SMP - 11 Geotechnical Report DRAFT- 21428 Prelim Soils Rpt ...€¦ · One bulk soil sample was...

APPENDIX E

GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

www.geoteq.com

September 26, 2017 File Number 21428 Clarett West Development 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1465 Los Angeles, California 90067 Attention: Ms. Laura Doerges

Subject: Supplemental Information - Expansive Soil Proposed Mixed-Use Development – The Plaza at Santa Monica 1301-1333 4th Street and 1324-1334 5th Street, Santa Monica, California Reference: Report by Geotechnologies, Inc.: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, dated August 29, 2017. Dear Ms. Doerges: This purpose of this letter is to provide findings and conclusions regarding the presence of expansive soils on the subject site. To date, this firm has drilled one boring on the site and therefore there is a limited availability of soil samples for testing. The results of the laboratory tests regarding expansive soils are presented below. One bulk soil sample was taken from Boring 1 at a depth of 1 to 5 feet and tested for expansion potential. The sample has an Expansion Index of 82 which is moderately expansive. The attached Plate D shows the result of the expansion test. Separately, four undisturbed soils samples were taken at or below the proposed foundation level. Samples were taken from Boring 1 at depths of 37.5, 47.5, 57.5, and 67.5 feet below the ground surface. Upon wetting at a normal pressure of 2 kips per square foot, the samples either did not expand or expanded approximately 0.3 percent. A correlative Expansion Index value cannot be determined from this data, however, these values are considered low. The attached Plate C shows the results of the consolidation tests. In summary, testing of the on-site soils indicated the Expansion Index is moderately expansive at the ground surface and low near the foundation level. Additional reinforcing is required as noted in the "Foundation Design" and "Slabs On Grade" sections of the referenced report. The validity of the recommendations presented herein is dependent upon review of the geotechnical aspects of the project during construction by this firm. The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing.

September 26, 2017 File No. 21428 Page 2

Geotechnologies, Inc. 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 y Tel: 818.240.9600 y Fax: 818.240.9675

www.geoteq.com

The exploration and testing presented in this report should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between the exploration locations or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions. Should you have any questions please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. REINARD KNUR G.E. 2755 RTK:ae Enclosures: Plate C Plate D Distribution: (3) Addressee Email to: [[email protected]]

CONSOLIDATION TEST

PLATE: CGeotechnologies, Inc.

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Consolidation Pressure (KSF)

WATER ADDED AT 2 KSF

Per

cent

Con

solid

atio

n

2016

B1 @ 47.5' (CL)

FILE NO. 21428

CLARETT WEST DEVELOPMENT

2

0

4

B1 @ 37.5' (ML)

2

0

4

2

0

4

B1 @ 57.5' (CH)

2

0

4

B1 @ 67.5' (ML)

PLATE: DFILE NO. 21428


SULFATE CONTENT:

SULFATE CONTENT

SAMPLE

< 0.1 %(percentage by weight)

COMPACTION/EXPANSION/SULFATE DATA SHEET

B1 @ 12.5'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 22.5'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 32.5'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 40'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 45'

B1 @ 50'

SULFATE CONTENT:

SAMPLE


B1 @ 55'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 60'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 65'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 70'

Geotechnologies, Inc.Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

< 0.1 %

SOIL TYPE:

SAMPLE

EXPANSION INDEX

EXPANSION CHARACTER

UBC STANDARD 18-2

MODERATE

82

ASTM D 4829

SOIL TYPE:

SAMPLE

MAXIMUM DENSITY pcf.

OPTIMUM MOISTURE %

B1 @ 1-5'

ML/CL

124.9

10.6

ASTM D-1557

B1 @ 1-5'

ML/CL

www.geoteq.com

August 29, 2017 File Number 21428 Clarett West Development 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1465 Los Angeles, California 90067 Attention: Ms. Laura Doerges

Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Mixed-Use Development – The Plaza at Santa Monica 1301-1333 4th Street and 1324-1334 5th Street, Santa Monica, California Dear Ms. Doerges: This report transmits the preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation to support the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject property prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc. This report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site, including earthwork, seismic design, retaining walls, excavations, shoring and foundation design. Engineering for the proposed project should not begin until approval of the geotechnical investigation is granted by the local building official. Significant changes in the geotechnical recommendations may result due to the building department review process. As indicated, this report is preliminary in nature and it is intended to be used as support to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project. This report is based on a limited field exploration and preliminary design plans. Therefore, this report is not suitable for submission to the building department for the purpose of attaining building permits. A more comprehensive report should be prepared when the site is available for additional exploration and the development plan are finalized. The validity of the recommendations presented herein is dependent upon review of the geotechnical aspects of the project during construction by this firm. The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. The exploration and testing presented in this report should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between the exploration locations or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions. Should you have any questions please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. WALTER LOPEZ REINARD KNUR Staff Engineer G.E. 2755 WL/RTK:km Distribution: (3) Addressee Email to: [[email protected]]

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

Geotechnologies, Inc. 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675

www.geoteq.com

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................... 2 SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 3

LOCAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 4 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ............................................................................................. 4

FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................ 4 Geologic Materials .................................................................................................................. 5 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 5 Caving ..................................................................................................................................... 6

SEISMIC EVALUATION .............................................................................................................. 6 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................................... 6 REGIONAL FAULTING ........................................................................................................... 6 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 7

Surface Rupture ...................................................................................................................... 7 Santa Monica Fault Hazard Management Zone...................................................................... 8 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................................ 8 Dynamic Dry Settlement....................................................................................................... 10 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding........................................................................................... 10 Landsliding ........................................................................................................................... 11

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 11 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 13

2016 California Building Code Seismic Parameters ............................................................ 13 WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES ............................................................................................ 13 HYDROCONSOLIDATION .................................................................................................... 14 GRADING GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................... 14

Site Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 14 Compaction ........................................................................................................................... 15 Acceptable Materials ............................................................................................................ 15 Utility Trench Backfill .......................................................................................................... 16 Shrinkage .............................................................................................................................. 16 Weather Related Grading Considerations ............................................................................. 16 Geotechnical Observations and Testing During Grading ..................................................... 17

FOUNDATION DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 17 Conventional Footings .......................................................................................................... 18 Miscellaneous Foundations ................................................................................................... 18 Lateral Design ....................................................................................................................... 19 Foundation Settlement for Conventional Footings ............................................................... 19 Mat Foundation ..................................................................................................................... 19 Lateral Design for Mat Foundation....................................................................................... 20 Foundation Settlement for Mat Foundation .......................................................................... 21 Foundation Observations ...................................................................................................... 21

RETAINING WALL DESIGN ................................................................................................. 21 Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure ....................................................................................... 22



www.geoteq.com

Surcharge from Adjacent Structures ..................................................................................... 23 Waterproofing ....................................................................................................................... 24 Retaining Wall Drainage....................................................................................................... 24 Retaining Wall Backfill ........................................................................................................ 26 Sump Pump Design............................................................................................................... 26

TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................ 27 Excavation Observations ...................................................................................................... 27

SHORING DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 28 Soldier Piles .......................................................................................................................... 28 Lagging ................................................................................................................................. 30 Lateral Pressures ................................................................................................................... 30 Tied-Back Anchors ............................................................................................................... 31 Anchor Installation................................................................................................................ 33 Deflection .............................................................................................................................. 33 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 34 Shoring Observations ............................................................................................................ 34 Raker Brace Foundations ...................................................................................................... 34

SLABS ON GRADE................................................................................................................. 35 Concrete Slabs-on Grade ...................................................................................................... 35 Outdoor Concrete Slabs ........................................................................................................ 35 Design of Slabs That Receive Moisture-Sensitive Floor Coverings .................................... 35 Concrete Crack Control ........................................................................................................ 36

SITE DRAINAGE .................................................................................................................... 37 STORMWATER DISPOSAL .................................................................................................. 37 DESIGN REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 39 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ......................................................................................... 39 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 40 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 40 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING .................................................................................................. 41

Classification and Sampling ................................................................................................. 41 Moisture and Density Relationships ..................................................................................... 42 Direct Shear Testing ............................................................................................................. 42 Consolidation Testing ........................................................................................................... 43 Grain Size Distribution ......................................................................................................... 43 Atterberg Limits .................................................................................................................... 43

ENCLOSURES

References Vicinity Map Plot Plan Survey Plan Cross Section A-A’ Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map



www.geoteq.com

ENCLOSURES - continued Seismic Hazard Zone Map Southern California Fault Map Earthquake Fault Zone Regional Geologic Map Geologic Hazard Map – City of Santa Monica Plate A-1 Plates B-1 and B-2 Plate C Plate D Plate E Plate F Calculation Sheets (13 pages)


www.geoteq.com

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

THE PLAZA AT SANTA MONICA

1301-1333 4TH STREET AND 1324-1334 5TH STREET

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the preliminary results of the geotechnical engineering investigation

performed on the subject property. The purpose of this investigation was to identify the

distribution and engineering properties of the earth materials underlying the site, and to provide

geotechnical recommendations for the design of the proposed development.

This report is preliminary in nature and it intended to be used as support to the Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) for this project. This report is based on a limited field exploration at the site

and preliminary design plans. Therefore, this report is not suitable for submission to the building

department for the purpose of attaining building permits. A more comprehensive report should

be prepared when the site is available for additional exploration and the development plan are

finalized.

This investigation included drilling one boring, collection of representative samples, laboratory

testing, engineering analysis, review of published geologic data, and the preparation of this

report. The boring location is shown on the enclosed Plot Plan. The results of the exploration

and the laboratory testing are presented in the Appendix of this report.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Information concerning the proposed development was furnished by Clarett West Development.

The proposed development consists of a podium style, mixed-use structure that includes multiple

August 29, 2017 File No. 21428 Page 3


www.geoteq.com

4- to 11-story towers underlain by three subterranean parking levels. The development will

include a hotel, retail/restaurant spaces, children’s ice skating rink, and loading dock areas.

Structural loads were not available at this time however, it is estimated that column loads may be

between 1,000 and 1,800 kips. Wall loads are estimated to be between 10 and 30 kips per lineal

foot. The proposed finished floor elevation has not been established yet, but excavations are

expected to be up to 35 feet in depth coinciding with an elevation of approximately 58 feet above

mean sea level.

The enclosed Plot Plan, Survey Plan, and Cross Section A-A’ illustrate the location, alignment

and depth of the proposed structure.

Any changes in the design of the project or location of any structure, as outlined in this report,

should be reviewed by this office. The recommendations contained in this report should not be

considered valid until reviewed and modified or reaffirmed, in writing, subsequent to such

review.

SITE CONDITIONS

The property is located at 1301-1333 4th Street and 1324-1334 5th Street in the City of Santa

Monica, California. The project site is bounded by Arizona Avenue to the north, by Fifth Street

to the east, by two to three story buildings to the south, and by Fourth Street to the west. The site

is rectangular in shape and 2.6 acres in area.

The site ranges in elevation from 94 feet at the northern corner to 86 feet at the southern corner.

For a total relief of relatively level with approximately 8 feet in a distance of 460 feet. The

overall site gradient is 60 to 1 (horizontal to vertical).



www.geoteq.com

At the time of the exploration, the site was developed with two, one-story commercial buildings,

paved parking lot areas, and an alley. The neighboring development consists of a combination of

commercial and residential structures. The enclosed Survey Plan shows the existing site

development, as well as the existing ground elevations.

Due to the existing paved conditions on the ground surface at the site, the vegetation consists of

few isolated trees.

LOCAL GEOLOGY

The site is located in the Santa Monica Plain, an alluvial deposition area that is underlain by

several hundred foot of soil derived from erosion of the Santa Monica Mountains to the north.

The sediments reflect the geology of the western Santa Monica Mountains containing clays, sand

and gravel-sized fragments of Santa Monica Slate. The geology of the site vicinity is shown on

the attached Regional Geologic Map.

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

FIELD EXPLORATION

The site was explored on June 16, 2017 by drilling one boring utilizing a truck-mounted drilling

machine equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Soil samples were taken using a at

5-foot intervals using a California-Modified, split-spoon sampler lined with 2.5-inch brass rings.

In addition, samples were taken at alternating 5-foot intervals using Standard Penetration Test

(SPT) Equipment. The samplers were advances with an automatic, 140-pound trip hammer

dropped from a height of 30 inches. The depth of the boring was 91.5 feet below the existing site

grade. The boring location is shown on the Plot Plan and the geologic materials encountered are

logged on Plate A-1. Samples of the soils encountered in the boring were conveyed to the

laboratory for testing. The results of the laboratory tests are provided herein



www.geoteq.com

The location of exploratory boring was determined by measurement from hardscape features

shown on the attached Plot Plan. Elevation of the exploratory boring was determined by

interpolation of elevation points shown on the Survey Plan prepared by JRN Civil Engineers,

dated August 29, 2014. The location and elevation of the exploratory boring should be

considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

Geologic Materials

Asphalt concrete pavement was encountered in the boring of approximately 7.5 inches thick

without base material.

