the smaller meeting room adjacent to it, for better connectivity to council chambers.
2. Install bi-fold door panels between the council chambers and the small meeting room to create a flexible and adaptable space.
3. Add a separate entrance at the front of the large meeting room to ensure that the movement of attendees does not disturb the City’s daily activities.
4. Create an accessible outdoor deck with bi-fold windows, allowing for an indoor-outdoor flow and providing additional event space.
The Women’s Club fully supports the City’s efforts to educate residents and host events throughout the year. These minor improvements would make it easier for the City and Clubs to continuously achieve these goals.
The Women’s Club greatly appreciates all that you do for Rolling Hills, and we would be happy to assist in any way possible to make these changes a reality. Thank you for your continued commitment to our beautiful city.
Warm regards,
Melissa McNabb
President, Women’s Community Club of Rolling Hills
472
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 10/28/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY ON AN ONCALL BASIS DATE: October 28, 2024
BACKGROUND:
The Planning and Community Services Department of the City of Rolling Hills is staffed by two employees and plays a critical role in the City's operations. The department oversees daily planning activities in accordance with the City’s zoning, subdivision, and General Plan provisions. It is also responsible for issuing permits for construction and development, as well as supporting the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission – to name a few.
The Planning and Community Services Department is currently staffed to meet the City's ongoing needs. However, as with any organization, staff members may occasionally take leave due to personal or medical reasons. Given the critical nature of planning activities and the need for timely processing of permits, applications, and other planning services, it is prudent to have augmentation plans in place.
This evening, staff seeks City Council authorization for the City Manager to engage Willdan for planning staff augmentation services on an on-call basis. This will ensure continuity of planning services during periods of staff leave, absences, or unexpected needs.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Rolling Hills and Willdan have maintained a strong professional relationship since January 14, 2008, when the City first entered into an agreement with Willdan Engineering for civil engineering, city engineering, traffic engineering, building official, and geotechnical services. This agreement was amended in 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2024, reflecting the ongoing trust and collaboration between both parties (Attachments B-F). Willdan’s familiarity with the City's codes, processes, and community standards makes them an ideal partner for planning and public works projects.
473
To avoid disruption to City services, staff recommends utilizing Willdan on an as-needed basis during periods of absence in the Planning Department. Willdan’s experienced planners are capable of seamlessly integrating with City operations to maintain services such as permit reviews, development applications, and resident inquiries without delay.
By amending the current agreement with Willdan, the City will have the flexibility to engage their services quickly, if needed, ensuring continuity in planning functions. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal and prepared the attached amendment (Attachment A - To be supplied via Blue Folder Items at Monday's meeting) for the City Council’s consideration.
Below are the fully burdened* rates for potential staff augmentation:
Position Hourly Rate*
Assistant Planner $140
Principal Planner $180
Fully burdened rate means the complete cost of labor, factoring in all direct and indirect costs associated with contracting someone, beyond just their base pay.
These additional assignments/duties may include, and are not limited to, the following:
Public Counter Assistance
Design Review
CEQA/NEPA Documentation
Special Planning Studies
Report Writing/Research/Analysis/Presentations
Planning Commission and City Council Meeting attendance, as needed Assisting in the day-to-day operations of the Planning Department, as well as any other additional related planning assignments and duties as needed.
It is important to note that Willdan understands the City’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and conservation. As a result, they have worked closely with the City Manager to ensure that their fully burdened rates align with these priorities.
CONCLUSION
To ensure the City of Rolling Hills continues to provide uninterrupted planning services, staff recommends entering into an on-call agreement with Willdan for planning staff augmentation.
This proactive measure will allow Staff to address potential staffing shortages while maintaining the high level of service expected by the community.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff will return at a future date with any budget amendments that may be needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - CA_AGR_241028_WIlldan_Amendment05_F.pdf
Attachment B - CA_AGR_080114_Willdan_E.pdf
Attachment C - CA_AGR_100114_Willdan_Amendment01_E.pdf
Attachment D - CA_AGR_120629_Willdan_Amendment02_E.pdf
474
Attachment E - CA_AGR_150114_Willdan_Amendment03_E.pdf
Attachment F - CA_AGR_240325_WIlldan_Amendment04_F_A_E.pdf 475
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Willdan Engineering, a California corporation (“Consultant”) as of October 28, 2024.
RECITALS
A. City and Consultant are parties to that Professional Services Agreement dated January 14, 2008 (the “Agreement”), as amended by that First Amendment on January 14, 2010, Second Amendment on June 29, 2012, Third Amendment on January 14, 2015 and Fourth Amendment on March 11, 2024 (collectively, the “Agreement”), by which City engaged Consultant to perform civil engineering, city engineering, city traffic engineer, building official and geotechnical engineering services for the City.
B. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to include additional services and to include the hourly rate for the aforementioned added services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Agreement is amended as follows:
A. Section 1.1 “Scope of Services” of the Agreement is amended to add the following services:
City Assistant Planner and City Principal Planner.
B. EXHIBIT B of the Agreement is amended to add the following scope of services at the listed hourly rates:
Assistant Planner $140/hour
Principal Planner $180/hour
Except as above modified, in all other respects the Agreement (including the other provisions of Exhibit B not amended by this Fifth Amendment) is hereby reaffirmed in full force and effect.
[Signature page to follow]
476
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSULTANT
WILLDAN ENGINEERING
________________________________ ________________________________ KARINA BAÑALES VANESSA MUÑOZ
City Manager President
ATTEST:
________________________________ DATE:___________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
City Clerk
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
Agenda Item No.: 13.B
Mtg. Date: 10/28/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1382 AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024- 2025 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS BY
$23,485.40 IN THE GENERAL FUND REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
ACCOUNT FUNDED FROM AVAILABLE GENERAL FUND RESERVES
FOR EMERGENCY PLUMBING REPAIRS RELATED TO EXTERIOR
WATER MAIN LEAKS ON THE CITY HALL CAMPUS
DATE: October 28, 2024
BACKGROUND:
On September 30, 2024, Cal Water Service notified city staff during their monthly water meter checks that the City's meter was spinning more rapidly than it should under normal usage conditions. Staff called the approved vendor, Stephen's Plumbing, to evaluate.
On October 1, 2024, Stephen's Plumbing and their leak detection subcontractor evaluated the situation and determined there was a leak near the water main's entrance into the city hall structure. Stephens spent the two days unearthing an approximately 8' by 3' area and found a pinhole leak in the original 2" copper riser at a depth of about 6 feet. They installed a temporary clamp in order to restore water service to the building and ordered parts for repairs to the leak and degraded piping at the entrance to the structure.
On the evening of October 3, 2024, staff noticed water leaking into another unrelated area and informed Stephen's personnel upon their arrival the following morning. Leak detection was brought out again, and with a quieter ambient environment, was able to locate another potential leak source under the asphalt in the same general area about 10-12 feet from the first leak.
Between Monday, October 7, 2024, and October 12, 2024, work continued, including asphalt removal and excavating. The second leak was unearthed about 6 feet below grade and adjacent to the main gas lines. Final repairs were made in both areas, mud and asphalt were hauled away, and the pavement area was backfilled, compacted, and repaved. 520
DISCUSSION:
City staff seeks approval to amend the budget due to the emergency repairs, which were not considered part of the FY 24/25 adopted budget.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost to repair the water main leaks totaled $23,485.40, which exceeds the FY 24/25 budgeted amount of $19,100 for general repairs and maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1382_WaterMainRepair_BudgetAmendment_F.pdf
521
RESOLUTION NO. 1382
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE
$23,485.40 IN THE GENERAL FUND REPAIRS AND
MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT FROM AVAILABLE
GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR EMERGENCY
PLUMBING REPAIRS RELATED TO EXTERIOR
WATER MAIN LEAKS ON THE CITY HALL
CAMPUS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
A. On September 30, 2024 City staff were notified by Cal Water Service that the City’s water meter was running in an abnormal way, inconsistent with normal usage conditions.
B. On October 1, 2024, the City’s approved plumbing vendor (Stephen’s Plumbing) and its subcontractor evaluated the situations and determined there was a leak and took some temporary remedial measures.
C. On the evening of October 3, 2024, City staff noticed water leaking into another unrelated area and again reached out to the plumbing vendor.
D. Between October 7, 2024 and October 12, 2024 work continued to remedy the issues and impacts from the leak.
E. The complete cost to repair the water main leaks totaled $23,485.40 – in excess of the fiscal year 24/25 budgeted amount of $19,100.
F. The City desires to appropriate $23,485.40 in the General Fund Repairs and Maintenance Account from available General Fund Reserves for emergency plumbing repairs related to exterior water main leaks on the City Hall Campus.
Section 2. The sum of twenty-three thousand, four hundred and eighty five dollars and forty cents ($23,485.40) is hereby appropriated in the General Fund Repairs and Maintenance Account to fund the emergency plumbing repairs related to exterior water main leaks on the City Hall Campus. 522
Section 3. The City Council finds this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty, as in this case, that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This resolution is just a funding and budgeting action to accurately reflect previous City action already taken to make emergency repairs.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book or original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2024 ______________________________
LEAH MIRSCH
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
523
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1382 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE
$23,485.40 IN THE GENERAL FUND REPAIRS AND
MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT FROM AVAILABLE
GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR EMERGENCY
PLUMBING REPAIRS RELATED TO EXTERIOR
WATER MAIN LEAKS ON THE CITY HALL
CAMPUS
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of October 2024, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
524
Agenda Item No.: 15.A
Mtg. Date: 10/28/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN F. SIGNO, AICP,
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE THIRD QUARTER
OF 2024 (JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30)
DATE: October 28, 2024
BACKGROUND:
Quarterly Fire Fuel Abatement Meeting
On October 10, 2024, a quarterly fire fuel meeting was held to discuss fire fuel issues in Rolling Hills. Representatives participated from the Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures (LACWM) and Southern California Edison (SCE). Each agency is responsible for reducing fire-fuel hazards in the city. LACWM inspects vacant properties to ensure proper fire fuel reduction. SCE monitors vegetation growth around its powerlines and sends crews to trim vegetation when necessary.
