APPENDIX H. GeoConcepts, Inc., Preliminary Geologic and Soils Engineering Investigation, July 22, 2008

Transcription

1 City of Los Angeles May 2009 APPENDIX H, Preliminary Geologic and Soils Engineering Investigation, July 22, 2008 Verdugo Hills Golf Course Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices

2 Geology Geotechnical Engineering Hamlin St., #200 Van Nuys, CA Office (818) Fax (818) PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC AND SOILS ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Units Verdugo Hills Golf Course 6433 La Tuna Canyon Road Tujunga, California for MWH Development Calabasas Road, Suite 2000 Calabasas, CA July 22, 2008

3 PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC AND SOILS ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1 SCOPE...1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...1 SITE DESCRIPTION...2 Location and Description...2 Topography...2 Drainage...2 Groundwater...2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...3 Previous Works...3 Stratigraphy...3 Fill (Af)...3 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)...3 Bedrock (Kg)...4 Geologic Structure...4 Seismicity...4 Liquefaction...5 Landslides...5 Slope Stability...5 CONCLUSIONS...6 Building Setbacks...6 RECOMMENDATIONS...7 Specific...7 Drainage and Maintenance...7 Grading and Earthwork...7 Foundations...7 Settlement...8 Expansive Soils...8 Excavations...9 Retaining Walls...9 Slabs on Grade...10 Slough Protection...10 REVIEWS...10 Plan Review and Plan Notes...10 Construction Review...11 LIMITATIONS...11 General...11 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE...12

4 APPENDICES APPENDIX I - SITE INFORMATION LOCATION MAP GEOLOGIC MAPS (IN POCKET) CROSS SECTIONS (IN POCKET) FIELD INVESTIGATION EXPLORATIONS 1 THROUGH 27 BORINGS 1 THROUGH 6 APPENDIX II - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE I FIGURES S.1 THROUGH S.8 FIGURES C.1 THROUGH C.4 FIGURE SV.1 APPENDIX III - ENGINEERING ANALYSIS BEARING LATERAL STABILITY SEISMIC EVALUATION APPENDIX IV - SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX V - REFERENCES

5 July 22, 2008 Page 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a Preliminary Geologic and Soils Engineering Investigation on a portion of the subject property. The purpose of this investigation has been to ascertain the subsurface conditions pertaining to the proposed project. Review of the project included reconnaissance mapping, description of earth materials, determine geologic structure, obtain representative earth samples, performing laboratory testing, engineering analyses and preparation of this report. Results of the project include findings, conclusions and appropriate recommendations covering the proposed project. SCOPE The scope of this investigation includes the following: Review of twenty seven (27) test pit explorations and eight (8) borings. Explorations were backfilled with the excavated materials but not compacted. Preparation of the enclosed Geologic Map and Cross Sections (see Appendix I). Sampling of representative earth materials, laboratory testing and analyses (see Appendix II). Review of reference materials, previously prepared reports by this office and available public reports at the City of Los Angeles (see Appendix V). Presentation of findings, conclusions and recommendations for the proposed project. Walker & Associates, Inc. prepared the topographic base map utilized in this investigation. It consists of one sheet plotted to a scale of one-inch equals forty feet and dated February 15, The grading plan was plotted on the topographic map. The scope of this investigation is limited to the project area explored as depicted on the Geologic Map. This report is not a comprehensive evaluation of the entire property. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties or for other purposes, and may not contain sufficient information for other than the intended use. Prior to use by others, should be consulted to determine if additional work is required. If the project is delayed more than one year, this office should be contacted to verify current site conditions and prepare an update report. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of detached single family units. The proposed development is currently limited to the existing development golf course area. Grading will consist of conventional cut and fill methods. Final building and grading plans have not been prepared and await the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation.

6 July 22, 2008 Page 2 Location and Description SITE DESCRIPTION Access to the property is via La Tuna Canyon Road from Tujunga Canyon Boulevard (see Location Map). The site was developed as an eighteen hole golf course, driving range, and pro shop and maintenance buildings. Vegetation is light within the golf course and driving range consisting primarily of lawn areas and trees. Vegetation is moderately dense to dense on the ascending slopes above the golf course consisting of ground cover, shrubs, poison oak, and trees. Topography Topographically, the property is situated on the south flank of a northwest trending ridge within the northeast portion of the Verdugo Mountains. The property essentially consists of a series of near-level pads with ascending slopes to the north. Maximum topographic relief on-site is about (330) feet. Ascending slopes from the golf course have a general gradient between 1.5:1 and 2:1 or less, (horizontal to vertical). Details of the topography are depicted on the Location Map and Geologic Map in Appendix I. Drainage Surface water at the site consists of direct precipitation onto the property and runoff from surrounding hills to the north. Much of this water drains as sheet flow down descending slopes to low-lying areas, area drains, paved swale drains, offsite and/or to the street. Portions of the golf course are serviced by an irrigation system. A (12) foot wide southward draining concrete lined drainage channel is located east of the driving range. Groundwater No active surface groundwater seeps or springs were observed on the subject site. The subsurface exploration did encounter groundwater at depths ranging from (13) to (42) feet. The depth to groundwater, when encountered in the explorations, is only valid for the date of exploration. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels may occur by varying amounts of rainfall, irrigation and recharge.