Fill soil was encountered in the exploratory boring to a depth of 3 feet. Fill material underlying

the subject site consists of sandy silt, which is dark brown, moist, and fine sand.

The underlying natural soil consists of old alluvium, which is comprised of clay, sandy clay, silty

sand and slate fragments. The soils are dark brown to yellowish brown, and dark gray to olive in

color, moist to wet, medium dense to very dense, very stiff to very stiff.

The subsurface distribution of the geologic materials is shown on the attached Cross Section A-

A’.

Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in Boring 1 at a depth of 67.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs)

which corresponds to an elevation of 25 feet above mean sea level. The Survey Seismic Hazard

Zone Report of the Beverly Hills Quadrangle (CDMG, 2005) indicates the depth to the

historically highest groundwater level is 40 feet bgs which corresponds to an elevation of

approximately 55 feet above mean sea level. A copy of this plate is included herein as

Historically Highest Groundwater Levels Map.



www.geoteq.com

Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and

other factors not evident at the time of the measurements reported herein. Fluctuations also may

occur across the site. High groundwater levels can result in changed conditions.

Caving

Caving could not be directly observed during exploration due to the continuous-cased design of

the hollow stem auger. Based on the experience of this firm, large diameter excavations that

encounter granular, cohesionless soils and excavations below the groundwater table will most

likely experience caving.

SEISMIC EVALUATION

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING

The subject site is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic

Province. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest-trending blocks of mountain

ridges and sediment-floored valleys. The dominant geologic structural features are northwest

trending fault zones that either die out to the northwest or terminate at east-trending reverse

faults that form the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges.

REGIONAL FAULTING

Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) now

called California Geologic Survey (CGS), faults may be categorized as active, potentially active,

or inactive. Active faults are those which show evidence of surface displacement within the last

11,000 years (Holocene-age). Potentially-active faults are those that show evidence of most

recent surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years (Quaternary-age). Faults showing

no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive for

most purposes, with the exception of design of some critical structures.



www.geoteq.com

Buried thrust faults are faults without a surface expression but are a significant source of seismic

activity. They are typically broadly defined based on the analysis of seismic wave recordings of

hundreds of small and large earthquakes in the southern California area. Due to the buried

nature of these thrust faults, their existence is usually not known until they produce an

earthquake. The risk for surface rupture potential of these buried thrust faults is inferred to be

low (Leighton, 1990). However, the seismic risk of these buried structures in terms of

recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not well established. Therefore, the potential

for surface rupture on these surface-verging splays at magnitudes higher than 6.0 cannot be

precluded.

SEISMIC HAZARDS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The primary geologic hazard at the site is moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration)

caused by an earthquake on any of the local or regional faults. The potential for other

earthquake-induced hazards was also evaluated including surface rupture, liquefaction, dynamic

settlement, inundation and landsliding.

Surface Rupture

Surface rupture is defined as displacement which occurs along the surface trace of the causative

fault during an earthquake. Based on research of available literature and results of site

reconnaissance, no known active or potentially active faults underlie the subject site. The subject

site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDMG, 2017). The site is

located approximately 0.85-mile south of the nearest earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, the site

is located 0.45 mile south of the nearest Fault Hazard Management Zone for the Santa Monica

Fault (City of Santa Monica, 2014). Based on these considerations, the potential for surface

ground rupture at the subject site is considered low. A copy of the newly issued, Preliminary

Earthquake Fault Zone map for the Beverly Hills Quadrangle is attached to this report. A copy

of the City of Santa Monica, Geologic Hazards Map is also attached.



www.geoteq.com

Santa Monica Fault Hazard Management Zone

The City of Santa Monica has identified zones requiring additional fault studies. These zones

were created based on geologic evidence of active fault movement (within the last 11,000 years,

Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., and Rockwell, T.K., 2000) along the Santa Monica Fault. The CGS has

zoned a portion of the Santa Monica Fault with an Earthquake Fault Zone in accordance with the

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972.

The Safety Element of the City of Santa Monica General Plan (Leighton, 1994) established a

“Fault Hazard Management Zone” for the Santa Monica Fault. The Fault Hazard Management

Zone includes all areas located between approximately 500 feet north of the North Branch and

approximately 500 feet south of the South Branch of the Santa Monica Fault. The Fault Hazard

Management Zones Map also includes areas where researchers have mapped interpreted

“Strong” and “Weak” geomorphic expressions of the Santa Monica Fault.

Crook and Proctor (1992) reported the results of trenching performed at locations along the Santa

Monica Fault in the vicinity of University High School and the Veterans Administration

Hospital. Evidence of a groundwater level difference at a foundation excavation at Wilshire and

Bundy Drive was also cited. Based on the findings of the report, Holocene movement of the

Santa Monica Fault could not be proved in spite of geomorphic evidence. This portion of the

Santa Monica Fault is inferred to connect with a Holocene offset at Potrero Canyon to the west-

southwest. This portion of the Santa Monica Fault is termed the South Branch of the Santa

Monica Fault.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated silty to cohesionless soils below the

groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore

pressure during cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by an earthquake. Liquefaction-



www.geoteq.com

related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading,

and flow failures.

The Seismic Hazards Maps of the State of California (CDMG, 1999), does not classify the site as

part of the potentially “Liquefiable” area. This determination is based on groundwater depth

records, soil type and distance to a fault capable of producing a substantial earthquake.

A site-specific liquefaction analysis was performed following the Recommended Procedures for

Implementation of the California Geologic Survey Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for

Analyzing and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CGS, 2008), and the EERI Monograph

(MNO-12) by Idriss and Boulanger (2008). This semi-empirical method is based on a

correlation between measured values of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance and field

performance data.

Groundwater was encountered at 67.5 feet below existing grade. According to the Seismic

Hazard Zone Report of the Beverly Hills 7½-Minute Quadrangle (SHZR 023), the historic-high

groundwater level for the site was 40 feet below the ground surface. The historic highest

groundwater level was conservatively utilized for the enclosed liquefaction analysis.

The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and modal magnitude were obtained from the USGS

websites, using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation program (USGS, 2008) and the

U.S. Seismic Design Maps tool (USGS, 2013). A modal magnitude (MW) of 6.8 is obtained

using the USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation program (USGS, 2008). A peak

ground acceleration of 0.77g (2 percent in 50 years ground motion) was obtained using the

USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Deaggregation program. These parameters are used in the

enclosed liquefaction analyses.

The enclosed “Empirical Estimation of Liquefaction Potential” is based on Boring 1. Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) data were collected at 5-foot intervals. Samples of the collected materials



www.geoteq.com

were conveyed to the laboratory for testing and analysis. The percent passing a Number 200

sieve, Atterberg Limits, and the plasticity index (PI) of representative samples of the soils

encountered in the exploratory boring are presented on the enclosed E-Plate and F-Plate. Based

on CGS Special Publication 117A (CDMG, 2008), the vast majority of liquefaction hazards are

associated with sandy soils and silty soils of low plasticity. Furthermore, cohesive soils with PI

between 7 and 12 and moisture content greater than 85 percent of the liquid limit are susceptible

to liquefaction.

Based on the adjusted blow count data, results of laboratory testing, and the calculated factor of

safety against the occurrence of liquefaction, it is the opinion of this firm that the potential for

liquefaction at the site is considered to be remote.

Dynamic Dry Settlement

Seismically-induced settlement or compaction of dry or moist, cohesionless soils can be an effect

related to earthquake ground motion. Such settlements are typically most damaging when the

settlements are differential in nature across the length of structures.

Calculations based on the corrected SPT blow counts indicate that seismically induced settlement

on the site will be very minimal, on the order of 0.042 inch. Therefore, due to the uniform nature

of the underlying geologic material, excessive differential settlements are considered to be

negligible and within the tolerance of a well-designed structure.

Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding

Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by sudden water displacement caused by a submarine

earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Review of the County of Los Angeles Flood and

Inundation Hazards Map, Leighton (1990), indicates the site does not lie within the mapped

tsunami inundation boundaries.



www.geoteq.com

Seiches are oscillations generated in enclosed bodies of water which can be caused by ground

shaking associated with an earthquake. No major water-retaining structures are located

immediately up gradient from the project site. Therefore, the risk of flooding from a seismically-

induced seiche is considered to be remote.

Review of the County of Los Angeles Flood and Inundation Hazards Map, Leighton (1990),

indicates the site does not lie within mapped inundation boundaries due to a seiche or a breached

upgradient reservoir.

Landsliding

The probability of seismically-induced landslides occurring on the site is considered to be low

due to the general lack of elevation difference slope geometry across or adjacent to the site.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the exploration, laboratory testing, and research, it is the preliminary finding of

Geotechnologies, Inc. that construction of the proposed mixed-use development is considered

feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the advice and recommendations

presented herein are followed and implemented during construction.

This report is considered preliminary in nature and it is intended to be used as support to the

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project. Therefore, this report is not suitable for

submission to the building department for the purpose of attaining building permits. The client

shall be aware that, due to preliminary nature of the design phase, additional exploration will be

necessary in order to achieve a thorough investigation of the site when the project achieves more

definition. A comprehensive report should be prepared when the site is available for additional

exploration and the development plans are completed. Whenever structural loads become

available, we should evaluate them to confirm our design parameters based on assumptions

provided in this report.



www.geoteq.com

Three feet of fill soil was encountered during exploration at the site. It is anticipated that

excavation of the proposed subterranean levels will remove the existing fill material and expose

the underlying natural alluvial soils. The natural alluvial soil consists of a mixtures of clay, silt,

sand and gravel. The alluvium is firm to stiff and dense.

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 67.5 feet below the existing grade during our field

exploration. The historic-high groundwater level for the site was 40 feet below the ground

surface, according to the Beverly Hills 7.5 Minute Quadrangle.

The site is not subject to liquefaction during the design seismic event, nor is dry settlement

considered significant. The site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone or in a City of Santa

Monica Fault Hazard Management Zone.

Based on proposed finished floor for the lowest subterranean parking level, it is expected that

excavations will be up to 35 feet in depth for the construction of the subterranean levels and

foundation system. Shoring will be required to provide a stable excavation.

It is recommended that proposed structure be supported on spread footings bearing on the natural

alluvial soil expected at the subgrade elevation. As an alternative, the structure may be

supported on a mat foundation.

Due to the narrow elevation difference between the bottom of the proposed foundations and the

historically highest groundwater level, stormwater infiltration is not considered feasible for this

site. Also, the proposed foundation system will be located within a layer of sandy silt overlain by

a thick layer of lean clay and fat clay extending to a depth of 67.5 feet below the existing grade,

where groundwater level was encountered during exploration. The clay is not considered to be

sufficiently permeable to permit stormwater infiltration. Some other means of stormwater

disposal should be considered.



www.geoteq.com

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2016 California Building Code Seismic Parameters

According to Table 20.3-1 presented in ASCE 7-10, the subject site is classified as Site Class D,

which corresponds to a “Stiff Soil” Profile. This information and the site coordinates were input

into the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps tool (Version 3.1.0) to calculate the ground motions

for the site.

2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC PARAMETERS

Site Class D

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods (SS) 2.017g

Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.0

Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for Short Periods (SMS)

2.017g

Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDS)

1.345g

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at One-Second Period (S1) 0.750g

Site Coefficient (Fv) 1.5

Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response for One-Second Period (SM1)

1.124g

Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration for One-Second Period (SD1)

0.750g

WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES

The Portland cement portion of concrete is subject to attack when exposed to water-soluble

sulfates. Usually the two most common sources of exposure are from soil and marine

environments. The source of natural sulfate minerals in soils include the sulfates of calcium,

magnesium, sodium, and potassium. When these minerals interact and dissolve in subsurface



www.geoteq.com

water, a sulfate concentration is created, which will react with exposed concrete. Over time

sulfate attack will destroy improperly proportioned concrete well before the end of its intended

service life.

The water-soluble sulfate content of the onsite geologic materials was tested by California Test

417. The water-soluble sulfate content was determined to be less than 0.1% percentage by

weight for the soils tested. Based on American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 318-08, the

sulfate exposure is considered to be negligible for geologic materials with less than 0.1% and

Type I cement may be utilized for concrete foundations in contact with the site soils. Concrete

strength should be a minimum of 2,500psi.

HYDROCONSOLIDATION

Hydroconsolidation is a phenomena wherein soils lose volume when they are saturated and cause

overlying structures to settle. The hydroconsolidation potential was considered in this provision

of four consolidation tests. None of the tests exhibited collapse upon saturation. Based on the

laboratory testing, it is the opinion of Geotechnologies, Inc. that the potential for damaging

settlement due to hydrocollapse is anticipated to be insignificant.

GRADING GUIDELINES

The following may be utilized for any miscellaneous site grading which may be required as part

of the proposed development.

Site Preparation

A thorough search should be made for possible underground utilities and/or structures. Any existing or abandoned utilities or structures located within the footprint of the proposed grading should be removed or relocated as appropriate.



www.geoteq.com

All vegetation, existing fill, and soft or disturbed geologic materials should be removed from the areas to receive controlled fill. All existing fill materials and any disturbed geologic materials resulting from grading operations shall be completely removed and properly recompacted prior to foundation excavation.