Code Enforcement Cases
The Code Enforcement Division provides quarterly updates. Cases include dead vegetation and other code violations for the second quarter of 2024. The attachments demonstrate cases that have been opened and closed during the quarter. Also included is a list of cumulative open cases (See Attachments 1, 2, and 3).
DISCUSSION:
During the third quarter of 2024, a total of seven cases were closed, including six dealing with vegetation or dead trees; 10 cases were opened, including four involving overgrown vegetation or dead trees. All but 5 of the 10 cases opened this quarter were closed, including all four vegetation cases. Currently, code enforcement is working on 13 open cases, of which three deal with overgrown vegetation or dead trees. Each case is unique, and some require more time than others to resolve. In certain cases, in which the owner is nonresponsive and remains out of compliance, cases have been referred to the City Attorney's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Code enforcement services is provided contractually, and payment is made from the General Fund.
525
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: CE_QRP_2024_Q3_241022_CC_CE_OpenedCases.pdf Attachment 2: CE_QRP_2024_Q3_241010_CC_CE_ClosedCases.pdf Attachment 3: CE_QRP_2024_Q3_241022_CC_CE_AllOpenCases.pdf 526
Page: 1 of 1
Case Report – OPENED CASES
THIRD QUARTER 2024
7/1/2024 - 9/30/2024
Case Date Address of Violation Description Comments Follow Up Date
Main
Status
9/19/2024 10 Saddleback Road Unpermitted loft Follow-up needed 10/31/2024 Open 8/27/2024 7 Portuguese Bend Rd Unpermitted storage
container
Follow-up needed 10/31/2024 Open
8/27/2024 12 Crest Rd E Dead palm fronds -- -- Closed
8/27/2024 7 Crest Rd W Dead and overgrown palm
fronds
-- -- Closed
8/22/2024 25 Portuguese Bend
Rd
Dead/ damaged tree -- -- Closed
8/20/2024 74 Portuguese Bend
Rd
Unpermitted storage
container
Affected area -- Open
8/20/2024 56 Portuguese Bend
Rd
Unpermitted storage
container
Affected area -- Open
8/20/2024 11 Buggy Whip Dr Unpermitted Container -- -- Closed 8/20/2024 21 Buggy Whip Dr Dead Palm Fronds -- -- Closed 7/24/2024 6 Upper Blackwater
Cyn Rd
Illegal structure Confirmation
needed
10/31/2024 Pending
Total Records: 10 10/22/2024
527
Page: 1 of 1
Case Report – CLOSED CASES
THIRD QUARTER 2024
07/01/2024 - 09/30/2024
Case Date Address of
Violation
Description Main
Status
Case
Closed
3/6/2024 28983 Palos
Verdes Dr E
Stormwater drainage Closed 8/6/2024
5/7/2024 1 Roundup Rd Overgrown Vegetation, decayed property, and vermin
Closed 8/6/2024
6/4/2024 49 Saddleback Rd Overgrown weeds and vegetation Closed 7/16/2024 6/11/2024 7 Ranchero Rd Overgrown Vegetation and Trash/Debris Closed 7/16/2024 6/11/2024 9 Buggy Whip Dr Overgrown Vegetation (Yellow mustard) Closed 7/16/2024 6/11/2024 4 Buggy Whip Dr Dead vegetation on fence Closed 7/2/2024 6/18/2024 2 Chestnut Ln Dead Vegetation on the back side of property (Visible on Morgan Lane)
Closed 7/2/2024
Total Records: 7 10/10/2024
528
Page: 1 of 1
Case Report – ALL OPEN CASES
Case Date Address of
Violation
Description Comments Follow Up
Date
Main
Status
10/22/2024 2720 Palos
Verdes Dr N
Dried and overgrown
vegetation
Follow-up needed 11/1/2024 Open
10/10/2024 38 Crest Rd E Dead tree on slope Follow-up needed 10/31/2024 Open 9/19/2024 10 Saddleback Rd Unpermitted loft Follow-up needed 10/31/2024 Open 8/27/2024 7 Portuguese
Bend Rd
Unpermitted storage container Follow-up needed 10/31/2024 Open 8/20/2024 74 Portuguese
Bend Rd
Unpermitted storage container Affected area -- Open
8/20/2024 56 Portuguese
Bend Rd
Unpermitted storage container Affected area -- Open
5/28/2024 10 Flying Mane
Rd
Illegal grading and retaining
walls
Message left; followup needed10/31/2024 Open
4/9/2024 8 Quail Ridge Rd
N
Unpermitted Building Owner working with
staff to obtain proper
permits
10/31/2024 Open
11/7/2023 16 Buggy Whip
Dr
2nd Violation of Trees in
Violation of Conditions of
Approval
Letter sent 10/22/24;
Follow-up needed
11/5/2024 Open
11/2/2023 17 Eastfield Dr Unpermitted construction Property listed for sale; owner still
responsible for
correction
10/31/2024 Open
6/22/2023 4 Possum Ridge
Rd
Unpermitted work/grading Planning application
required
10/31/2024 Open
9/22/2022 29 Middleridge Ln
S
Extensive grading and
importing of soil. Dead
shrubs/trees/vegetation visible
from road
Approved by PC;
Follow-up on grading
permit
Ongoing Open
7/6/2021 1 Chestnut Ln Unpermitted structure (gazebo) Approved by PC; Follow-up with
building permit
Ongoing Open
Total Records: 13 10/22/2024
529
Agenda Item No.: 15.B
Mtg. Date: 10/28/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SAMANTHA CREW, MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