7 July 22, 2008 Page 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Previous Works The subject property was developed with the golf course circa 1960, after the City of Los Angeles Grading Ordinance. No geology and/or geotechnical reports were found on file at the City of Los Angeles covering original development of the site. Post-original development, geotechnical reports by J. Byer Group covering the site were found on file at the City of Los Angeles, Department of Building and Safety. J. Byer Group wrote a geologic and soils engineering exploration report dated September 9, 1999 for an unpermitted fire/maintenance road grading. The report recommended trimming the slopes in areas above the golf course where unsupported joint planes were mapped. The report was conditionally approved by the City of Los Angeles, Department of Building and Safety in a letter dated October 1, Stratigraphy The site is underlain by intrusive granitic rock of Cretaceous time, which are covered by Holocene earth materials and artificial fill. The earth materials encountered on the subject property are briefly described below. Approximate depths and more detailed descriptions are given in the enclosed Exploration Logs (see Appendix II). Fill (Af) Previous grading has resulted in fill placement on the subject site. Fill materials were presumably placed during grading and construction of the golf course. Fill was encountered in all of the explorations ranging from (0.5) to (17.0) feet in thickness. Contact between the fill and the underlying alluvium or bedrock was exposed within the exploratory test pits and borings. No evidence of engineered keys or benches was observed. Fill generally consists of silty sand with rock fragments that generally range between (1/8) and (6) inches in length. The approximate limit of the existing fill is shown on the attached geologic map and cross sections. Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) Alluvial deposits occupy the canyon bottoms and lower portions of the site. Alluvium is weathered bedrock material that has eroded from natural ascending slopes and accumulated in generally flat lying areas. Alluvium primarily consists of medium brown to reddish brown, firm, silty sand with pebbles and cobbles up to (36) inches in length. These deposits were encountered within (20) of the exploratory test pits and within all the borings. The maximum encountered alluvial thickness was (47) feet in boring B-3.

8 July 22, 2008 Page 4 Bedrock (Kg) Bedrock exposed on-site and underlying the Holocene deposits are granitic rocks of Cretaceous time. It consists of moderately weathered and moderately fractured intrusive granitic rocks with varying compositions of quartz diorite. The contact between the artificial fill and bedrock is approximately located on the geologic map and cross sections. Geologic Structure The local area has been intruded by a granitic pluton by past tectonic forces. At the site, the bedrock structure is rather consistent within the investigation area and similar to the local geology. No dominant patterns of adversely orientated fractures or joints were observed during the subsurface investigation. Preliminary geologic data indicates the proposed development is favorable from the standpoint of geology and soils engineering, Cross Sections A through D. Seismicity No known active fault is anticipated to daylight beneath the proposed project. Therefore, ground rupture due to fault movement is not anticipated. There are several active and/or potentially active faults within Los Angeles County. Therefore, any future movement on these faults could possibly affect the structure due to seismic shaking. However, all of Southern California is in a seismically active region. The time, location, and/or magnitude of fault movement or an earthquake can not be accurately predicted. Ground motion caused by an earthquake is likely to occur at the site during the lifetime of the development due to the proximity of several active and potentially active faults. A computer program for the deterministic prediction of peak horizontal acceleration from digitized California faults was utilized and is provided in the Appendix III. Generally, on a regional scale, quantitative predictions of ground motion values are linked to peak acceleration and repeatable acceleration, which is a response to earthquake magnitudes relative to the fault distance from the subject property. This seismic evaluation is designed to provide the client with current, rational and believable seismic data that could affect the property during the lifetime of the proposed improvements. The minimum design acceleration for a project is listed in the Unified Building Code. It is recommended that the structural design of the proposed dwelling be based on current design acceleration practices of similar projects in the area.