Any vegetation or associated root system located within the footprint of the proposed

structures should be removed during grading.

Subsequent to the indicated removals, the exposed grade shall be scarified to a depth of six inches, moistened to optimum moisture content, and recompacted in excess of the minimum required comparative density.

The excavated areas shall be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing

compacted fill.

Compaction

All fill should be mechanically compacted in layers not more than 8 inches thick. All fill shall

be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density for the material used.

The maximum density shall be determined by the laboratory operated by Geotechnologies, Inc.

using the test method described in the most recent revision of ASTM D 1557.

Field observation and testing shall be performed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer

during grading to assist the contractor in obtaining the required degree of compaction and the

proper moisture content. Where compaction is less than required, additional compactive effort

shall be made with adjustment of the moisture content, as necessary, until a minimum of 90

percent compaction is obtained.

Acceptable Materials

The excavated onsite materials are considered satisfactory for reuse in the controlled fills as long

as any debris and/or organic matter is removed. Any imported materials shall be observed and

tested by the representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to use in fill areas. Imported

materials should contain sufficient fines so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable



www.geoteq.com

subgrade when compacted. Any required import materials should consist of geologic materials

with an expansion index of less than 50. The water-soluble sulfate content of the import

materials should be less than 0.1% percentage by weight.

Imported materials should be free from chemical or organic substances which could affect the

proposed development. A competent professional should be retained in order to test imported

materials and address environmental issues and organic substances which might affect the

proposed development.

Utility Trench Backfill

Utility trenches should be backfilled with controlled fill. The utility should be bedded with clean

sands at least one foot over the crown. The remainder of the backfill may be onsite soil

compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Utility trench backfill should be

tested by representatives of this firm in accordance with the most recent revision of ASTM D-

1557.

Shrinkage

Shrinkage results when a volume of soil removed at one density is compacted to a higher

density. A shrinkage factor between 5 and 10 percent should be anticipated when excavating and

recompacting the existing fill and underlying native geologic materials on the site to an average

comparative compaction of 92 percent.

Weather Related Grading Considerations

When rain is forecast all fill that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be properly

compacted prior to stopping work for the day or prior to stopping due to inclement weather.

These fills, once compacted, shall have the surface sloped to drain to an area where water can be

removed.



www.geoteq.com

Temporary drainage devices should be installed to collect and transfer excess water to the street

in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site,

and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall. Drainage should not be allowed to

flow uncontrolled over any descending slope.

Work may start again, after a period of rainfall, once the site has been reviewed by a

representative of this office. Any soils saturated by the rain shall be removed and aerated so that

the moisture content will fall within three percent of the optimum moisture content.

Surface materials previously compacted before the rain shall be scarified, brought to the proper

moisture content and recompacted prior to placing additional fill, if considered necessary by a

representative of this firm.

Geotechnical Observations and Testing During Grading

Geotechnical observations and testing during grading are considered to be a continuation of the

geotechnical investigation. It is critical that the geotechnical aspects of the project be reviewed

by representatives of Geotechnologies, Inc. during the construction process. Compliance with

the design concepts, specifications or recommendations during construction requires review by

this firm during the course of construction. Any fill which is placed should be observed, tested,

and verified if used for engineered purposes. Please advise this office at least twenty-four hours

prior to any required site visit.

FOUNDATION DESIGN

It is recommended that the proposed mixed-use structure be supported on a system of

conventional spread footings bearing in the undisturbed native soils. As an alternative, the

structure may be supported on a mat foundation. Recommendations for both options are provided

below.



www.geoteq.com

Conventional Footings

Conventional spread footings bearing in the competent native soils expected to be exposed at the

proposed subterranean level may be utilized for support of the proposed building.

Continuous foundations may be designed for a bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot,

and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 24 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent

grade and 24 inches into the recommended bearing material.

Column foundations may be designed for a bearing capacity of 4,500 pounds per square foot,

and should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, 24 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent

grade and 24 inches into the recommended bearing material.

The bearing capacity increase for each additional foot of width is 200 pounds per square foot.

The bearing capacity increase for each additional foot of depth is 250 pounds per square foot.

The maximum recommended bearing capacity is 7,000 pounds per square foot.

A minimum factor of safety of 3 was utilized in determining the allowable bearing capacities.

The bearing values indicated above are for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads,

and may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind

or seismic forces. Since the recommended bearing value is a net value, the weight of concrete in

the foundations may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of the soil backfill may

be neglected when determining the downward load on the foundations.

Miscellaneous Foundations

Foundations for small miscellaneous outlying structures, such as property line fence walls,

planters, exterior canopies, and trash enclosures, which will not be tied-in to the proposed

structure, may be supported on conventional foundations bearing in the native soils. Wall



www.geoteq.com

footings may be designed for a bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot, and should be a

minimum of 12 inches in width, 24 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 24

inches into the recommended bearing material. No bearing value increases are recommended.

Lateral Design

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by

passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with the dead

load forces.

Passive geologic pressure for the sides of foundations poured against undisturbed or recompacted

soil may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 350 pounds per cubic foot with a

maximum earth pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot. The passive and friction components

may be combined for lateral resistance without reduction. A one-third increase in the passive

value may be used for short duration loading such as wind or seismic forces.

Foundation Settlement for Conventional Footings

Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. The

maximum static settlement is expected to be 1 inch and occur below the heaviest loaded

columns. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ¼ inch.

Mat Foundation

The proposed structure will be constructed over three subterranean parking levels extending up

to 35 feet below grade. No structural loads have been provided at this time. However, based on

prior similar projects, we have estimated an average bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square

foot. Foundation bearing pressure will vary across the mat footings, with the highest

concentrated loads located at the central cores of the mat foundations.



www.geoteq.com

Given the size of the proposed mat foundation, the average bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per

square foot is well below the allowable bearing pressures, with factor of safety well exceeding 3.

For design purposes, an average bearing pressure of 5,000 pounds per square foot, with locally

higher pressures up to 7,000 pounds per square foot may be utilized in the mat foundation

design. The mat foundation may be designed utilizing a modulus of subgrade reaction of 350

pounds per cubic inch. This value is a unit value for use with a one-foot square footing. The

modulus should be reduced in accordance with the following equation when used with larger

foundations.

K = K1 * [ (B + 1) / (2 * B) ]2 where K = Reduced Subgrade Modulus

K1 = Unit Subgrade Modulus B = Foundation Width (feet)

The bearing values indicated above are for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads,

and may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind

or seismic forces. Since the recommended bearing value is a net value, the weight of concrete in

the foundations may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of the soil backfill may

be neglected when determining the downward load on the foundations.

Lateral Design for Mat Foundation

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by soil friction, and by the passive resistance of

the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces between

footings and the underlying supporting soils.

Passive earth pressure for the sides of footings poured against undisturbed soil may be computed

as an equivalent fluid having a density of 350 pounds per cubic foot, with a maximum earth

pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot. When combining passive and friction for lateral

resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third. A one-third increase in the



www.geoteq.com

passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. A minimum safety factor of 2 has been

utilized in determining the allowable passive pressure.

Foundation Settlement for Mat Foundation

The majority of the foundation settlement is expected to occur on initial application of loading.

It is anticipated that total settlement up to 3 inches will occur below the more heavily loaded

central core portions of the mat foundation beneath the tower. Settlement on the edges of the

mat foundation is expected to be between 1½ to 2 inches.

Foundation Observations

It is critical that all foundation excavations are observed by a representative of this firm to verify

penetration into the recommended bearing materials. The observation should be performed prior

to the placement of reinforcement. Foundations should be deepened to extend into satisfactory

geologic materials, if necessary. Foundation excavations should be cleaned of all loose soils

prior to placing steel and concrete. Any required foundation backfill should be mechanically

compacted, flooding is not permitted.

RETAINING WALL DESIGN

Retaining walls on the order of 35 feet in height are anticipated for the proposed subterranean

levels. It is anticipated these walls will be restrained.

Cantilever retaining walls supporting a level backslope may be designed utilizing a triangular

distribution of active earth pressure. Restrained retaining walls may be designed utilizing a

triangular distribution of at-rest earth pressure. Retaining walls may be designed utilizing the

following table:



www.geoteq.com

Height of Retaining Wall (feet)

Cantilever Retaining Wall Triangular Distribution of

Active Earth Pressure (pcf)

Restrained Retaining Wall Triangular Distribution of

At-Rest Earth Pressure (pcf)

Up to 10 feet 30

55 10 to 20 feet 38

20 to 30 feet 43

30 to 40 feet 45

The lateral earth pressures recommended above for retaining walls assume that a permanent

drainage system will be installed so that external water pressure will not be developed against the

walls. Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping

ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures.

The upper ten feet of the retaining wall adjacent to streets, driveways or parking areas should be

designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of

an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal street traffic.

If the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the retaining walls, the traffic surcharge may be

neglected. Foundations may be designed using the allowable bearing capacities, friction, and

passive earth pressure found in the “Foundation Design” section above.

Dynamic (Seismic) Earth Pressure

Retaining walls exceeding 6 feet in height shall be designed to resist the additional earth pressure

caused by seismic ground shaking. A triangular pressure distribution should be utilized for the

additional seismic loads, with an equivalent fluid pressure of 21 pounds per cubic foot. When

using the load combination equations from the building code, the seismic earth pressure should

be combined with the lateral active earth pressure for analyses of restrained basement walls

under seismic loading condition. The comparison is made is the following table:



www.geoteq.com

Use of Seismic Wall pressure

(All Pressure Distributions are Triangular)

Wall Height (feet) Active pressure (psf) Active +Seismic (psf) At-Rest (psf)

Up to 10 30 51 55

10 to 20 38 59 55

20 to 30 43 64 55

30 to 40 45 66 55

Surcharge from Adjacent Structures

As indicated herein, additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to

sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures for retaining walls and shoring design.

The following surcharge equation provided in the LADBS Information Bulletin Document No.

P/BC 2008-83, may be utilized to determine the surcharge loads on basement walls and shoring

system for existing structures located within the 1:1 (h:v) surcharge influence zone of the

excavation and basement.

Resultant lateral force: R = (0.3*P*h2)/(x2+h2) Location of lateral resultant: d = x*[(x2/h2+1)*tan-1(h/x)-(x/h)] Where: R = resultant lateral force measured in pounds per foot of wall width. P = resultant surcharge loads of continuous or isolated footings measured in

pounds per foot of length parallel to the wall. x = distance of resultant load from back face of wall measured in feet. h = depth below point of application of surcharge loading to top of wall

footing measured in feet. d = depth of lateral resultant below point of application of surcharge loading

measure in feet. tan-1(h/x) = the angle in radians whose tangent is equal to h/x.



www.geoteq.com

The structural engineer and shoring engineer may use this equation to determine the surcharge

loads based on the loading of the adjacent structures located within the surcharge influence zone.

Waterproofing

Moisture effecting retaining walls is one of the most common post construction complaints.

Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to efflorescence or standing water inside the

building. Efflorescence is a process in which a powdery substance is produced on the surface of

the concrete by the evaporation of water. The white powder usually consists of soluble salts

such as gypsum, calcite, or common salt. Efflorescence is common to retaining walls and does

not affect their strength or integrity.

It is recommended that retaining walls be waterproofed. Waterproofing design and inspection of

its installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. A qualified waterproofing

consultant should be retained in order to recommend a product or method which would provide

protection to below grade walls.

Retaining Wall Drainage

All retaining walls shall be provided with a subdrain in order to minimize the potential for future

hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the proposed retaining walls. Subdrains may consist of four-

inch diameter perforated pipes, placed with perforations facing down. The pipe shall be encased

in at least one-foot of gravel around the pipe. The gravel may consist of three-quarter inch to

one inch crushed rocks.

A compacted fill blanket or other seal shall be provided at the surface. Retaining walls may be

backfilled with gravel adjacent to the wall to within 2 feet of the ground surface. The onsite

earth materials are acceptable for use as retaining wall backfill as long as they are compacted to a

minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557.



www.geoteq.com

Certain types of subdrain pipe are not acceptable to the various municipal agencies, it is

recommended that prior to purchasing subdrainage pipe, the type and brand is cleared with the

proper municipal agencies. Subdrainage pipes should outlet to an acceptable location.

Where retaining walls are to be constructed adjacent to property lines, there is usually not

enough space for placement of a standard perforated pipe and gravel drainage system. Under

these circumstances, every other head joints may be left out, or 2-inch diameter weepholes may

be placed at the 8 feet on center along the base of the wall. The wall shall be backfilled with a

minimum of 1 foot of gravel above the base of the retaining wall. The gravel may consist of

three-quarter inch to one inch crushed rocks.

Where retaining walls are to be constructed adjacent to property lines there is usually not enough

space for emplacement of a standard pipe and gravel drainage system. Under these

circumstances, the use of a flat drainage produce is acceptable.

Some municipalities do not allow the use of flat-drainage products. The use of such a product

should be researched with the building official. As an alternative, omission of one-half of a

block at the back of the wall on eight foot centers is an acceptable method of draining the walls.