RECEIVE AND FILE A PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS UPDATE
DATE: October 28, 2024
BACKGROUND:
On September 9, 2024, staff presented a status update on Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to the City Council (Attachment A). The report outlined recent utility shut offs in Rancho Palos Verdes and detailed the actions taken by the City of Rolling Hills and the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) to proactively address similar land movement issues in Rolling Hills. During that meeting, Mayor Mirsch requested that staff provide regular updates on any new developments to the City Council.
The following day, September 10, the City was unexpectedly informed that potential utility shut offs were also imminent in Rolling Hills. Southern California Edison (SCE) notified staff that 28 households could potentially experience eventual electrical shut offs, a number that eventually increased to 51.
On Thursday, September 12, staff received notice from SoCal Gas (SCG) that they would shut off service to 35 homes in Rolling Hills due to ongoing land movement in the Palos Verdes Peninsula area. It is important to note that both Mayor Leah Mirsch and Councilmember Patrick Wilson attended an emergency meeting with SCE and SCG, where they strongly advocated against shutting off gas services without further investigation. Despite this, on Monday, September 16—five days after receiving notice—SCG indefinitely shut off services to 37 homes, with gas restored to one household on September 24. 530
On Friday, September 13, the City learned that SCE planned to indefinitely shut off power to 51 households by no later than Wednesday, September 18, at 6:00 p.m.
Residents affected by the SCG shutoff were contacted via email, text, and home visits. SCE sent notifications by email and text to affected households, but unfortunately, some residents were notified as late as within the hour of the scheduled shut-off.
On Wednesday, September 18, COX Communications notified 44 households that they would discontinue service on Saturday, September 21.
This evening, staff will present an update on the events since the last report and outline the actions the City has taken to address these unprecedented utility shut offs.
DISCUSSION:
The City immediately began coordination efforts on September 11, 2024. Key tasks included:
Seeking legal counsel to stop the utility shut offs
Hosting a community meeting for residents affected by the shut offs on Thursday, September 19, to provide updates and address concerns
Organizing an Information Center on Saturday, September 28, which included resources from the County and communication partners
Assisting residents with the permitting process for solar, generators, and propane installations
Establishing expedited permitting processes at both the City and County levels Reaching out to elected officials to bolster opposition to the shut offs and request financial support
Developing a communication plan with Tripepi Smith and updating the City’s website with emergency alerts
Collaborating with the RHCA to send additional messaging via Dwelling Live and coordinate efforts
Meeting with first responders to discuss response plans, additional monitoring, and security measures
Partnering with the Rotary Club to establish a relief fund for impacted residents Enlisting Block Captain support for neighborhood communication and assistance Securing financial donations from SCE, SCG, and COX for the Rotary Relief Fund Coordinating with COX to set up a public charging station at City Hall for residents needing power and a workspace
Coordinating with Verizon to establish a second charging station at the RHCA building City Correspondence to Local, State, Federal Partners
531
City Request to SCG Regarding Delay of Planned Gas Shut-Off:
On September 13, the City Attorney formally requested that SCG delay the planned natural gas shut-off (Attachment B). The letter argued that the timing of the shut-off did not provide sufficient notice for residents to adequately plan or prepare. The letter concluded that if a delay was not granted, the City would pursue formal legal action with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) or through the courts.
On September 14, SCG responded, expressing regret over the need for the gas shut-off and stating they were continuing to monitor land movement in the community with the intention of restoring gas service when it could be done safely (Attachment C).
Filing a Formal Complaint with the CPUC:
On September 22, the City Council met in closed session and unanimously voted to direct the City Attorney to file complaints with the CPUC against SCG and SCE. This filing has been completed and the City is awaiting a hearing date.