9 July 22, 2008 Page 5 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. The types of sediments most susceptible are clay-free deposits of sand and silts; occasionally gravel liquefies. The actions in the soil which produce liquefaction are as follows: seismic waves, primarily shear waves, passing through saturated granular layers, distort the granular structure, and cause loosely packed groups of particles to collapse. These collapses increase the pore-water pressure between grains if drainage cannot occur. If the pore-water pressure rises to a level approaching the weight of the overlying soil, the granular layer temporarily behaves as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. Liquefaction has occurred. (EERI Brief No. 1) In the liquefied condition, soil may deform with little shear resistance; deformations large enough to cause damage to buildings and other structures are called ground failures. The ease with which a soil can be liquefied depends primarily on the looseness of the material, the depth, thickness and areal extent of the liquefied layer, the ground slope and the distribution of loads applied by buildings and other structures. The State of California has prepared Seismic Hazard Evaluation reports to regionally map areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicates a potential for permanent ground displacement. The maps may not identify all areas that have potential for liquefaction, strong ground shaking, and other earthquake and geologic hazards. The subject site is not located within liquefaction zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Map. Preliminary liquefaction analysis indicates that based upon the depth to groundwater and dense nature of the alluvial soils liquefaction should not pose any significant hazard to the proposed development. Landslides The State of California has prepared Seismic Hazard Evaluation reports to regionally map areas of potential increased risk of permanent ground displacement based on historic occurrence of landslide movement, local topographic expression, and geological and geotechnical subsurface conditions. The maps may not identify all areas that have potential for earthquake-induced landsliding, strong ground shaking, and other earthquake and geologic hazards. The subject site is not located within landslide zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Map. Ancient or recent bedrock landslides were not observed on the property. Also, no recent surficial slope failures or slumps were observed within the proposed project area on the property. Slope Stability Stability analysis was performed for the ascending slopes. Gross stability analysis indicates that the bedrock slopes are stable, refer to Appendix III for calculations.

10 July 22, 2008 Page 6 CONCLUSIONS 1. Based on the results of this investigation and a thorough review of the proposed development, as discussed, the project is suitable for the intended use providing the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and subsequent construction of the project. Also, the development must be performed in an acceptable manner conforming to building code requirements of the controlling governing agency. 2. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Maps, the subject site is not located within a liquefaction or landslide hazard zone. Preliminary liquefaction analysis indicates that based upon the depth to groundwater and dense nature of the alluvial soils liquefaction should not pose any significant hazard to the proposed development. 3. The SITE CLASS based on California Building Code is D. 4. No active surface groundwater seeps or springs were observed on the subject site. 5. The subsurface exploration did encounter groundwater at depths ranging from (13) to (42) feet. 6. The explorations at the subject site were performed with conventional backhoe and hollow stem drill rig. Based upon the equipment used and explorations performed blasting is not anticipated to be required. 7. No known active faults lines underlie the proposed development area. 8. Based upon field observations, laboratory testing and analysis, the bedrock and alluvium found in the test pits and within the borings should possess sufficient strength to support the proposed development. Building Setbacks Standard requirements from the governmental reviewing agency for building setbacks are applicable. Generally, footings adjacent to a descending slope steeper than 3:1 in gradient shall be located a distance one-third of the vertical height of the slope with a minimum of five (5) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet measured horizontally from the slope face. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical), the required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane at (45) degrees to the horizontal, projected upward from the toe of the slope. Buildings adjacent to ascending slopes shall be set back from the toe of the slope a level distance equal to one half the vertical height of the slope, but need not exceed 15 feet.

11 July 22, 2008 Page 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Following are preliminary recommendations. The recommendations may be revised when site development plans are available. Specific 1. Proposed cut and fill slopes should be designed as a maximum slope gradient of 2:1 (h:v). 2. To create uniform building pads for the western portion of the site, the existing fill and upper 20 feet of alluvium should be removed and replaced as compacted fill. In addition, the proposed removals should extend a minimum of three feet below the proposed foundations or to a depth equal to 1/3 of the maximum thickness of fill below the proposed residence. 3. A cutoff drain should be installed within the mouth of the northerly trending canyons. The cutoff drains should extend down to bedrock to intercept subsurface drainage from the canyon areas. 4. The proposed single family residence should be supported on foundations embedded into the recommended compacted fill. 5. The soils chemistry results should be incorporated into the design of the proposed project. 6. The homeowner shall maintain the site as outlined in the Drainage and Maintenance Section. Drainage and Maintenance The site shall be maintained as outlined in the General Specifications in Appendix IV below. Grading and Earthwork Proposed grading will consist of removal and recompaction. All grading shall be carried forth as outlined in the GRADING SPECIFICATIONS section in Appendix IV. Foundations It is recommended that the proposed structure be founded into compacted fill. All foundations shall maintain the required code setback from any slope. The minimum continuous footing size is (12) inches wide and (24) inches deep into the compacted fill, measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings may be proportioned, using a bearing value of (1500) pounds per square foot. Column footings placed into the compacted fill may be proportioned, using a bearing value of (2000) pounds per square foot, and should be a minimum of (2) feet in width and (24) inches deep, below the lowest adjacent grade.