The resulting void should be filled with gravel. A collector is placed within the gravel which

directs collected waters through the wall to a sump or standard pipe and gravel system

constructed under the slab. This method should be approved by the retaining wall designer prior

to implementation.

The lateral earth pressures recommended above for retaining walls assume that a permanent

drainage system will be installed so that external water pressure will not be developed against the

walls. If a drainage system is not provided, the walls should be designed to resist an external

hydrostatic pressure due to water in addition to the lateral earth pressure. In any event, it is

recommended that retaining walls be waterproofed.



www.geoteq.com

Retaining Wall Backfill

Any required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers not more than 8 inches thick,

to at least 90 percent of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D-1557

method of compaction. Flooding should not be permitted. Proper compaction of the backfill

will be necessary to reduce settlement of overlying walks and paving. Some settlement of

required backfill should be anticipated, and any utilities supported therein should be designed to

accept differential settlement, particularly at the points of entry to the structure.

Proper compaction of the backfill will be necessary to reduce settlement of overlying walks and

paving. Some settlement of required backfill should be anticipated, and any utilities supported

therein should be designed to accept differential settlement, particularly at the points of entry to

the structure.

Sump Pump Design

The purpose of the recommended retaining wall backdrainage system is to relieve hydrostatic

pressure. Groundwater was encountered during exploration to a depth of 67.5 feet which

corresponds to approximately 32.5 feet below the lowest proposed finished floor. Therefore the

only water which could affect the proposed retaining walls would be irrigation waters and

precipitation. Additionally, the proposed site grading is such that all drainage is directed to the

street and the structure has been designed with adequate non-erosive drainage devices.

Based on these considerations the retaining wall backdrainage system is not expected to

experience an appreciable flow of water, and in particular, no groundwater will affect it.

However, for the purposes of design, a flow of 5 gallons per minute may be assumed.



www.geoteq.com

TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

It is anticipated that excavations on the order of 37 feet in vertical height will be required for the

proposed subterranean levels and foundation elements. The excavations are expected to expose

fill and dense native soils, which are suitable for vertical excavations up to 5 feet where not

surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures. Excavations which will be surcharged by adjacent

traffic, public way, or adjacent structures should be shored.

Where sufficient space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments could be sloped back

at a uniform 1:1 slope gradient to a maximum depth of 35 feet. A uniform sloped excavation

does not have a vertical component.

Where sloped embankments are utilized, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent

vehicles and storage loads near the top of slope within a horizontal distance equal to the depth of

the excavation. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the

rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff

water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. The soils exposed in the cut

slopes should be inspected during excavation by personnel from this office so that modifications

of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur.

Excavation Observations

It is critical that the soils exposed in the cut slopes are observed by a representative of

Geotechnologies, Inc. during excavation so that modifications of the slopes can be made if

variations in the geologic material conditions occur. Many building officials require that

temporary excavations should be made during the continuous observations of the geotechnical

engineer. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation.



www.geoteq.com

SHORING DESIGN

The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible

at this time. It is suggested that a review of the final shoring plans and specifications be made by

this office prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor be made.

One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles, placed in drilled holes and backfilled

with concrete. The soldier piles may be designed as cantilevers or laterally braced utilizing

drilled tie-back anchors or raker braces.

Soldier Piles

Drilled cast-in-place soldier piles should be placed no closer than 2 diameters on center. The

minimum diameter of the piles is 18 inches. Structural concrete should be used for the soldier

piles below the excavation; lean-mix concrete may be employed above that level. As an

alternative, lean-mix concrete may be used throughout the pile where the reinforcing consists of

a wideflange section. The slurry must be of sufficient strength to impart the lateral bearing

pressure developed by the wideflange section to the earth materials. For design purposes, an

allowable passive value for the earth materials below the bottom plane of excavation may be

assumed to be 500 pounds per square foot per foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions

should be implemented to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed earth

materials.

The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and retained earth material may be used to

resist the vertical component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.35

based on uniform contact between the steel beam and lean-mix concrete and retained earth. The

portion of soldier piles below the plane of excavation may also be employed to resist the

downward loads. The downward capacity may be determined using a frictional resistance of 500

pounds per square foot. The minimum depth of embedment for shoring piles is 5 feet below the



www.geoteq.com

bottom of the footing excavation, or 7 feet below the bottom of excavated plane, whichever is

deeper.

Casing may be required should caving be experienced in the saturated earth materials. If casing

is used, extreme care should be employed so that the pile is not pulled apart as the casing is

withdrawn. At no time should the distance between the surface of the concrete and the bottom of

the casing be less than 5 feet.

Piles placed below the water level will require the use of a tremie to place the concrete into the

bottom of the hole. A tremie shall consist of a water-tight tube with a diameter no less than 4

inches and connected to a concrete pump. The tube shall be equipped with a device that will

close the discharge end and prevent water from entering the tube while it is being charged with

concrete. The tremie shall be supported so as to permit free movement of the discharge end over

the entire top surface of the work and to permit rapid lowering when necessary to retard or stop

the flow of concrete. The discharge end shall be closed at the start of the work to prevent water

entering the tube and shall be entirely sealed at all times, except when the concrete is being

placed. The tremie tube shall be kept full of concrete. The flow shall be continuous until the

work is completed and the resulting concrete seal shall be monolithic and homogeneous. The tip

of the tremie tube shall always be kept about five feet below the surface of the concrete and

definite steps and safeguards should be taken to insure that the tip of the tremie tube is never

raised above the surface of the concrete.

A special concrete mix should be used for concrete to be placed below water. The design shall

provide for concrete with a strength of 1,000 psi over the initial job specification. An admixture

that reduces the problem of segregation of paste/aggregates and dilution of paste shall be

included. The slump shall be commensurate to any research report for the admixture, provided

that it shall also be the minimum for a reasonable consistency for placing when water is present.



www.geoteq.com

Lagging

Soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated pressures. Due to the

cohesionless nature of the underlying earth materials, lagging will be required throughout the

entire depth of the excavation. Due to arching in the geologic materials, the pressure on the

lagging will be less. It is recommended that the lagging should be designed for the full design

pressure but be limited to a maximum of 400 pounds per square foot. It is recommended that a

representative of this firm observe the installation of lagging to insure uniform support of the

excavated embankment.

Lateral Pressures

A triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure should be utilized for the design of cantilevered

shoring system. A trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure would be appropriate where

shoring is to be restrained at the top by bracing or tie backs. The design of trapezoidal

distribution of pressure is shown in the diagram below. Equivalent fluid pressures for the design

of cantilevered and restrained shoring are presented in the following table:

Height of Shoring

(feet)

Cantilever Shoring System Equivalent Fluid Pressure

Triangular Distribution of Pressure Active Earth Pressure (pcf)

Restrained Shoring System Lateral Earth Pressure (psf)*

Trapezoidal Distribution of Pressure

Up to 10 25 18H

10 to 20 30 19H

20 to 30 34 22H

30 to 40 37 24H

40 to 50 38 24H *Where H is the height of the shoring in feet.



www.geoteq.com

Where a combination of sloped embankment and shoring is utilized, the pressure will be greater

and must be determined for each combination. Additional active pressures should be applied

where the shoring will be surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures.

The upper ten feet of the retaining wall adjacent to streets, driveways or parking areas should be

designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of

an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal street traffic.

If the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the retaining walls, the traffic surcharge may be

neglected. Foundations may be designed using the allowable bearing capacities, friction, and

passive earth pressure found in the “Foundation Design” section above.

Tied-Back Anchors

Tied-back anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. Friction anchors are recommended. For

design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a



www.geoteq.com

plane drawn 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom plane of the excavation. Friction

anchors should extend a minimum of 20 feet beyond the potentially active wedge.

Drilled friction anchors may be designed for a skin friction of 500 pounds per square foot.

Pressure grouted anchor may be designed for a skin friction of 2,000 pounds per square foot.

Where belled anchors are utilized, the capacity of belled anchors may be designed by assuming

the diameter of the bonded zone is equivalent to the diameter of the bell. Only the frictional

resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads.

It is recommended that at least 3 of the initial anchors have their capacities tested to 200 percent

of their design capacities for a 24-hour period to verify their design capacity. The total

deflection during this test should not exceed 12 inches. The anchor deflection should not exceed

0.75 inches during the 24 hour period, measured after the 200 percent load has been applied.

All anchors should be tested to at least 150 percent of design load. The total deflection during

this test should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150 percent test load should

not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15 minute period in order for the anchor to be approved for the design

loading.

After a satisfactory test, each anchor should be locked-off at the design load. This should be

verified by rechecking the load in the anchor. The load should be within 10 percent of the design

load. Where satisfactory tests are not attained, the anchor diameter and/or length should be

increased or additional anchors installed until satisfactory test results are obtained. The

installation and testing of the anchors should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. Minor

caving during drilling of the anchors should be anticipated.



www.geoteq.com

Anchor Installation

Tied-back anchors may be installed between 20 and 40 degrees below the horizontal. Caving of

the anchor shafts, particularly within sand deposits, should be anticipated and the following

provisions should be implemented in order to minimize such caving. The anchor shafts should

be filled with concrete by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip

of the anchor to the active wedge. In order to minimize the chances of caving, it is

recommended that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with

sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with

the face of the excavation. The sand backfill should be placed by pumping; the sand may contain

a small amount of cement to facilitate pumping.

Deflection

It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should

be realized that some deflection will occur. It is estimated that the deflection could be on the

order of one inch at the top of the shored embankment. Shoring deflection shall be limited to ½

inch at the top of the shored embankment, where a structure is located within a 1:1 (h:v)

surcharge plane projected up from the base of the excavation.

If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize

settlement of adjacent buildings and utilities in adjacent street and alleys. If desired to reduce the

deflection, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design.

Where internal bracing is used, the rakers should be tightly wedged to minimize deflection. The

proper installation of the raker braces and the wedging will be critical to the performance of the

shoring.



www.geoteq.com

Monitoring

Because of the depth of the excavation, some means of monitoring the performance of the

shoring system is suggested. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral

and vertical locations of the tops of all soldier piles and the lateral movement along the entire

lengths of selected soldier piles. Also, some means of periodically checking the load on selected

anchors will be necessary, where applicable.

Some movement of the shored embankments should be anticipated as a result of the relatively

deep excavation. It is recommended that photographs of the existing buildings on the adjacent

properties be made during construction to record any movements for use in the event of a

dispute.

Shoring Observations

It is critical that the installation of shoring is observed by a representative of Geotechnologies,

Inc. Many building officials require that shoring installation should be performed during

continuous observation of a representative of the geotechnical engineer. The observations insure

that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented and so that modifications

of the recommendations can be made if variations in the geologic material or groundwater

conditions warrant. The observations will allow for a report to be prepared on the installation of

shoring for the use of the local building official, where necessary.

Raker Brace Foundations

An allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design a

raker foundations. This bearing pressure is based on a raker foundation a minimum of 4 feet in

width and length as well as 4 feet in depth. The base of the raker foundations should be

horizontal. Care should be employed in the positioning of raker foundations so that they do not

interfere with the foundations for the proposed structure.



www.geoteq.com

SLABS ON GRADE

Concrete Slabs-on Grade

Concrete floor slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches in thickness. Slabs-on-grade should be

cast over undisturbed native soils or properly controlled fill materials. Any earth materials

loosened or over-excavated should be wasted from the site or properly compacted to 90 percent

of the maximum dry density.

Outdoor Concrete Slabs

Outdoor concrete flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness. Outdoor concrete

flatwork should be cast over undisturbed natural geologic materials or properly controlled fill

materials. Any geologic materials loosened or over-excavated should be wasted from the site or

properly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.

Outdoor flatwork should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 steel bars on 18-inch center each

way.

Design of Slabs That Receive Moisture-Sensitive Floor Coverings

Geotechnologies, Inc. does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation

and mitigation. Therefore it is recommended that a qualified consultant be engaged to evaluate

the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed

construction. The qualified consultant should provide recommendations for mitigation of

potential adverse impacts of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure.



www.geoteq.com

Where dampness would be objectionable, it is recommended that the floor slabs should be

waterproofed. A qualified waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend a

product or method which would provide protection for concrete slabs-on-grade.

All concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported on vapor retarder. The design of the slab and

the installation of the vapor retarder should comply with the most recent revisions of ASTM E

1643 and ASTM E 1745. The vapor retarder should comply with ASTM E 1745 Class A

requirements.

Where a vapor retarder is used, a low-slump concrete should be used to minimize possible

curling of the slabs. The barrier can be covered with a layer of trimable, compactible, granular

fill, where it is thought to be beneficial. See ACI 302.2R-32, Chapter 7 for information on the

placement of vapor retarders and the use of a fill layer.