Letter to Supervisor Janice Hahn Requesting Support:
On September 23, the City Council voted to send a letter to LA County Supervisor Janice Hahn requesting County assistance to cover the cost of additional law enforcement patrols during the utility shut offs (Attachment D). The letter also sought the Supervisor's support in urging the LA County Fire and Public Works departments to waive permitting fees for alternative power solutions during the emergency. The LA County Sheriff’s Department has been conducting active patrols in the affected areas, with Lomita Station deputies visiting homes impacted by the shut offs.
On September 8, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Fire Chief to waive inspection and permitting fees for propane, solar, and energy storage system installations until December 31, 2025, as well as reimburse residents who had already paid these fees. Councilmember Bea Dieringer spoke in favor of this request during public comment.
Willdan Engineering graciously waived up to $5,000 in permitting fees.
The City has supported residents through the permitting process and worked with the LA County Public Works Department to expedite applications and issue refunds to impacted residents. They will work with residents in the affected areas to ensure required permitting is submitted.
Proclaiming a Local Emergency:
On September 23, the City Council voted against declaring a local emergency. City staff will continue to monitor the situation and keep the Council up to date on any other developments related to this issue.
Federal Legislators Urge Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Support:
On October 21, 2024, Representative Ted Lieu, along with Senator Alex Padilla, Senator 532
Laphonza Butler, and Representative Adam Schiff, sent a joint letter urging FEMA to provide assistance and funding for residents affected by land movement on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The letter called on FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell to explore ways the agency could support mitigation efforts and provide relief to impacted homeowners (Attachment E).
City Officials’ Meetings with Local, State, and Federal Elected Officials Over the past month, City staff and Council members have held multiple meetings with elected officials. The key themes discussed included:
the re-energization of power
data demonstrating significant land movement that prompted the shut offs collaboration with LA County Public Works on stormwater management and infrastructure
financial assistance for residents impacted by the shut offs, and preventative programs or measures to mitigate future land movement.
September 20:
Mayor Leah Mirsch and City Manager Karina Bañales met with Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi and his staff to discuss recent shut offs and toured the impacted areas. Later that day, Councilmember Brea Dieringer and City Manager Bañales held a conference call with Senator Ben Allen and his staff.
October 7:
Mayor Leah Mirsch, Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Pieper, and City Manager Bañales met with CPUC Commissioner Darcie L. Houck and her staff, along with local officials, including Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor John Cruikshank, Councilmember Dave Bradley, City Manager Ara Mihranian, LA County Public Works Director Mark Pestrella, and Assistant Director Art Vander.
The group toured affected areas in Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes. Following the tour, a meeting was held with key individuals, including LA County Supervisor Janice Hahn, SCG President Maryam Brown, SCG Chief Operating Officer Jimmie Cho, SCE President and CEO Steven Powell, and Cal Water President and CEO Martin A.
Kropelnicki.
October 11:
City Manager Karina Bañales met with staff members from local, state, and federal representatives to brief them on the City’s current situation in preparation for the October 22 tour.
October 18:
Councilmember Patrick Wilson and City Manager Karina Bañales met with Senator Ben Allen and staff to discuss RH and toured the impacted areas.
October 22:
533
Mayor Pro Tem Pieper, Councilmember Patrick Wilson, and City Manager Karina Bañales led a tour of the City's impacted areas. The group included Representative Ted Lieu, Representative Adam Schiff, State Senator Ben Allen, Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, representatives from the office of Senator Laphonza Butler, LA County Supervisor Janice Hahn, Councilmember Dave Bradley, Councilmember Paul Seo, and Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager Ara Mihranian.
Staff will report out information as a result of these meetings.
Coordination Meetings
City staff have been holding coordination meetings with the California Office of Emergency Services Southern Region, Los Angeles County Disaster Management Area G, and other local partners to discuss status updates on impacted areas. Representatives from RPV and the RHCA have been in attendance.
Donations and Relief Efforts
The City Manager’s Office secured donations for winterization supplies from Republic Services, Thompson Building Materials, and COX Communications. Sandbags and rolls of plastic sheeting were procured at a reduced cost from Thompson. Educational resources on winterization were provided on the City’s website with assistance from LA County Public Works and Tripepi Smith.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Rotary Club hosted three community meals at City Hall, with food donated by local restaurants. Volunteers from the Block Captain program assisted with serving and setup. Additionally, Robert Half Staffing Services provided support to assist City staff during this time.
On October 22, 2024, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit provided a 22-passenger shuttle for a tour of impacted areas.
New Developments
534
City FAQ Email:
The City has created an email address ([email protected]) for residents to submit questions regarding the recent power and gas shut offs. This resource is intended to help residents get answers from SCE, SCG, Cal Water, or COX.