12 July 22, 2008 Page 8 The bearing values given above are net bearing values; the weight of concrete below grade may be neglected. These bearing values may be increased by one-third (1/3) for temporary loads, such as, wind and seismic forces. All footing excavation depths will be measured from the lowest adjacent grade of recommended bearing material. Footing depths will not be measured from any proposed elevations or grades. Any foundation excavations that are not the recommended depth into the recommended bearing materials will not be acceptable to this office. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction at the base of the conventional foundations and by passive resistance within the compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of (0.35) may be used between the foundations and the compacted fill. The passive resistance may be assumed to act as a fluid with a density of (300) pounds per cubic foot. A maximum passive earth pressure of (4500) pounds per square foot may be assumed. For isolated poles, the allowable passive earth pressure may be doubled. Settlement Settlement of the proposed residences will occur. Settlement of (1/8) to (1/4) inches between walls, within 20 feet or less, of each other, and under similar loading conditions, are considered normal. Total settlement on the order of (1/4) inches should be anticipated. Settlement of continuous footings is anticipated to be on the order of (1/4) inches. Isolated footings should have a settlement of (1/4) inches. Differential settlement between the two foundation unit types is not expected to exceed (1/8) inches. Expansive Soils Expansive soils were not encountered on the subject property. Expansive soils can be a problem, as variation in moisture content will cause a volume change in the soil. Expansive soils heave when moisture is introduced and contract as it dries. During inclement weather and/or excessive landscape watering, moisture will infiltrate into the soil and cause the soil to heave. When drying occurs the soils will shrink and cause settlement of the soil. Expansion and contraction of soils can cause pavement, concrete slabs on grade and foundations to crack. This movement can also result in misalignment of doors and windows. To reduce the effect of expansive soils foundation systems are usually deepened and/or additional reinforcement/design by the structural engineer is utilized. Planning of yard improvements should take into consideration maintaining uniform moisture conditions around structures. Soils should be kept moist, but water should not be allowed to pond. These designs are intended to reduce, but will not eliminate, deflection and cracking and do not guarantee or warrant that cracking will not occur.

13 July 22, 2008 Page 9 Excavations Excavations should expose competent alluvium. Conventional excavation equipment may be used to make the excavations. The excavations in the alluvium are suitable for vertical cuts up to (5) feet. Excavation higher than five feet should be trimmed back at 1:1 (h:v) gradient. Specific excavation recommendations will be provided when detailed development are available. This should be verified by the project soils engineer during construction so that modifications can be made if variations in the soil occur. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation. If this time is exceeded, the project soils engineer must be notified, and modifications, such as shoring or slope trimming may be required. Water should not be allowed to pond on top of the excavation, nor to flow toward it. All excavations should be protected from inclement weather. Excavations should be kept moist, not saturated, to reduce the potential for raveling and sloughing during construction. No vehicular surcharge should be allowed within three feet (3') of the top of cut. Retaining Walls Cantilever retaining walls should be designed to resist an active earth pressure such as that exerted by compacted backfill. The active earth pressure should be taken as equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weighing per the following table. In addition to lateral earth pressure, these retaining walls should be designed to resist the surcharge imposed by the proposed structures, footings, any adjacent buildings, or by adjacent traffic surcharge. The active pressure assumes that the wall will be allowed to deflect 0.01H to 0.02H. If the retaining wall is not allowed to deflect it should be designed for a restrained condition. Surface Slope of Retained Material Horizontal to Vertical Static Equivalent Fluid Weight pcf. Pseudo-Static Equivalent Fluid Weight pcf. ** Level to to to to ** The pseudostatic pressure should be applied as an upside-down triangular pressure The wall pressure stated assumes that the wall has been backfilled as outlined in the wall backfill section in Appendix IV. Foundation design parameters, as given in the preceding section, may be used for retaining walls.

14 July 22, 2008 Page 10 Slabs on Grade Slabs on grade should be reinforced with minimum #4 reinforcing bars, placed at (16) inches on center each way and supported on recommended compacted fill. A vapor retarder with a minimum thickness of 15-mil should placed below the concrete slab. The vapor retarder should conform to ASTM E1745 Class A with water vapor transmission rate <0.01 perms and should be installed in accordance with ASTM E1643. The structural engineer should provide design considerations such as reinforcement to offset potential increase in curling stresses in the slab. Footing trench spoils should either be removed from the slab areas or compacted into place by mechanical means and tested for compaction. Slabs, walkways and decking are likely to crack as a result of shrinkage and curing processes of concrete. Typical concrete shrinkage can result in cracks and gaps along control joints and where slabs connect with structures. Slabs should be provided with proper control joints in an effort to control the location of the cracking. The gaps will require periodic caulking to limit infiltration of moisture. Provisions for cracks should be incorporated into the design and construction of the foundation system, slabs and proposed floor coverings. Concrete slabs should have sufficient control joints spaced at a maximum of approximately 8 feet. Two-car garage slab should be quartered or saw cut slabs to mitigate cracking and isolated from the stem wall footing. Exterior slabs planned adjacent to descending slopes or planter areas should be provided with a thickened edge. The thickened edge should be a minimum of (12) inches wide and (24) inches deep and two #4 bars. These recommendations are considered as minimums unless superceded by the project structural Slough Protection Some surficial erosion/surficial slope failures may occur during inclement weather. In order to mitigate this possible occurrence from impacting improvements all slopes should be planted and maintained as described in the Drainage and Maintenance section. In addition, deep-rooted shrubs should be planted in staggered rows that do not exceed 10 feet on center over the slope face. Plan Review and Plan Notes REVIEWS The final grading, building, and/or structural plans shall be reviewed and approved by the consultants to ensure that all recommendations are incorporated into the design or shown as notes on the plan.