Concrete Crack Control

The recommendations presented in this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of

concrete slabs-on-grade due to settlement. However even where these recommendations have

been implemented, foundations, stucco walls and concrete slabs-on-grade may display some

cracking due to minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete

cracking may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete used, proper

concrete placement and curing, and by placement of crack control joints at reasonable intervals,

in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

For standard control of concrete cracking, a maximum crack control joint spacing of 12 feet

should not be exceeded. Lesser spacings would provide greater crack control. Joints at curves

and angle points are recommended. The crack control joints should be installed as soon as

practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of

one-fourth the slab thickness. Construction joints should be designed by a structural engineer.



www.geoteq.com

Complete removal of the existing fill soils beneath outdoor flatwork such as walkways or patio

areas, is not required, however, due to the rigid nature of concrete, some cracking, a shorter

design life and increased maintenance costs should be anticipated. In order to provide uniform

support beneath the flatwork it is recommended that a minimum of 12 inches of the exposed

subgrade beneath the flatwork be scarified and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction.

SITE DRAINAGE

Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Saturation of a soil

can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change

in the designed engineering properties. Proper site drainage should be maintained at all times.

All site drainage, with the exception of any required to disposed of onsite by stormwater

regulations, should be collected and transferred to the street in non-erosive drainage devices.

The proposed structure should be provided with roof drainage. Discharge from downspouts, roof

drains and scuppers should not be permitted on unprotected soils within five feet of the building

perimeter. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not

against any foundation or retaining wall. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled

over any descending slope. Planters which are located within a distance equal to the depth of a

retaining wall should be sealed to prevent moisture adversely affecting the wall. Planters which

are located within five feet of a foundation should be sealed to prevent moisture affecting the

earth materials supporting the foundation.

STORMWATER DISPOSAL

Recently regulatory agencies have been requiring the disposal of a certain amount of stormwater

generated on a site by infiltration into the site soils. Increasing the moisture content of a soil can

cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in

the designed engineering properties. This means that any overlying structure, including

buildings, pavements and concrete flatwork, could sustain damage due to saturation of the



www.geoteq.com

subgrade soils. Structures serviced by subterranean levels could be adversely impacted by

stormwater disposal by increasing the design fluid pressures on retaining walls and causing leaks

in the walls. Proper site drainage is critical to the performance of any structure in the built

environment.

It is anticipated that the proposed structure will extend to the property lines, which would not

allow for a proper horizontal setback distance between a shallow infiltration system and

structures or property lines. A deep infiltration system would not be suitable either, as the

proposed foundation system will be located within a layer of sandy silt overlain by a thick layer

of lean clay and fat clay extending to a depth of 67.5 feet below the existing grade, where

groundwater level was encountered during exploration. Clay soils have been characterized to

have very low permeability and water will take a lot longer to infiltrate. Therefore, based on

limits of excavation for the proposed subterranean levels, soil type below the footings, and

groundwater level, it is the opinion of this firm that stormwater infiltration is not feasible for the

proposed project.

Where percolation of stormwater into the subgrade soils is not advisable, most Building Officials

have allowed the stormwater to be filtered through soils in planter areas. Once the water has

been filtered through a planter it may be released into the storm drain system. It is recommended

that overflow pipes are incorporated into the design of the discharge system in the planters to

prevent flooding. In addition, the planters shall be sealed and waterproofed to prevent leakage.

Please be advised that adverse impact to landscaping and periodic maintenance may result due to

excessive water and contaminants discharged into the planters.

It is recommended that the design team (including the structural engineer, waterproofing

consultant, plumbing engineer, and landscape architect) be consulted in regard to the design and

construction of infiltration system.



www.geoteq.com

DESIGN REVIEW

Engineering of the proposed project should not begin until approval of the geotechnical report by

the Building Official is obtained in writing. Significant changes in the geotechnical

recommendations may result during the building department review process.

It is recommended that the geotechnical aspects of the project be reviewed by this firm during

the design process. This review provides assistance to the design team by providing specific

recommendations for particular cases, as well as review of the proposed construction to evaluate

whether the intent of the recommendations presented herein are satisfied.

CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

Geotechnical observations and testing during construction are considered to be a continuation of

the geotechnical investigation. It is critical that this firm review the geotechnical aspects of the

project during the construction process. Compliance with the design concepts, specifications or

recommendations during construction requires review by this firm during the course of

construction. All foundations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to placing

concrete or steel. Any fill which is placed should be observed, tested, and verified if used for

engineered purposes. Please advise Geotechnologies, Inc. at least twenty-four hours prior to any

required site visit.

If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those disclosed herein, notify

Geotechnologies, Inc. immediately so the need for modifications may be considered in a timely

manner.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly

sloped or shored. All temporary excavations should be cut and maintained in accordance with

applicable OSHA rules and regulations.



www.geoteq.com

EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS

The exploration performed for this investigation is limited to the geotechnical excavations

described. Direct exploration of the entire site would not be economically feasible. The owner,

design team and contractor must understand that differing excavation and drilling conditions may

be encountered based on boulders, gravel, oversize materials, groundwater and many other

conditions. Fill materials, especially when they were placed without benefit of modern grading

codes, regularly contain materials which could impede efficient grading and drilling. Southern

California sedimentary bedrock is known to contain variable layers which reflect differences in

depositional environment. Such layers may include abundant gravel, cobbles and boulders.

Similarly bedrock can contain concretions. Concretions are typically lenticular and follow the

bedding. They are formed by mineral deposits. Concretions can be very hard. Excavation and

drilling in these areas may require full size equipment and coring capability. The contractor

should be familiar with the site and the geologic materials in the vicinity.

CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS

The purpose of this report is to aid in the design and completion of the described project.

Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce certain risks

associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice

contained in this report are sought because of special skill in engineering and geology and were

prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice.

Geotechnologies, Inc. has a duty to exercise the ordinary skill and competence of members of the

engineering profession. Those who hire Geotechnologies, Inc. are not justified in expecting

infallibility, but can expect reasonable professional care and competence.

The scope of the geotechnical services provided did not include any environmental site

assessment for the presence or absence of organic substances, hazardous/toxic materials in the

soil, surface water, groundwater, or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands.



www.geoteq.com

Proper compaction is necessary to reduce settlement of overlying improvements. Some

settlement of compacted fill should be anticipated. Any utilities supported therein should be

designed to accept differential settlement. Differential settlement should also be considered at

the points of entry to the structure.

The City of Santa Monica does not require corrosion testing. However, if corrosion sensitive

improvements are planned, it is recommended that a comprehensive corrosion study should be

commissioned. The study will develop recommendations to avoid premature corrosion of buried

pipes and concrete structures in direct contact with the soils.

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING

Classification and Sampling

The soil is continuously logged by a representative of this firm and classified by visual

examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system (USCS). The field

classification is verified in the laboratory, also in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification

System. Laboratory classification may include visual examination, Atterberg Limit Tests and

grain size distribution. The final classification is shown on the boring logs.

Samples of the geologic materials encountered in the exploratory excavations were collected and

transported to the laboratory. Undisturbed samples of soil are obtained at frequent intervals.

Unless noted on the excavation logs as an SPT sample, samples acquired while utilizing a

hollow-stem auger drill rig are obtained by driving a thin-walled, California Modified Sampler

with successive 30-inch drops of a 140-pound hammer. The soil is retained in brass rings of 2.50

inches outside diameter and 1.00 inch in height. The central portion of the samples are stored in

close fitting, waterproof containers for transportation to the laboratory. Samples noted on the

excavation logs as SPT samples are obtained in accordance with the most recent revision of

ASTM D 1586. Samples are retained for 30 days after the date of the geotechnical report.



www.geoteq.com

Moisture and Density Relationships

The field moisture content and dry unit weight are determined for each of the undisturbed soil

samples, and the moisture content is determined for SPT samples by the most recent revision of

ASTM D 4959 or ASTM D 4643. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the

soil consistency between exploration locations and any local variations. The dry unit weight is

determined in pounds per cubic foot and shown on the “Boring Logs”, A-Plate. The field

moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight.

Direct Shear Testing

Shear tests are performed by the most recent revision of ASTM D 3080 with a strain controlled,

direct shear machine manufactured by Soil Test, Inc. or a Direct Shear Apparatus manufactured

by GeoMatic, Inc. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.005 inches per minute. Each

sample is sheared under varying confining pressures in order to determine the Mohr-Coulomb

shear strength parameters of the cohesion intercept and the angle of internal friction. Samples

are generally tested in an artificially saturated condition. Depending upon the sample location

and future site conditions, samples may be tested at field moisture content. The results are

plotted on the "Shear Test Diagram," B-Plates.

The most recent revision of ASTM 3080 limits the particle size to 10 percent of the diameter of

the direct shear test specimen. The sheared sample is inspected by the laboratory technician

running the test. The inspection is performed by splitting the sample along the sheared plane and

observing the soils exposed on both sides. Where oversize particles are observed in the shear

plane, the results are discarded and the test run again with a fresh sample.



www.geoteq.com

Consolidation Testing

Settlement predictions of the soil's behavior under load are made on the basis of the

consolidation tests using the most recent revision of ASTM D 2435. The consolidation

apparatus is designed to receive a single one-inch high ring. Loads are applied in several

increments in a geometric progression, and the resulting deformations are recorded at selected

time intervals. Porous stones are placed in contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to

permit addition and release of pore fluid. Samples are generally tested at increased moisture

content to determine the effects of water on the bearing soil. The normal pressure at which the

water is added is noted on the drawing. Results are plotted on the "Consolidation Test," C-

Plates.

Grain Size Distribution

These tests cover the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle sizes in soils.

Sieve analysis is used to determine the grain size distribution of the soil larger than the Number

200 sieve. The most recent revision of ASTM D 422 is used to determine particle sizes smaller

than the Number 200 sieve. A hydrometer is used to determine the distribution of particle sizes

by a sedimentation process. The grain size distributions are plotted on the enclosed E-Plates.

Atterberg Limits

Depending on their moisture content, cohesive soils can be solid, plastic, or liquid. The water

content corresponding to the transition from solid to plastic or plastic to liquid are known as the

Atterberg Limits. The transitions are called the plastic limit and liquid limit. The difference

between the liquid limit and plastic limit is known as the plasticity index. ASTM D 4318 is

utilized to determine the Atterberg Limits. The results are shown on the enclosed F-Plate.


www.geoteq.com

REFERENCES California Department of Conservation, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic

Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, California Geological Survey. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard

Zones Map, Beverly Hills 7½-minute Quadrangle, CDMG Seismic Hazard Zone Mapping Act of 1990.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998 (Revised 2005),

Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the Beverly Hills 7½-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California., C.D.M.G. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 023, map scale 1:24,000.

California Geological Survey, 2017, Earthquake Fault Zones, Preliminary Review Map, Beverly

Hills 7 ½-minute Quadrangle, map scale 1:24,000. City of Santa Monica, Department of Building and Safety, March 2010, Guidelines for

Geotechnical Reports, Version 1.6. City of Santa Monica, Department of Building and Safety, 2014, Geological Hazards Map, Map

scale 1:26,000. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1995, Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the

City of Santa Monica General Plan, Project No. 2910399-01. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1990, Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los

Angeles County General Plan: Hazard Reduction in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2010, Groundwater Wells Website http://gis.dpw.lacounty.gov/wells/viewer.asp. Tinsley, J.C., and Fumal, T.E., 1985, Mapping quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Areal

Variations in Shaking Response, in Evaluation Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region- An Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, Ziony, J.I. ed., pp 101-125.

United States Geological Survey, 2017, U.S.G.S. Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version

5.1.0). http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/ United States Geological Survey, 2017, U.S.G.S. Interactive Deaggregation Program.

http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Los

Angeles 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, 2005, Compiled by Robert F. Yerkes and Russell H. Campbell.

Yerkes, R.F., et al. 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles, Basin, California- An Introduction, U.S.

Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A.

REFERENCE:

VICINITY MAP

FILE NO. 21428

BEVERLY HILLS, CA QUADRANGLEU.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES,

CLARETT WEST DEVELOPMENTGeotechnologies, Inc.Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

N

Well No. 2537

Well No. 2546L

Well No. 2539L

SEISMIC STATION 24538LAT: 34.0110 / LONG: 118.4900



SUBJECT SITESUBJECT SITELAT: 34.0177 / LONG: 118.4959

4TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE

ELEVATION IN FEET

A

8090100 6070 01020304050 -20

-10

110

120

130

140

A'

ELEVATION IN FEET

PRO

POSE

D S

TRU

CTU

RE

8090100

6070 01020304050 -20

-10

110

120

130

140

P.L

.P

.L.

4TH

ST

RE

ET

5TH

ST

RE

ET

BO

RIN

G 1

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

EN

CO

UN

TE

RE

D I

N B

OR

ING

CR

OS

S-S

EC

TIO

N A

-A'

160

800

SC

AL

E I

N F

EE

T

N46

E

Con

sult

ing

Geo

tech

nic

al

En

gin

eers

FIL

E N

o.