Rolling Hills Community Association:
The RHCA has contracted McGee Survey Consulting to monitor land movement, with reports presented at RHCA board meetings. The RHCA also continues to maintain roads to ensure they remain open and accessible for residents. However, vehicle weight and size limits are in place in the affected areas. Any vehicles larger than passenger cars or pickups visiting homes in these areas require authorization from the RHCA, though mail and Amazon deliveries are exempt from this restriction.
Permitting for solar panels and generators has been streamlined, allowing applications to be approved in person and over the counter during normal business hours. Permit fees have been waived. Additionally, the RHCA board has approved waiving late fees for the December 10 Association assessment for properties that have had their utilities shut off.
This waiver applies only to occupied homes with functional utilities that had gas or electricity turned off in September due to the land movement.
SCE:
On October 21 SCE notified the City that power would be restored to 12 households on October 25. As of this report, the total number of households slated for restoration has not been confirmed. City staff met with SCE on October 24 to address gaps in communication, the timing of notifications to residents, and setting realistic expectations for power restoration. Staff has requested that SCE improve communication and clarify restoration timelines for any future outages.
Cal Water:
Staff and Cal Water representatives are coordinating a presentation to the City Council to provide updates on their above-ground infrastructure.
SCG:
As a preventative measure, SCG has been installing valves throughout the City.
Winterization
The City is actively promoting proactive winterization to residents to help safeguard their property from groundwater infiltration during the winter months with information such as:
Begin filling any ground fissures
Planning and installing flood, debris, and erosion control measures prior to the storm season, as it may be too late once the conditions arise While these protective installations may not always be aesthetically pleasing, their 535
effectiveness should take priority over appearance
Be prepared to personally monitor and maintain these installations during storm periods, as even minor adjustments can prevent significant failures.
The City has partnered with Thompson Building and Materials to procure plastic sheeting and 100 filled sandbags for impacted residents. Local partners, including COX and Republic Services, are partially covering the cost of these materials. Frontier Communications has also donated 60 sandbags and 50 12x16’ tarps.
The City is providing information regarding winterization through its website, under the Resident Resources tab and RHCA e-newsletter.
Additional Information
The City continues to remind residents that if they See Something, Say Something. This pertains to utility concerns, fire, and public safety. Residents should call 911 in an emergency.
Reporting Water Leaks to Cal Water:
Cal Water has seen an increase in pipe leaks with customer private water lines and other utility lines. Residents should report water leaks to 310-257-1400 Palos Verdes Peninsula Emergency Readiness
Alert SouthBay:
Staff continues to promote Alert South Bay and having residents sign up for Alerts by texting “alertrh” to 888-777 or registering at AlertSouthBay.com Know Your Zone:
The Know Your Zone maps are utilized by local public safety agencies (Sheriff and Fire departments), as well as the Peninsula cities, to prepare residents in the event of an evacuation. In urgent situations, when an evacuation need arises, residents and visitors are provided with timely critical information for impacted zones. Knowing your zone is critical to the evacuation process. If there is a wildfire or emergency, navigating the 536
Know Your Zone map can help determine residents next steps in emergency incidents affecting where they live, work, and play. More information is available at:
PVPReady.gov.
Planning for Evacuation:
Residents are asked to consider the items in their homes and determine which of them are important. If residents had twenty minutes to evacuate, what would they grab first? Residents should consider their vehicle size and write a list of belongings that would take priority. If an emergency were to occur being prepared could save time when time is critical.
Emergency Siren Test:
On Wednesday, October 16, the City performed its first emergency Siren test after three poles were installed at separate locations within Rolling Hills. The purpose of the test was to examine the tone and volume of the siren as part of the installation process.
Following the alert a survey was sent to residents, via Dwelling Live, to gather information on the effectiveness of the sound. Many residents reported that they did not hear the siren. Staff will help identify potential deficiencies and compile a list of locations to provide HQE ahead of any full testing and going live. Additionally, HQE have produced a draft standard operating procedure (SOP) for review. Staff will begin to draft red-line versions / comments, gain feedback and input from our Public Safety partners, and then present a draft version to the Siren subcommittee for review and input prior to bringing to City Council.
Prepared Peninsula Expo:
On Sunday, October 27, 2024, from 10am –1pm, the peninsula cities hosted a free event at the Palos Verdes Farmers Market at the Peninsula High School on how to be disaster ready. There were demonstrations, instructions on building emergency bags, emergency preparedness tips for family and pets, School District preparedness plans.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - CL_AGN_240909_CC_Item15B.pdf
Attachment B - CL_AGN_240909_CC_Item15B_Letter_SCG_09-13-24.pdf Attachment C - CL_AGN_240914_CC_Item15B_SCG_ ResponseLetter.pdf Attachment D - CL_AGN_240926_CC_Item15B_Letter_SupevisorHahn.pdf Attachment E - CL_AGN_240926_CC_Item15B_CongressionalFEMA_Letter.pdf 537
Agenda Item No.: 15.B
Mtg. Date: 09/09/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SAMANTHA CREW, MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
RECEIVE AND FILE A PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS REPORT
DATE: September 09, 2024
BACKGROUND:
On July 29, 2024, Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) notified approximately 135 Portuguese Bend Community of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) households that their service would be discontinued. On August 31, 2024, Southern California Edison (SCE) gave a similar notice. Power was de-energized, and an evacuation notice was put into effect. On September 2, 2024, Edison also discontinued service to 105 Seaview homes for varying lengths of time.