15 July 22, 2008 Page 11 The final plans should reflect the following: 1. The Preliminary Geologic and Soils Engineering Investigation by is a part of the plans. 2. Plans must be reviewed and signed by the soils engineer and geologist. 3. The project soils engineer and/or geologist must review all grading. 4. The project soils engineer and/or geologist shall review all foundations. Construction Review Reviews will be required to verify all geologic and geotechnical work. It is required that all footing excavations, seepage pits, and grading be reviewed by this office. This office should be notified at least two working days in advance of any field reviews so that staff personnel may be made available. The property owner should take an active role in project safety by assigning responsibility and authority to individuals qualified in appropriate construction safety principles and practices. Generally, site safety should be assigned to the general contractor or construction manager that is in control of the site and has the required expertise, which includes but not limited to construction means, methods and safety precautions. General LIMITATIONS Findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the surface mapping, subsurface exploration, data analyses, and specific information as described and past experience. Earth materials and conditions immediately adjacent to, or beneath those observed may have different characteristics, such as, earth type, physical properties and strength. Therefore, no representations are made as to the nature, quality, or extent of latent earth materials. Site conditions can and do change from those that were first envisioned. During construction, if subsurface conditions differ from those encountered in the described exploration, this office should be advised immediately so that appropriate action can be taken. Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on experience and background. Therefore, findings, conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions and are not meant to indicate a control of nature. This limited report provides information regarding the geologic findings on the subject property. It is not designed to provide a guarantee that the site will be free of hazards in the future, such as, landslides, slippage, differential settlement, debris flows, seepage, concentrated drainage or flooding. Hillside properties are subject to hazards, which are not found with flatland properties. It may not be possible to eliminate all hazards, but homeowners must maintain their property and improve deficiencies.

16 July 22, 2008 Page 12 This report may not be copied. If you wish additional copies, you may order them from this office. CONSTRUCTION NOTICE Construction can be difficult. Recommendations contained herein are based upon surface reconnaissance and subsurface explorations deemed suitable by your consultants. It is this Corporation's aim to advise you through this report of the general site conditions, suitability for construction, and overall stability. It must be understood that the opinions are based upon testing, analysis, and interpretation thereof. Quantities for foundation concrete and steel may be estimated, based on the findings given in this report. However, you must be aware that depths and magnitudes will most likely vary between the explorations given in the report. We appreciate the opportunity of serving you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GEOCONCEPTS, INC. Scott J. Walter Jonathan S. Miller Project Engineer Project Geologist GE 2476 CEG 2391 Expires: 2/28/10 SJW /JSM: Distribution: (6) Addressee

17 July 22, 2008 Page 13 APPENDIX I SITE INFORMATION Location Map Geologic Maps Cross Sections Field Exploration Exploration Logs 1 through 27 Borings 1 through 8

18 July 22, 2008 Page 14 LOCATION SITE Reference: Project Address: Sunland-Tujunga-Verdugo Mountains Area Map Nos.: , 97, 106, & La Tuna Canyon Road Tujunga, California Scale: 1 = 500

19 July 22, 2008 Page 15 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Reference: Project Address: Dibblee Geologic Foundation 6433 La Tuna Canyon Road Tujunga, California

20 July 22, 2008 Page 16 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP Reference: Project Address: State of California Seismic Hazard Map of the Burbank Quadrangle 6433 La Tuna Canyon Road Tujunga, California Approximate Scale: 1 = 1000

21 July 22, 2008 Page 17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MAP Reference: Project Address: State of California 6433 La Tuna Canyon Road Tujunga, California

22 July 22, 2008 Page 18 ACCELERATION MAP Reference: Project Address: State of California 6433 La Tuna Canyon Road Tujunga, California

23 July 22, 2008 Page 19 MAGNITUDE MAP Reference: Project Address: State of California 6433 La Tuna Canyon Road Tujunga, California