2142

8D

RA

WN

BY

: T

CGe

otec

hnol

ogie

s, In

c.D

AT

E:

Ju

ly 2

017

RE

FER

EN

CE

S:

AL

TA

/AC

SM

LA

ND

TIT

LE

SU

RV

EY

PR

OV

IDE

D B

Y J

RN

CIV

IL E

NG

INE

ER

SD

AT

ED

AU

GU

ST

29,

201

4

CL

AR

ET

T W

ES

T D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

Exi

stin

g G

.S.

Fill

Old

All

uvi

um

?Fi

ll?

?

1301

‐1333 4TH STR

EET & 132

4‐13

34 5TH

STR

EET, SAN

TA M

ONICA

ES

TIM

AT

ED

F.F

.E.:

58'

Old

All

uvi

um

Old

All

uvi

um

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

LY H

IGH

ES

T

Ele

v.54

'

WML

HISTORICALLY HIGHEST GROUNDWATER LEVELS

REFERENCE:

20 Depth to groundwater in feet


SUBJECT SITE

N

CDMG, SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE REPORT, 023BEVERLY HILLS 7.5 - MINUTE QUADRANGLE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (1998, REVISED 2005)

FILE NO. 21428

CLARETT WEST DEVELOPMENT4TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP

GGeeootteecchhnnoollooggiieess,, IInncc..Consulting Geotechnical Engineers

LIQUEFACTION AREA

REFERENCE:1999, DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGYSEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP, BEVERLY HILLS QUADRANGLE,

N

SUBJECT SITE

FILE NO. 21428


22 AArrrroowwhheeaadd ffaauulltt33 BBaaiilleeyy ffaauulltt44 BBiigg MMoouunnttaaiinn ffaauulltt55 BBiigg PPiinnee ffaauulltt66 BBllaakkee RRaanncchh ffaauulltt77 CCaabbrriilllloo ffaauulltt88 CChhaattsswwoorrtthh ffaauulltt99 CChhiinnoo ffaauulltt

1100 CCllaammsshheellll--SSaawwppiitt ffaauulltt1111 CClleeaarrwwaatteerr ffaauulltt1122 CClleegghhoorrnn ffaauulltt1133 CCrraaffttoonn HHiillllss ffaauulltt zzoonnee1144 CCuuccaammoonnggaa ffaauulltt zzoonnee1155 DDrryy CCrreeeekk ffaauulltt1166 EEaaggllee RRoocckk ffaauulltt1177 EEll MMooddeennoo ffaauulltt1188 FFrraazziieerr MMoouunnttaaiinn tthhrruusstt1199 GGaarrlloocckk ffaauulltt zzoonnee2200 GGrraassss VVaalllleeyy ffaauulltt

2211 HHeelleennddaallee ffaauulltt2222 HHoollllyywwoooodd ffaauulltt2233 HHoollsseerr ffaauulltt2244 LLiioonn CCaannyyoonn ffaauulltt2255 LLllaannoo ffaauulltt2266 LLooss AAllaammiittooss ffaauulltt2277 MMaalliibbuu CCooaasstt ffaauulltt2288 MMiinntt CCaannyyoonn ffaauulltt2299 MMiirraaggee VVaalllleeyy ffaauulltt zzoonnee3300 MMiissssiioonn HHiillllss ffaauulltt3311 NNeewwppoorrtt IInngglleewwoooodd ffaauulltt zzoonnee3322 NNoorrtthh FFrroonnttaall ffaauulltt zzoonnee3333 NNoorrtthhrriiddggee HHiillllss ffaauulltt3344 OOaakk RRiiddggee ffaauulltt3355 PPaallooss VVeerrddeess ffaauulltt zzoonnee3366 PPeelloonnaa ffaauulltt3377 PPeerraallttaa HHiillllss ffaauulltt3388 PPiinnee MMoouunnttaaiinn ffaauulltt3399 RRaayymmoonndd ffaauulltt4400 RReedd HHiillll ((EEttiiwwaannddaa AAvvee)) ffaauulltt

4411 RReeddoonnddoo CCaannyyoonn ffaauulltt4422 SSaann AAnnddrreeaass FFaauulltt4433 SSaann AAnnttoonniioo ffaauulltt4444 SSaann CCaayyeettaannoo ffaauulltt4455 SSaann FFeerrnnaannddoo ffaauulltt zzoonnee4466 SSaann GGaabbrriieell ffaauulltt zzoonnee4477 SSaann JJaacciinnttoo ffaauulltt4488 SSaann JJoossee ffaauulltt4499 SSaannttaa CCrruuzz--SSaannttaa CCaattaalliinnaa RRiiddggee ff..zz..5500 SSaannttaa MMoonniiccaa ffaauulltt5511 SSaannttaa YYnneezz ffaauulltt5522 SSaannttaa SSuussaannaa ffaauulltt zzoonnee5533 SSiieerrrraa MMaaddrree ffaauulltt zzoonnee5544 SSiimmii ffaauulltt5555 SSoolleeddaadd CCaannyyoonn ffaauulltt5566 SSttooddddaarrdd CCaannyyoonn ffaauulltt5577 TTuunnnneell RRiiddggee ffaauulltt5588 VVeerrdduuggoo ffaauulltt5599 WWaatteerrmmaann CCaannyyoonn ffaauulltt6600 WWhhiittttiieerr ffaauulltt

11 AAllaammoo tthhrruusstt

hhttttpp::////ppaassaaddeennaa..wwrr..uussggss..ggoovv//iinnffoo//iimmaaggeess//LLAA%%2200FFaauullttss..ppddff

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FAULT MAPRREEFFEERREENNCCEE::

Geotechnologies, Inc.CCoonnssuullttiinngg GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall EEnnggiinneeeerrss

SUBJECT SITE

FILE NO. 21428


EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE

FILE NO. 21428

CLARETT WEST DEVELOPMENTGeotechnologies, Inc.


Earthquake Fault ZonesAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone

N

REFERENCE: PRELIMINARY EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES, BEVERLY HILLS QUADRANGLE,CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, JULY 2017

4TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE

SUBJECT SITE

Cons

ulting

Geo

techn

ical E

ngine

ers

RE

GIO

NA

L G

EO

LO

GIC

MA

P

Geot

echn

olog

ies,

Inc.

RE

FE

RE

NC

E:

U.S

. DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

TH

E I

NT

ER

IOR

, U.S

. GE

OL

OG

ICA

L S

UR

VE

Y, P

RE

LIM

INA

RY

GE

OL

OG

IC M

AP

OF

TH

E L

OS

AN

GE

LE

S 3

0' X

60'

QU

AD

RA

NG

LE

, SO

UT

HE

RN

CA

LIF

OR

INA

,V

ER

SIO

N 1

.0, 2

005,

CO

MP

ILE

D B

Y R

OB

ER

T F

. YE

RK

ES

AN

D R

US

SE

LL

H. C

AM

PB

EL

L.

SU

BJE

CT

SIT

E

2 M

ile R

adiu

s

LE

GE

ND

Qaf

: A

rtif

icia

l F

ill

Qa:

All

uvi

um

Qf:

All

uvi

al-F

an D

epos

its

Qof

: O

ld A

llu

vial

-Fan

Dep

osit

s

Tm

: M

odel

o F

orm

atio

nT

t: T

op

anga

Gro

up

TK

b:

Sed

imen

tary

Roc

k i

n t

he

Bev

erly

Hil

ls A

rea

Jsm

: S

anta

Mon

ica

Sla

te

Qoa

: O

ld A

llu

viu

m

Kt:

Tu

na

Can

yon

For

mat

ion

Fa

ult

- S

olid

wh

ere

accu

rate

ly l

ocat

ed, d

ash

ed w

her

e ap

pro

xim

atel

ylo

cate

d,

dot

ted

wh

ere

con

ceal

ed, q

uie

ried

wh

ere

loca

tion

or

exis

ten

ceu

nce

rta

in.

incl

ud

es s

trik

e sl

ip, n

orm

al, r

ever

se, o

bli

qu

e, a

nd

un

spec

ifie

d s

lip

.

FIL

E N

O.

2142

8

CL

AR

ET

T W

ES

T D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

4TH

ST

RE

ET

AN

D A

RIZ

ON

A A

VE

NU

E

Consu

lting G

eotech

nical E

nginee

rs

GE

OL

OG

IC H

AZ

AR

D M

AP

Geot

echn

olog

ies,

Inc.

FIL

E N

O.

2142

8

CL

AR

ET

T W

ES

T D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

4TH STR

EET AND ARIZO

NA AV

ENUE

SU

BJE

CT

SIT

E

Clarett West Development Date: 06/16/17 Elevation: 92.5'*

File No. 21428 Method: 8-inch Hollow Stem Augerkm *Ref: ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey by JRN Civil Engineers, dated 8/29/14

Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS DescriptionDepth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class. Surface Conditions: Asphalt Parking Lot

0 -- 7½-inch Thick Asphalt, No Base-

1 -- FILL: Sandy Silt, dark brown, moist-

2 --2.5 33 15.7 117.4 -

3 --- CL OLD ALLUVIUM: Lean Clay, dark brown, moist, hard

4 ---

5 34 14.1 SPT 5 --- gravel to 1" (slate), some fine Sand

6 ---

7 --7.5 49 7.4 128.7 -

8 -- CL Sandy Lean Clay, dark brown, moist, very stiff, fine Sand, - gravel (up to 1½ inch in size)

9 ---

10 27 12.2 SPT 10 --- some slate gravel (up to 1 inch in size)

11 ---

12 --12.5 48 3.3 137.2 -

13 -- dark brown, moist, fine Sand, abundant slate (up to 1 inch in- size), some Clay

14 ---

15 29 6.3 SPT 15 --- SM Silty Sand, dark gray, medium dense, fine grained, abundant

16 -- slate (up to 1 inch in size)-

17 --17.5 48 5.3 118.4 -

18 -- dark and yellowish brown, moist, dense, fine grained, some- cementation

19 ---

20 25 7.3 SPT 20 --- dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine gravel

21 ---

22 --22.5 68 4.4 139.2 -

23 -- dense, fine grained, abundant slate and gravel (up to 1 inch in - size)

24 ---

25 24 13.9 SPT 25 --- CL Sandy Lean Clay, brown, moist, very stiff, fine Sand, some

slate (up to 1 inch in size)

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1a

BORING LOG NUMBER 1

Clarett West Development

File No. 21428km

Sample Blows Moisture Dry Density Depth in USCS DescriptionDepth ft. per ft. content % p.c.f. feet Class.

-26 --

-27 --

27.5 72 9.8 127.6 -28 -- dark brown, interlayer of fine Sand, rock fragment (Santa

- Monica slate (up to 2½ inches in size)29 --

-30 27 12.1 SPT 30 --

- ML Sandy Silt, brown, moist, fine Sand, very stiff31 --

-32 --

32.5 29 14.5 99.9 -33 -- SM Silty Sand, dark brownish gray, medium dense, fine Sand

-34 --

-35 18 11.3 SPT 35 --

- dark brown and gray, medium dense, fine grained, some slate36 -- (up to 1 inch in size)

-37 --

37.5 55 21.9 104.6 -38 -- ML Sandy Silt, brown, moist, hard, fine Sand

-39 --

-40 19 21.0 SPT 40 --

- CL Sandy Lean clay, brown, very moist, very stiff, fine Sand41 --

-42 --

42.5 31 12.9 100.3 -43 -- ML Sandy Silt, moist, brown, hard, fine Sand

-44 --

-45 17 19.0 SPT 45 --

- CL Lean Clay, reddish brown, moist, very stiff46 --

-47 --

47.5 39/6" 10.2 117.4 -50/4" 48 -- hard

-49 --

-50 36 19.3 SPT 50 --

- becomes dark brownish gray, hard

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1b

BORING LOG NUMBER 1


File No. 21428km


-51 --

-52 --

52.5 76 18.4 102.0 -53 -- ML Sandy Silt, olive brown and dark brown mottled, moist, hard,

- fine Sand54 --

-55 33 26.9 SPT 55 --

- CH Fat Clay, olive, hard, some fine Sand, some Silt56 -- fine grained

-57 --

57.5 72 24.4 100.4 -58 -- dark brown and orange brown mottled, hard

-59 --

-60 32 26.8 SPT 60 --

- CL Lean Clay, dark brownish gray, moist, hard61 --

-62 --

62.5 54 27.6 89.5 -63 -- dark grayish brown, very moist

-64 --

-65 25 27.0 SPT 65 --

- CH Fat Clay, dark gray, very stiff, very moist66 --

-67 --

67.5 50/4" 15.8 111.2 -68 -- ML Sandy Silt, dark orange brown, moist, hard, fine Sand, some

- Clay69 --

-70 37 18.9 SPT 70 --

- SM Silty Sand, orange brown, very moist, fine to medium dense71 --

-72 --

72.5 88 27.5 96.5 -73 -- CL Lean Clay, dark gray, hard

-74 --

- SP Poorly Graded Sand, moist, orange brown, very dense, fine to75 78 12.8 SPT 75 -- medium grained

-

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1c

BORING LOG NUMBER 1


File No. 21428km


-76 --

-77 --

77.5 75 13.5 Disturbed -78 -- wet

-79 --

-80 80 13.2 SPT 80 --

- SW Well-Graded Sand, yellowish brown, very moist, very dense,81 -- fine to coarse grained

-82 --

82.5 50/5" 13.2 Disturbed - SP Poorly Graded Sand, yellowish brown, wet, very dense, fine to83 -- medium grained, some Silt

-84 --

-85 50/3" 18.5 SPT 85 --

- dark olive gray, becomes fine grained, very dense86 --

-87 --

87.5 50/5" 14.0 Disturbed -88 --

-89 --

-90 50/4" 25.5 SPT 90 -- gray to dark gray

-91 --

-92 -- Total Depth 90 feet

- Water at 67½ feet93 -- Fill to 3 feet

-94 --

- NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate95 -- boundary between earth types; the transition may be gradual.