There is currently no evacuation warning for Seaview. As of writing this report, gas services to additional homes in the Portuguese Bend Beach Club community have been discontinued until SoCal Gas determines it is safe to resume service.
This evening, staff will provide an update on recent events in the City of Rolling Hills and how the City, in partnership with the Rolling Hills Community Association and local partners, is working proactively to stay vigilant, informed, and prepared. Our shared commitment to keeping the community safe remains our top priority.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Rolling Hills is directly above the RPV communities impacted by gas and electric shutoffs. What has transpired in RPV has alerted our community and local partners. It is important to note that some incidents have occurred in our community that were surprising and unexpected. As a result, a proactive approach on utility infrastructure has been taken.
Cal Water
There have been two significant water line breaks on Cinchring Road, both of which were promptly addressed by Cal Water. After the first break, City staff and RHCA were able to resolve the issue the same day. Cal Water representatives then met with both agencies to discuss the next steps and reaffirm their commitment to staying proactive and vigilant. 5381
Additionally, Cal Water hired a geologist to closely monitor these areas and ensure their infrastructure meets community needs.
A separate rupture was found on Quail Ridge Road South, caused by a tree root, and repairs were made with minimal disruption.
Southern California Gas
SoCal Gas began daily monitoring of its natural gas lines in this area, including the Flying Triangle. RHCA and City staff joined SoCal Gas representatives on a tour to ensure that key areas of concern were being addressed. Their monitoring efforts have included both drivethroughs and walk-throughs. SoCal Gas has also hired a geologist to gather data and ensure the integrity of their infrastructure. Recently, they informed RHCA and the City of their plans to install isolation valves, which will allow them to safely section off the gas for repairs with minimal service disruptions, if necessary. As they continue monitoring, they are keeping City staff and RHCA updated with any developments.
Southern California Edison
SCE is also proactively inspecting its infrastructure. Residents may have received notices informing them that drones will inspect their power lines. In addition, helicopter activity throughout Rolling Hills has increased to ensure sound infrastructure. SCE aims to identify any damaged or hazardous poles that may need repair. This work is also in conjunction with SCE's wildfire prevention and mitigation program.
Los Angeles County Fire Department
The RHCA and City staff have held ongoing meetings and walk-throughs with LA County Fire Acting Assistant Fire Chief Brian Kane and Community Services Liaison Rosemary Viveros.
These meetings, which include frequent monitoring of the Flying Triangle and recently affected areas by Station 52, are aimed at ensuring community safety.
Of particular note, we discussed recent developments at Station 56. The LA County Fire Department’s maintenance team inspected the reported damage to the firehouse garage door frame at Station 56. The necessary repairs were addressed, and Chief Kane assured the City there would be no interruptions to their daily operations.
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Similarly, City staff informed LASD Captain Kimberly Guerrero of new developments within Rolling Hills.
Los Angeles Public Works – Flood Control District
The City Council Storm Drain Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of Mayor Leah Mirsch and Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Pieper, recently met with executives from the LA County Flood Control District to discuss the feasibility of capturing stormwater from the Flying Triangle. The meeting was productive as LA County provided insight into how a project of this magnitude can be approached, such as meeting with additional state and federal agencies. An additional meeting is being scheduled for an on-site visit/tour of the Flying Triangle.
Rolling Hills Community Association
The Rolling Hills Community Association is conducting GPS monitoring to assess movement 5392
on Cinchring Road, Quailridge Road South, and the Flying Triangle. Ten monitoring points have been established, and the collected data will be shared with homeowners and other stakeholders once it becomes available.
Additionally, the City’s Storm Drain Ad Hoc Committee has met with the RHCA’s Ad Hoc Committee, which includes President Fred Lorig and Director Anne Smith, to address related issues.
The City of Rolling Hills is actively collaborating with its utility partners, public safety officials, and the Rolling Hills Community Association to ensure the safety of its community.