24 July 22, 2008 Page 20 Field Exploration A field exploration of the site was conducted in February and September 2004 and July The soils and geologic conditions were mapped by a representative of this office (refer to Exploration Logs). Subsurface exploration was performed by a conventional backhoe trenching into the underlying earth materials and by a conventional hollow stem drill rig. Explorations were excavated to a maximum depth of (51.5) feet. The Geologic Map in Appendix I depicts locations of the subsurface explorations. Representative, undisturbed and bulk samples of the earth materials were obtained. Undisturbed samples were obtained within the explorations through the use of a thin-walled steel hand-held sampler with successive blows of a slide hammer within the test pits and by a 140 pound drop hammer dropped thirty inches (30") within the borings. The soil is retained in the brass rings of two and one-half inches (2½") in diameter and one inch (1") in height. The sample is transported in moisture tight containers.

25 July 22, 2008 Page 21

26 July 22, 2008 Page 22

27 July 22, 2008 Page 23

28 July 22, 2008 Page 24

29 July 22, 2008 Page 25

30 July 22, 2008 Page 26

31 July 22, 2008 Page 27

32 July 22, 2008 Page 28

33 July 22, 2008 Page 29

34 July 22, 2008 Page 30

35 July 22, 2008 Page 31

36 July 22, 2008 Page 32

37 July 22, 2008 Page 33

38 July 22, 2008 Page 34

39 July 22, 2008 Page 35

40 July 22, 2008 Page 36

41 July 22, 2008 Page 37

42 July 22, 2008 Page 38

43 July 22, 2008 Page 39

44 July 22, 2008 Page 40

45 July 22, 2008 Page 41

46 July 22, 2008 Page 42

47 July 22, 2008 Page 43

48 July 22, 2008 Page 44

49 July 22, 2008 Page 45

50 July 22, 2008 Page 46

51 July 22, 2008 Page 47

52 July 22, 2008 Page 48

53 July 22, 2008 Page 49

54 July 22, 2008 Page 50

55 July 22, 2008 Page 51

56 July 22, 2008 Page 52

57 July 22, 2008 Page 53

58 July 22, 2008 Page 54

59 July 22, 2008 Page 55

60 July 22, 2008 Page 56 APPENDIX II LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Procedures Laboratory Recapitulation Figures S.1 through S.8 Figures C.1 through C.4 Figure SV.1

61 July 22, 2008 Page 57 LABORATORY PROCEDURES Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained as outlined in Appendix I. All samples were sent to the laboratory for examination, testing, and classification, using the Unified Soil Classification System and group symbol. Moisture and Density Tests The dry unit weight and moisture content of the undisturbed samples were determined. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 1. Shear Tests Direct single-shear tests were performed with a direct shear machine. The desired normal load is applied to the specimen and allowed to come to equilibrium. The rate of deflection on the sample is approximately inches per minute. The samples are tested at higher and/or lower normal loads in order to determine the angle of internal friction and the cohesion. The results are plotted on the Shear Test Diagrams and the results tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table I. Consolidation Consolidation tests were performed on samples, within the brass ring, to predict the soils behavior under a specific load. Porous stones are placed in contact with top and bottom of the samples to permit to allow the addition or release of water. Loads are applied in several increments and the results are recorded at selected time intervals. Samples are tested at field and increased moisture content. The results are plotted on the Consolidation Test Curve and the load at which the water is added as noted on the drawing. Grain Size Analysis Sieve A group of sieves is assembled with a solid collecting pan at the bottom. The sample is placed in top sieve. The assembly is placed in the sieve shaker. Upon completion of the sieving operation the weight of the material retained on each is determined.

62 July 22, 2008 Page 58 LABORATORY RECAPITULATION PROJECT: 6433 La Tuna Canyon Rd. PROJECT NO.: 2751 Dry Dens. Moisture Friction Explor Depth In Situ Content Cohesion Angle -ation (ft) Mat'l (P.C.F.) (%) (K.S.F) (degree) ====================================================================== B Qal B Qal B Qal B Qal B Qal B Qal B Qal B Qal B Qal TP Af TP Qal TP Qal TP Kg TP Kg TP Af TP Qal TP Qal

63 July 22, 2008 Page 59

64 July 22, 2008 Page 60

65 July 22, 2008 Page 61

66 July 22, 2008 Page 62

67 July 22, 2008 Page 63

68 July 22, 2008 Page 64

69 July 22, 2008 Page 65

70 July 22, 2008 Page 66

71 July 22, 2008 Page 67

72 July 22, 2008 Page 68

73 July 22, 2008 Page 69

74 July 22, 2008 Page 70

75 July 22, 2008 Page 71

76 July 22, 2008 Page 72

77 July 22, 2008 Page 73 APPENDIX III ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Bearing Capacity Lateral Design Slope Stability Seismic Evaluation