-96 -- Used 8-inch diameter Hollow-Stem Auger

- 140-lb. Automatic Hammer, 30-inch drop97 -- Modified California Sampler used unless otherwise noted

-98 -- SPT=Standard Penetration Test

-99 --

-100 --

-

GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plate A-1d

BORING LOG NUMBER 1

SHEAR TEST DIAGRAMDirect Shear, Saturated

C = 170 PSF

PHI = 33 DEGREES

3.5

3.0

Normal Pressure (KSF)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(KS

F)

0.5

03.02.52.01.51.00.50

SAMPLE MOISTURE(%)INITIAL

MOISTURE(%)FINAL

SOIL TYPEB1 @ 12.5' CL 137.2 3.3 12.8

DENSITY (PCF)DRY

B1 @ 22.5' SM 139.2 4.4 14.0B1 @ 32.5' SM 99.9 14.5 21.6

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

PLATE: B-1FILE NO. 21428


B1 @ 12.5'

B1 @ 22.5'

B1 @ 32.5'

B1 @ 42.5'

B1 @ 12.5'

B1 @ 12.5'B1 @ 22.5'

B1 @ 22.5'

B1 @ 32.5'

B1 @ 32.5'

B1 @ 42.5'

B1 @ 42.5'

B1 @ 42.5' CL 100.3 12.9 22.7

SHEAR TEST DIAGRAMDirect Shear, Saturated

C = 250 PSF

PHI = 30 DEGREES

3.5

3.0

Normal Pressure (KSF)

She

ar S

tren

gth

(KS

F)

0.5

03.02.52.01.51.00.50

SAMPLE MOISTURE(%)INITIAL

MOISTURE(%)FINAL

SOIL TYPE DENSITY (PCF)DRY

B1 @ 32.5' SM 99.9 14.5 21.6B1 @ 42.5' CL 100.3 12.9 22.7B1 @ 47.5' CL 117.4 10.2 27.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

B1 @ 52.5' ML 102.0 18.4 25.4B1 @ 62.5' CL 89.5 27.6 35.8

PLATE: B-2FILE NO. 21428


B1 @ 42.5'

B1 @ 47.5'

B1 @ 52.5'B1 @ 62.5'

B1 @ 47.5'

B1 @ 47.5'

B1 @ 42.5'

B1 @ 42.5'

B1 @ 52.5'

B1 @ 52.5',B1 @ 62.5'

B1 @ 62.5'

B1 @ 32.5'

B1 @ 32.5',

B1 @ 32.5'

CONSOLIDATION TEST

PLATE: CGeotechnologies, Inc.


.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Consolidation Pressure (KSF)

WATER ADDED AT 2 KSF

Per

cent

Con

solid

atio

n

2016

B1 @ 47.5' (CL)

FILE NO. 21428


2

0

4

B1 @ 37.5' (ML)

2

0

4

2

0

4

B1 @ 57.5' (CH)

2

0

4

B1 @ 67.5' (ML)

PLATE: DFILE NO. 21428


SULFATE CONTENT:

SULFATE CONTENT

SAMPLE


COMPACTION/EXPANSION/SULFATE DATA SHEET

B1 @ 12.5'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 22.5'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 32.5'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 40'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 45'

B1 @ 50'

SULFATE CONTENT:

SAMPLE


B1 @ 55'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 60'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 65'

< 0.1 %

B1 @ 70'


< 0.1 %

PLATE: E

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CLAYSILTSAND

MEDIUM TO COARSE FINE

GRAVEL

U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G B

Y W

EIG

HT

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

FILE NO. 21428

3 in

.

3/4

in.

3/8

in.

NO

. 4

NO

. 10

NO

.20

NO

. 40

NO

. 100

NO

. 200

100.

0

10.0 1.0

0.1

0.01

0.00

1

76.2

0

19.0

5

9.52

4.75

2.00

0.84

0

0.42

0

0.15

0

0.07

5


GRAIN DIAMETER (mm)

25.4

1 in

.


B1 @ 35'

B1 @ 50'B1 @ 45'

B1 @ 40'

B1 @ 60'

B1 @ 55'

B1 @ 65'

B1 @ 70'

B1 @ 42.5'

Geotechnologies, Inc.Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FILE NO. 21428 PLATE: F

ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATIONCLARETT WEST DEVELOPMENT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100

10

20

30

40

60

50

70

80

CL

CL-ML

andOH MH

CH

A LINE

LIQUID LIMIT, LL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100

10

20

30

40

60

50

70

80

CL

CL-ML

ML and OL

andOH MH

CH

A LINE

LIQUID LIMIT, LL

PLA

STI

CIT

Y IN

DE

X, P

I

ML and OL

ASTM D4318

BORINGNUMBER

DEPTH(FEET) LL PL PI DESCRIPTIONTEST

SYMBOLB1 40 34 21 13 CL

B1 45 37 21 CLB1 50 53 33B1 55 82 59B1 60 49 25B1 65 52 28 CH

1620232424

CHCHCL

B1 42.5 38 19 19 CL

Geotechnologies, Inc.Project: Clarett West DevelopmentFile No.: 21428Description: Liquefaction AnalysisBoring Numbe 1

EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: BOREHOLE AND SAMPLER INFORMATION:Earthquake Magnitude (M): 6.8 Borehole Diameter (inches): 8Peak Ground Horizontal Acceleration, PGA (g): 0.77 SPT Sampler with room for Liner (Y/N): YCalculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 1.196 LIQUEFACTION BOUNDARY:GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: Plastic Index Cut Off (PI): 12Current Groundwater Level (ft): 67.5 Minimum Liquefaction FS: 1.3Historically Highest Groundwater Level* (ft): 40.0Unit Weight of Water (pcf): 62.4* Based on California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report

Depth to Total Unit Current Historical Field SPT Depth of SPT Fines Content Plastic Vetical Effective Fines Stress Cyclic Shear Cyclic Factor of Safety LiquefactionBase Layer Weight Water Level Water Level Blowcount Blowcount #200 Sieve Index Stress Vert. Stress Corrected Reduction Ratio Resistance CRR/CSR Settlment

(feet) (pcf) (feet) (feet) N (feet) (%) (PI) vc, (psf) vc', (psf) (N1)60-cs Coeff, rd CSR Ratio (CRR) (F.S.) Si (inches)

1 135.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 34 5.5 0.0 0 135.8 135.8 81.0 1.00 0.504 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.002 135.8 Unsaturated Unsaturated 34 5.5 0.0 0 271.6 271.6 81.0 1.00 0.502 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.003 131.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 34 5.5 0.0 0 403.1 403.1 73.7 1.00 0.501 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.004 131.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 34 5.5 0.0 0 534.6 534.6 68.4 0.99 0.499 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.005 131.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 34 5.5 0.0 0 666.1 666.1 68.8 0.99 0.497 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.006 131.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 34 5.5 0.0 0 797.6 797.6 65.7 0.99 0.495 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.007 131.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 34 5.5 0.0 0 929.1 929.1 63.1 0.98 0.493 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.008 138.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 1067.3 1067.3 49.4 0.98 0.491 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.009 138.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 1205.5 1205.5 50.2 0.98 0.489 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.00