Communication
City staff understands the importance of keeping the community informed about developments within the City of Rolling Hills and neighboring areas. To achieve this, staff will continue to use the Blue Newsletter and enhance the City website for information dissemination. Additionally, the RHCA has offered to use Dwelling Live for further information sharing and messaging.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
City staff and RHCA recognize that emergency preparedness is a collective effort, not just an individual concern. Below are a few helpful tips on getting started now:
Prepared Peninsula Expo
On Sunday, October 27, 2024, from 10 am to 1 pm, the peninsula cities are hosting a free event at the Palos Verdes Farmers Market at the Peninsula High School on how to be disaster ready. There will be demonstrations, instructions on building your own emergency bag, emergency preparedness tips for your family and pets, School District preparedness plans, trick or treating for the youth (wear costumes!) and free market food vouchers. This family fun event will be held at 27118 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates.
We are partners in keeping our community safe. If you see something, say something. In an emergency, call 911.
So Cal Gas - Look, Listen And Smell
Look – If you see a damaged connection to a natural gas appliance, dirt/water blowing into the air, a dry patch of grass, fire, or an explosion near a pipeline.
Listen – If you hear unusual sounds like hissing or whistling.
Smell – If you smell the distinctive odor of natural gas*. *Please note that odors do fade so it’s important to not solely reply on just your nose.
Report leaks to SoCal Gas at 1.800.427.2200
5403
SoCal Edison: Look Up, Look Out, And Live
When doing yard work or outdoor chores, remember to look up and look out for power lines.
Any contact with a power line can seriously hurt you, or even kill you. Be extra careful with ladders, tree trimming equipment, fruit-harvesting poles, pool skimmers, or any tool that you use above your head.
Whether overhead or on the ground, consider all power lines energized and dangerous.
Downed Lines? Stay 100 Ft. away and call 911
Report Water Leaks to Cal Water
Cal Water has seen an increase in pipe leaks with customer private water lines and other utility lines. Please report water leaks to 310.257.1400.
Alert Southbay
Please make sure you are signed up for Alerts by texting “alertrh” to 888-777 or registering at AlertSouthBay.com
Know Your Zone
The Know Your Zone maps will be utilized by local public safety agencies (sheriff and fire departments), as well as your Peninsula cities, to prepare you in the event of an evacuation. In urgent situations, when an evacuation need arises, residents and visitors will be provided with timely critical information for impacted zones. Knowing your zone is critical to the evacuation process. If there is a wildfire or emergency situation, navigating the Know Your Zone map can help determine your next steps in emergency incidents affecting where you live, work, and play. It’s also essential to sign-up for important emergency notifications through the Alert Southbay system. To find your zone, go to PVPReady.gov
All Rolling Hills Zones begin with the letters ROL
CONCLUSION
Based on the information provided, City staff welcomes feedback from the City Council on increasing communication or collaboration with local partners.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Not applicable
5414
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
5425
Patrick T. Donegan
Of Counsel
(310) 220-2172
[email protected]
Best Best & Krieger LLP | 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000, Irvine, California 92612 Phone: (949) 263-2600 | Fax: (949) 260-0972 | bbklaw.com September 13, 2024
VIA E-MAIL
The Southern California Gas Company
Attn: Gabriela Medina
1851 N. Gaffey Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Medina:
The purpose of this letter is to formally request that Southern California Gas Company (“SoCalGas”) delay the planned natural gas turn off in the City of Rolling Hills (“City”) as stated in SoCalGas’ September 12, 2024 Community Update (“Service Turn-Off”).
As you are likely aware, the City and its residents were provided notice Thursday morning that natural gas service would be turned off the following Monday. In other words, roughly 1.5 business days to prepare for this catastrophic event. The timing of this notice and Service TurnOff are unacceptable and do not give the City and its residents sufficient time to make plans and prepare for what appears to be an indefinite turn-off of natural gas service.
In short, SoCalGas’ Community Update relies upon a “recent geological hazard survey” and “an incident with the water system” to justify its decision. These tenuous reasons create more questions than they answer. Among others, what did this “recent geological hazard survey” show that would justify this drastic step? What is new and different today than say 1 week, 1 month or 1 year ago? Are there any other remedial measures that can be taken to address the issues raised by this “recent geological hazard survey” short of the Service Turn-Off? What does the water system and that entirely different utility system have to do with SoCalGas’ infrastructure and service in the City?
While SoCalGas does have the authority to take action to ameliorate public safety issues, this ability is not unlimited The California Public Utilities Commission has promulgated a comprehensive set of tariffs and rules (see Rule 23, Schedule No. GR – Residential Service Special Condition 6., etc.) governing the turn off of services. As such, an indeterminate Service Turn-Off is a drastic step and must be supported by the facts. It is the City’s position that SoCalGas’ Service Turn-Off, as currently constituted, is not supported and would be a draconian overreach that would place numerous City residents in an extremely precarious position with limited time to prepare and make other living arrangements that contemplates no natural gas service to their homes. Further, to the City’s understanding, SoCalGas has not undertaken an less impactful remedial measures as it has done in other neighboring jurisdictions. The City is unclear as to why these other jurisdictions were afforded different treatment than the City and its residents. 543
The Southern California Gas Company
September 13, 2024