78 July 22, 2008 Page 74 BEARING CAPACITY Ref: Meyerhof Bearing Capacity Equation INPUT PHI = 32 Degrees Cohesion = 100 pcf Gamma = 110 lbs Footing Width = 1 Feet Footing Depth = 2 Feet SF = 3 Nq = e^[pi*tan(phi)]*kp = Nc = (Nq-1)/TAN(PHI) = Ng = (Nq-1)/TAN(1.4*PHI) = Kp = Tan^2(45+PHI/2) = Sc = 1+ (0.2)(Kp)(B/L) = Sq = Sg = 1+(0.1)(Kp)(B/L) = Dc =1+(0.2)(Kp^0.5)(D/B) = Dq = Dg =1+(0.1)(Kp ^0.5)(D/B) = Continuous Footing qult=(c)(nc)(dc) + (g)(d)(nq) + (g)(b)(dg)/2 = psf qa = qult / SF = 3761 psf Square Pad Footing qult=(c)(nc)(dc)(sc) + (g)(d)(nq) + (g)(sg)(dg)/2 = psf qa = qult / SF = 5095 psf OUTPUT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY FOR CONTINUOUS FOOTING = 3761 psf MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY FOR SQUARE PAD FOOTING = 5095 psf

79 July 22, 2008 Page 75 LATERAL DESIGN SLOPING SURFACE INPUT: Depth of Embedment, (D): 1.0 ft. Soil Phi, (phi): 32 deg. Soil Cohesion, (c): 100 psf Soil Density, (g): 110 pcf. Slope Angle, (B): 0 deg. Safety Factor Applied: 3.0 FS Passive Wedge Angles (A): deg. EQUATIONS: Angle1 = 90-A = deg. Angle2 = 90-B = deg. Angle3 = A+B = deg. L = D*Sin(Angle2)/Sin(Angle3) = ft. Ar = h*l*0.5 = ft^2 h = D*sin(angle1) = ft. W = Ar*g = lbs. phim = Atan(tan(phi)/FS) = deg. cm = c/fs = pcf. Wx = sin(90-phim)*(cml)/sin(a+phim) = lbs. PASSIVE PRESSURE Pp = (tan(a+phim))*(w+wx) = lbs. Passive Pressure (PCF) = 2*Pp/D^2 = pcf Coefficient of Friction = (tan(phi)/fs) = (tan(phi)/1.5) = 0.35

80 July 22, 2008 Page 76 RETAINING WALL CALCULATION INPUT: Wall Height (H): 10.0 ft. Slope Angle (B): 0.0 deg. Soil Phi (phi): 32.0 deg. Soil Cohesion (c): psf. Soil Density (g): pcf. Surcharge (P): 0.0 lbs. Tension Crack (HC): 3.0 ft. Safety Factor Applied: 1.50 FS Failure Angle (A): deg. EQUATIONS: Angle1 = 90-A = deg. Angle2 = 90+B = deg. Angle3 = 180-(Angle1+Angle2) = deg. Failure Length = LF LF = LT-LC = ft. LT=H*sin(Angle2)/sin(Angle3) = ft. LC=HC*sin(Angle2)/sin(Angle3) = ft. Area = At - Ac = ft^2 h=lt*sin(angle1)*sin(angle3)/ sin(angle1 + Angle3) = ft. hc=lc*sin(angle1)*sin(angle3)/ sin(angle1 + Angle3) = ft. Weight = P + (Ar * g) = W = lbs. Horizontal Driving = Dh Dh = W*sin(A)*cos(A) = lbs. Normal Force = Nh Nh = W*cos(A)^2 = lbs Horizontal Resisting = Rh Rh = Nh*tan(phi)+LF*c*cos(A) = lbs. Factor of Safety = FS RETAINING WALL DESIGN PRESSURE phim = ATan(tan(phi)/FS) = deg. cm = c/fs = psf. d=sin(90+phim)*(cm)*(lf)/sin(a-phim) d = lbs. b=w-d = lbs. Pa=b(tan(A-phim) = lbs. EFP = 2*Pa/H^2 = pcf.