10 138.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 1343.7 1343.7 48.7 0.97 0.487 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0011 138.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 1481.9 1481.9 47.4 0.97 0.485 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0012 138.2 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 1620.1 1620.1 46.2 0.96 0.483 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0013 141.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 1761.8 1761.8 45.1 0.96 0.481 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0014 141.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 1903.5 1903.5 44.1 0.95 0.478 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0015 141.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 10.5 0.0 0 2045.2 2045.2 48.3 0.95 0.476 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0016 124.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 15.5 0.0 0 2169.9 2169.9 51.1 0.94 0.473 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0017 124.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 15.5 0.0 0 2294.6 2294.6 50.4 0.94 0.471 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0018 124.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 15.5 0.0 0 2419.3 2419.3 49.7 0.93 0.468 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0019 124.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 15.5 0.0 0 2544.0 2544.0 49.0 0.93 0.466 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0020 124.7 Unsaturated Unsaturated 29 15.5 0.0 0 2668.7 2668.7 48.4 0.92 0.463 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0021 145.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 25 20.5 0.0 0 2814.0 2814.0 41.0 0.92 0.460 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0022 145.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 25 20.5 0.0 0 2959.3 2959.3 40.4 0.91 0.458 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0023 145.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 25 20.5 0.0 0 3104.6 3104.6 39.7 0.91 0.455 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0024 145.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 25 20.5 0.0 0 3249.9 3249.9 39.0 0.90 0.452 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0025 145.3 Unsaturated Unsaturated 25 20.5 0.0 0 3395.2 3395.2 38.4 0.90 0.450 2.000 Non-Liq. 0.0026 140.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 24 25.5 0.0 0 3535.3 3535.3 35.7 0.89 0.447 1.329 Non-Liq. 0.0027 140.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 24 25.5 0.0 0 3675.4 3675.4 35.2 0.88 0.444 1.176 Non-Liq. 0.0028 140.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 24 25.5 0.0 0 3815.5 3815.5 37.2 0.88 0.441 1.836 Non-Liq. 0.0029 140.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 24 25.5 0.0 0 3955.6 3955.6 36.7 0.87 0.438 1.605 Non-Liq. 0.0030 140.1 Unsaturated Unsaturated 24 25.5 0.0 0 4095.7 4095.7 36.3 0.87 0.435 1.424 Non-Liq. 0.0031 114.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 30.5 0.0 0 4210.1 4210.1 42.0 0.86 0.432 1.905 Non-Liq. 0.0032 114.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 27 30.5 0.0 0 4324.5 4324.5 41.6 0.86 0.429 1.886 Non-Liq. 0.0033 114.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 0.0 0 4438.9 4438.9 23.5 0.85 0.426 0.273 Non-Liq. 0.0034 114.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 0.0 0 4553.3 4553.3 23.2 0.84 0.423 0.267 Non-Liq. 0.0035 114.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 40.8 0 4667.7 4667.7 28.5 0.84 0.420 0.413 Non-Liq. 0.0036 114.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 40.8 0 4782.1 4782.1 28.3 0.83 0.417 0.400 Non-Liq. 0.0037 114.4 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 40.8 0 4896.5 4896.5 28.0 0.83 0.414 0.389 Non-Liq. 0.0038 127.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 0.0 0 5024.0 5024.0 22.2 0.82 0.411 0.247 Non-Liq. 0.0039 127.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 0.0 0 5151.5 5151.5 22.0 0.81 0.408 0.242 Non-Liq. 0.0040 127.5 Unsaturated Unsaturated 18 35.5 0.0 0 5279.0 5279.0 21.7 0.81 0.405 0.238 Non-Liq. 0.0041 118.3 Unsaturated Saturated 19 40.5 79.4 13 5397.3 5334.9 28.9 0.80 0.407 0.416 Non-Liq. 0.0042 118.3 Unsaturated Saturated 19 40.5 79.4 13 5515.6 5390.8 28.8 0.80 0.409 0.410 Non-Liq. 0.0043 118.3 Unsaturated Saturated 19 40.5 64.0 19 5633.9 5446.7 28.7 0.79 0.410 0.407 Non-Liq. 0.0044 118.3 Unsaturated Saturated 19 40.5 64.0 19 5752.2 5502.6 28.6 0.78 0.411 0.402 Non-Liq. 0.0045 118.3 Unsaturated Saturated 19 40.5 64.0 19 5870.5 5558.5 28.5 0.78 0.413 0.397 Non-Liq. 0.0046 129.4 Unsaturated Saturated 17 45.5 92.5 21 5999.9 5625.5 25.0 0.77 0.413 0.292 Non-Liq. 0.0047 129.4 Unsaturated Saturated 17 45.5 92.5 21 6129.3 5692.5 24.9 0.77 0.414 0.289 Non-Liq. 0.0048 129.4 Unsaturated Saturated 17 45.5 92.5 21 6258.7 5759.5 24.8 0.76 0.415 0.286 Non-Liq. 0.0049 129.4 Unsaturated Saturated 17 45.5 92.5 21 6388.1 5826.5 24.7 0.76 0.415 0.284 Non-Liq. 0.0050 129.4 Unsaturated Saturated 17 45.5 92.5 21 6517.5 5893.5 24.6 0.75 0.416 0.281 Non-Liq. 0.0051 120.8 Unsaturated Saturated 36 50.5 94.3 33 6638.3 5951.9 56.7 0.74 0.416 1.660 Non-Liq. 0.0052 120.8 Unsaturated Saturated 36 50.5 94.3 33 6759.1 6010.3 56.6 0.74 0.416 1.653 Non-Liq. 0.0053 120.8 Unsaturated Saturated 36 50.5 0.0 0 6879.9 6068.7 50.9 0.73 0.417 1.646 4.0 0.0054 120.8 Unsaturated Saturated 36 50.5 0.0 0 7000.7 6127.1 50.8 0.73 0.417 1.640 3.9 0.0055 120.8 Unsaturated Saturated 36 50.5 0.0 0 7121.5 6185.5 50.7 0.72 0.417 1.633 3.9 0.0056 124.9 Unsaturated Saturated 33 55.5 89.7 59 7246.4 6248.0 51.9 0.72 0.416 1.626 Non-Liq. 0.0057 124.9 Unsaturated Saturated 33 55.5 89.7 59 7371.3 6310.5 51.7 0.71 0.416 1.619 Non-Liq. 0.0058 124.9 Unsaturated Saturated 33 55.5 89.7 59 7496.2 6373.0 51.6 0.70 0.416 1.612 Non-Liq. 0.0059 124.9 Unsaturated Saturated 33 55.5 89.7 59 7621.1 6435.5 51.5 0.70 0.416 1.605 Non-Liq. 0.0060 124.9 Unsaturated Saturated 33 55.5 89.7 59 7746.0 6498.0 51.4 0.69 0.415 1.598 Non-Liq. 0.0061 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 32 60.5 97.4 25 7860.2 6549.8 49.9 0.69 0.415 1.593 Non-Liq. 0.0062 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 32 60.5 97.4 25 7974.4 6601.6 49.8 0.68 0.414 1.587 Non-Liq. 0.0063 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 32 60.5 97.4 25 8088.6 6653.4 49.7 0.68 0.414 1.582 Non-Liq. 0.0064 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 32 60.5 97.4 25 8202.8 6705.2 49.6 0.67 0.414 1.576 Non-Liq. 0.0065 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 32 60.5 97.4 25 8317.0 6757.0 49.5 0.67 0.413 1.571 Non-Liq. 0.0066 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 25 65.5 98.2 28 8431.2 6808.8 37.4 0.66 0.412 1.518 Non-Liq. 0.0067 114.2 Unsaturated Saturated 25 65.5 98.2 28 8545.4 6860.6 37.3 0.66 0.412 1.478 Non-Liq. 0.0068 128.8 Saturated Saturated 37 70.5 0.0 0 8674.2 6927.0 50.6 0.65 0.411 1.553 3.8 0.0069 128.8 Saturated Saturated 37 70.5 0.0 0 8803.0 6993.4 50.4 0.65 0.410 1.546 3.8 0.0070 128.8 Saturated Saturated 37 70.5 0.0 0 8931.8 7059.8 50.3 0.65 0.410 1.540 3.8 0.0071 128.8 Saturated Saturated 37 70.5 33.3 0 9060.6 7126.2 55.7 0.64 0.409 1.533 3.8 0.0072 128.8 Saturated Saturated 37 70.5 33.3 0 9189.4 7192.6 55.5 0.64 0.408 1.527 3.7 0.0073 123.0 Saturated Saturated 37 70.5 0.0 0 9312.4 7253.2 50.0 0.63 0.407 1.521 3.7 0.0074 123.0 Saturated Saturated 37 70.5 0.0 0 9435.4 7313.8 49.9 0.63 0.406 1.515 3.7 0.0075 125.0 Saturated Saturated 78 75.5 0.0 0 9560.4 7376.4 104.9 0.62 0.405 1.509 3.7 0.0076 125.0 Saturated Saturated 78 75.5 0.0 0 9685.4 7439.0 104.6 0.62 0.405 1.503 3.7 0.0077 125.0 Saturated Saturated 78 75.5 0.0 0 9810.4 7501.6 104.4 0.62 0.404 1.497 3.7 0.0078 125.0 Saturated Saturated 78 75.5 0.0 0 9935.4 7564.2 104.2 0.61 0.403 1.491 3.7 0.0079 125.0 Saturated Saturated 78 75.5 0.0 0 10060.4 7626.8 103.9 0.61 0.402 1.485 3.7 0.0080 125.0 Saturated Saturated 78 75.5 0.0 0 10185.4 7689.4 103.7 0.60 0.401 1.479 3.7 0.0081 125.0 Saturated Saturated 80 80.5 0.0 0 10310.4 7752.0 106.1 0.60 0.400 1.474 3.7 0.0082 125.0 Saturated Saturated 80 80.5 0.0 0 10435.4 7814.6 105.9 0.60 0.400 1.468 3.7 0.0083 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 85.5 0.0 0 10560.4 7877.2 132.1 0.59 0.399 1.462 3.7 0.0084 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 85.5 0.0 0 10685.4 7939.8 131.9 0.59 0.398 1.457 3.7 0.0085 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 85.5 0.0 0 10810.4 8002.4 131.6 0.59 0.397 1.451 3.7 0.0086 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 85.5 0.0 0 10935.4 8065.0 131.3 0.58 0.397 1.446 3.6 0.0087 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 85.5 0.0 0 11060.4 8127.6 131.0 0.58 0.396 1.440 3.6 0.0088 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 90.5 0.0 0 11185.4 8190.2 130.8 0.58 0.395 1.435 3.6 0.0089 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 90.5 0.0 0 11310.4 8252.8 130.5 0.57 0.395 1.429 3.6 0.0090 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 90.5 0.0 0 11435.4 8315.4 130.3 0.57 0.394 1.424 3.6 0.0091 125.0 Saturated Saturated 100 90.5 0.0 0 11560.4 8378.0 130.0 0.57 0.393 1.419 3.6 0.00

Total Liquefaction Settlement, S = 0.00 inches

LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION (Idriss & Boulanger, EERI NO 12)

Geotechnologies, Inc.Project: Clarette West DevelopmentFile No.: 21428Description: Retaining Walls up to 10 feet

Input:Retaining Wall Height (H) 10.00 feet

Unit Weight of Retained Soils ( ) 120.0 pcfFriction Angle of Retained Soils ( ) 33.0 degreesCohesion of Retained Soils (c) 170.0 psfFactor of Safety (FS) 1.50

Factored Parameters: ( FS) 23.4 degrees(cFS) 113.3 psf

Failure Height of Area of Weight of Length of ActiveAngle Tension Crack Wedge Wedge Failure Plane Pressure

( ) (HC) (A) (W) (LCR) a b (PA)degrees feet feet2 lbs/lineal foot feet lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot lbs/lineal foot

45 3.3 44 5334.3 9.4 2665.7 2668.5 1056.046 3.2 43 5182.9 9.4 2541.3 2641.5 1099.047 3.2 42 5030.9 9.3 2425.1 2605.8 1137.948 3.1 41 4879.0 9.3 2316.3 2562.7 1172.849 3.1 39 4727.8 9.2 2214.7 2513.2 1203.650 3.0 38 4577.7 9.1 2119.5 2458.3 1230.551 3.0 37 4429.1 9.0 2030.3 2398.8 1253.552 2.9 36 4282.0 9.0 1946.7 2335.4 1272.853 2.9 34 4136.7 8.9 1868.1 2268.6 1288.354 2.9 33 3993.3 8.8 1794.2 2199.0 1300.055 2.9 32 3851.7 8.7 1724.6 2127.1 1308.156 2.9 31 3711.9 8.6 1658.9 2053.1 1312.557 2.9 30 3574.1 8.5 1596.8 1977.3 1313.258 2.9 29 3438.0 8.4 1537.9 1900.1 1310.359 2.9 28 3303.7 8.3 1482.0 1821.7 1303.860 2.9 26 3171.2 8.2 1428.8 1742.3 1293.561 2.9 25 3040.2 8.1 1378.1 1662.1 1279.662 3.0 24 2910.8 8.0 1329.5 1581.3 1261.963 3.0 23 2782.8 7.9 1282.9 1499.9 1240.464 3.0 22 2656.2 7.7 1238.1 1418.1 1215.165 3.1 21 2530.8 7.6 1194.7 1336.1 1185.9 Design Equations (Vector Analysis):66 3.1 20 2406.5 7.5 1152.6 1254.0 1152.7 a = cFS*LCR*sin(90+ FS)/sin( - FS)67 3.2 19 2283.3 7.4 1111.5 1171.8 1115.5 b = W-a68 3.3 18 2160.9 7.2 1071.2 1089.6 1074.2 PA = b*tan( - FS)69 3.4 17 2039.2 7.1 1031.5 1007.7 1028.6 EFP = 2*PA/H2

70 3.5 16 1918.1 6.9 992.1 926.0 978.9

Maximum Active Pressure ResultantPA, max 1313.24 lbs/lineal foot

Equivalent Fluid Pressure (per lineal foot of wall)EFP = 2*PA/H2

EFP 26.3 pcf

Design Wall for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 30 pcf

Retaining Wall Design with Level Backfill(Vector Analysis)

W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC








70 3.5 71 8469.6 17.6 2515.6 5953.9 6294.0



EFP 37.9 pcf



W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC








70 3.5 162 19388.7 28.2 4039.2 15349.5 16226.2



EFP 42.3 pcf



W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC

Geotechnologies, Inc.Project: Clarette West DevelopmentFile No.: 21428Description: Shoring Walls up to 40 feet

Input:Shoring Height (H) 40.00 feet






70 4.3 288 34528.2 37.9 6771.3 27756.9 25476.4


Equivalent Fluid Pressure (per lineal foot of shoring)EFP = 2*PA/H2

EFP 36.4 pcf

Design Shoring for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 37 pcf

Shoring Design with Level Backfill (Vector Analysis)

W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC








70 4.3 15 1770.9 6.0 1073.4 697.5 640.2



EFP 17.4 pcf

Design Shoring for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 25 pcf (Recommended)


W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC








70 4.3 69 8322.3 16.7 2972.7 5349.6 4910.1



EFP 29.3 pcf



W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC








70 4.3 160 19241.4 27.3 4872.0 14369.4 13188.8



EFP 33.9 pcf



W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC








70 4.3 288 34528.2 37.9 6771.3 27756.9 25476.4



EFP 36.4 pcf



W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC








70 4.3 452 54182.6 48.6 8670.6 45512.0 41772.7



EFP 37.9 pcf



W

b

a

PA

N

cFS*LCR

WLCR

c

LT

H

HC

Geotechnologies, Inc.Project: Clarett West DevelopmentFile No.: 21428Seismically Induced Lateral Soil Pressure on Retaining Wall

Input:Height of Retaining Wall: (H) 40.0 feetRetained Soil Unit Weight: ( ) 120.0 pcfPeak Ground Acceleraction: (PGAM) 0.77 gHorizontal Ground Acceleration: (kh) 0.26 g

Seismic Increment ( PAE):kh = 0.5*0.67*PGAM

PAE = (0.5* *H2)*(0.75*kh)PAE = 18572.4 lbs/ft

T*(2/3)*H = PAE*0.6*HT = 16715.2 lbs/ft

EFP = 2*T/H2

EFP = 20.9 pcftriangular distribution of pressure, applied to the proposed retaining wall.

Geotechnologies, Inc.Project: Clarett West DevelopmentFile No.: 21428

Soil Weight 120 pcfInternal Friction Angle 33 degreesCohesion c 170 psfHeight of Retaining Wall H 35 feet

NON-HYDROSTATIC (DRAINED) DESIGNRestrained Retaining Wall Design based on At Rest Earth Pressure

'h = Ko 'vKo = 1 - sin 0.455

'v = H 4200.0 psf'h = 1912.5 psf

EFP = 54.6 pcfPo = 33469.0 lbs/ft (based on a triangular distribution of pressure)

Design wall for an EFP of 55 pcf

Geotechnologies, Inc.Tiebacks Calculations (Ref: Bowles, 1982)Project: Clarett West DevelopmentFile No. 21428

Soil Parameters:Weight of Soil 120.00 lbs/ft 3

Friction Angle 33.00 degreesCohesion c 170.00 lbs/ft 2

Tieback Angle 35.00 degreesDesign Assumptions:

Diameter of Grout d 1.00 feetLength of Embeddment L 20.00 feetDepth to midpoint of Embeddment h 12.00 feetEarth Pressure Coefficient K 0.65Factor of Safety Applied F.S. 1.50

Ultimate Resistance: Rult 55.61 kipsEq: pi*d* *L*h*cos(a)*tan( )+c*pi*d*L

Allowable Resistance: Rallow = Rult/F.S. 37.07 kipsAllowable Skin Friction: Rallow/2/pi/r/L 590.02 psf

Allowable Skin Friction Design Value 500 psf

h

SMP - 11 Geotechnical Report DRAFT- 21428 Prelim Soils Rpt ...€¦ · One bulk soil sample was...

Documents

Transcript of SMP - 11 Geotechnical Report DRAFT- 21428 Prelim Soils Rpt ...€¦ · One bulk soil sample was...