81 July 22, 2008 Page 77 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS IN THE ALLUVIUM INPUT: Wall Height (H): 5.0 ft. Slope Angle (B): 0.0 deg. Soil Phi (phi): 32.0 deg. Soil Cohesion (c): psf. Soil Density (g): pcf. Surcharge (P): 0.0 lbs. Tension Crack (HC): 2.0 ft. Safety Factor Applied: 1.25 FS Failure Angle (A): deg. EQUATIONS: Angle1 = 90-A = deg. Angle2 = 90+B = deg. Angle3 = 180-(Angle1+Angle2) = deg. Failure Length = LF LF = LT-LC = ft. LT=H*sin(Angle2)/sin(Angle3) = ft. LC=HC*sin(Angle2)/sin(Angle3) = ft. Area = At - Ac = ft^2 h=lt*sin(angle1)*sin(angle3)/ sin(angle1 + Angle3) = ft. hc=lc*sin(angle1)*sin(angle3)/ sin(angle1 + Angle3) = ft. Weight = P + (Ar * g) = W = lbs. Horizontal Driving = Dh Dh = W*sin(A)*cos(A) = lbs. Normal Force = Nh Nh = W*cos(A)^2 = lbs Horizontal Resisting = Rh Rh = Nh*tan(phi)+LF*c*cos(A) = lbs. Factor of Safety = FS RETAINING WALL DESIGN PRESSURE phim = ATan(tan(phi)/FS) = deg. cm = c/fs = psf. d=sin(90+phim)*(cm)*(lf)/sin(a-phim) d = lbs. b=w-d = lbs. Pa=b(tan(A-phim) = lbs. EFP = 2*Pa/H^2 = pcf.

82 July 22, 2008 Page 78 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS IN THE BEDROCK INPUT: Wall Height (H): 10.0 ft. Slope Angle (B): 30.0 deg. Soil Phi (phi): 37.0 deg. Soil Cohesion (c): psf. Soil Density (g): pcf. Surcharge (P): 0.0 lbs. Tension Crack (HC): 4.0 ft. Safety Factor Applied: 1.25 FS Failure Angle (A): deg. EQUATIONS: Angle1 = 90-A = deg. Angle2 = 90+B = deg. Angle3 = 180-(Angle1+Angle2) = deg. Failure Length = LF LF = LT-LC = ft. LT=H*sin(Angle2)/sin(Angle3) = ft. LC=HC*sin(Angle2)/sin(Angle3) = ft. Area = At - Ac = ft^2 h=lt*sin(angle1)*sin(angle3)/ sin(angle1 + Angle3) = ft. hc=lc*sin(angle1)*sin(angle3)/ sin(angle1 + Angle3) = ft. Weight = P + (Ar * g) = W = lbs. Horizontal Driving = Dh Dh = W*sin(A)*cos(A) = lbs. Normal Force = Nh Nh = W*cos(A)^2 = lbs Horizontal Resisting = Rh Rh = Nh*tan(phi)+LF*c*cos(A) = lbs. Factor of Safety = FS

83 July 22, 2008 Page 79 Stability analysis was performed using the Bishop s Simplified Method for circular surfaces. Circular analysis was performed based upon the favorable orientation of the bedrock. The shear strength parameters are based upon laboratory testing of samples from the explorations placed on the subject site. The ultimate shear strength parameters were used in the analysis.

84 July 22, 2008 Page 80

85 July 22, 2008 Page 81 ** PCSTABL6 ** 1 by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer`s Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 2751 Cross Section A - A' BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 20 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = ft. and X = ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = ft. X = ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.

86 July 22, 2008 Page 82 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Circle Center At X = ; Y = and Radius, *** *** Individual data on the 24 slices Water Water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

87 July 22, 2008 Page ** PCSTABL6 ** 1 by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer`s Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 2751 Cross Section A - A' BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned 1 Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf) A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 20 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = ft. and X = ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = ft. X = ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation

88 July 22, 2008 Page 84 At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Circle Center At X = ; Y = and Radius, *** *** Individual data on the 24 slices Water Water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

89 July 22, 2008 Page

90 July 22, 2008 Page 86 ** PCSTABL6 ** 1 by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer`s Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 2751 Cross Section B - B' BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 20 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = ft. and X = ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = ft.

91 July 22, 2008 Page 87 and X = ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Circle Center At X = ; Y = and Radius, *** *** Individual data on the 17 slices Water Water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

92 July 22, 2008 Page 88 ** PCSTABL6 ** 1 by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer`s Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 2751 Cross Section B - B' BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned 1 Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf) A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.

93 July 22, 2008 Page Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = ft. and X = ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = ft. X = ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Circle Center At X = ; Y = and Radius, *** *** Individual data on the 17 slices Water Water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

94 July 22, 2008 Page 90

95 July 22, 2008 Page 91

96 July 22, 2008 Page 92 ** PCSTABL6 ** 1 by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer`s Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 2751 Cross Section C - C' BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 25 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = ft. and X = ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = ft. X = ft.

97 July 22, 2008 Page 93 Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Circle Center At X = ; Y = and Radius, *** *** Individual data on the 20 slices Water Water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

98 July 22, 2008 Page 94 ** PCSTABL6 ** 1 by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer`s Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 2751 Cross Section C - C' BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned 1 Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf) A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 25 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = ft. and X = ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = ft. X = ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft.

99 July 22, 2008 Page ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Circle Center At X = ; Y = and Radius, *** *** Individual data on the 20 slices Water Water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

100 July 22, 2008 Page 96