~;·"

'":S~Atf: OF CAUFCRNIA--YHE RESOURCES AGENCY ----------- ·-·---DEPA~TMENT Of CONSERV.6,"flON

DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DIVISION HEADQUARTERS RESOURCES SU!~D1NG, ROOM 1341

1416 NINTH STRfCT

SACRAMfNTO, CA 9.5014

Di$trict Offi,ei~ LOS ANGELES Ji.inip~ro .Serra Bldg,, Rm. 106.5 107 So1.1th BroodwCJy 90012

Mr. J.W. Cobarrubias

SACRAMENTO ~~°'°"'"'''°cs Bldp., Rm. 11 a 1416 Ninth Sttel!t 9SSl.f.

Department of Building & Safety City of Los Angeles 402, City Ha 11 Los Angeles, California 90012

Dear Joe:

, •· ·--z

SAN FRANCISCO Ferry Building 94111

(415) 557-0413

November 7, 1977

fDM(JND G. e.ROWN JR., G(lv•rnar

We are placing on open file the following report, reviewed and approved by the City of Los Angeles In compliance with the Alquist­Priolo Special Studies Zones Act:

Geotechnical report, proposed residential development, 13701 Bradley Avenue, Sylmar, California; by Foundation Engineering Company; June 14, 1977; with addendum of September 8, 1977 (Lots 1-9, Tentative Tract 33593).

I have briefly reviewed this report as a matter of interest and offer the following comments (for information only):

1. The report has no list of references, even though it is stated that available data were reviewed and Youd is specifically cited (p. 3).

2. No mention is made that earthquake cracks were identified along Yarnell Street and Bradley Avenue in our Bulletin 196 (plate 3 and page 80).

3. On page 3 it is implied that the nearest earthquake caused ground failure Is 530 feet m•ay. However, plate 3 of Bulletin 196 shows a scarp vii th 10 cm of offset less than 200 feet south of the site. Even Youd (1975, p. 99) >hows ground failure evidence in agreement with the above.

4. The North Olive Vie"' fault and an air photo lineament are shown to pass directly under the site (NOAA report of 1975, v. 111, p. 214-215 and figure 1; CDMG Bullet in 196, plate 2). This fault is closely associated with minor ground fractures and the Juvenile Hall slide indicating a possible relationship. No mention is made of this fault.

5. The trench identified in the report of 6/14/77 is not located on the map.

If the required reports are to be of future use to others (aside from facilitating a grading plan), the Investigators should be encouraged to 1) list the references cited, 2) cite the references correctly, 3) adequately discuss the pertinent geologic features, and 4) show the locations of significant geologic and other features (e.g. trenches) on an adequate map.

EWH/mkr

cc: A~P filei,,/

Sincerely yours,

EARL W. HART Office of the State Geologist CEG 935

C:OMMl9SIONllRS

Fi!ACHEL., C.LJJ..LIVf,~ DUNNE PRESIDENT

VERN L. BULLOUGl-I

SHIFi!Ll::Y JEAN BETTF.;R

JE;Fi!RY P. CREMINS TOSHIKAZU TERASAWA

CITY OF Los ANGELES CALIFORNIA

TOM BRADLEY MAYOR

October 25, 1977

Mr. Earl Hart Office of the State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology Ferry Building, Room 1009 San Francisco, CA 94111

Dear Mr. Hart:

DEPARTMENT OF

BUILDlNG AND SAl'"ETY 402, (;1'!'Y' HALL

1,..05 ANGELf.5, C::AL!F, 9001:?.

Fi!. J. WILLIAMS GENERAL MANAGER

Transmitted herewith are copies of Geologic-Seismic Reports dated June 14, 1977 and September B, 1977, prepared by Founda­tion Engineering Co., Inc. The reports have been prepared for Lots 1-9 of Tentative Tract 33593, pursuant to Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the Public Resources Code.

The City of Los Angeles has !:!:..':'.1~!i~fl_Jhe reports and find them to be a_i:;_c;_~AJ<.@.)lj~ and in general conformance with the minimum requirements of the Special Studies Zones Act. A copy of the Department letter in review of the reports has been enclosed for your flles •

. ~--;.------ .

J'~'. (~:o~~RRu6:iAs--s•,ff Geologist, CEG# 35 Grading Division

I OT: j b 485-3435

Attachements: Department letter

AN l'QUAL l'MPLOYMl'NT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVI' ACTION EMPLOYl'R

. ,,

Date:

To:

, From:

· Subject:

CITY. OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARJMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

kt•t.• ii, 1111

.. *'• t.t1 A. •fflJ• tef!\J Mlttt•P1 it ... I hpt,...a\ •f C-1*1 P\l.aflf, hM flS, ~ttJ M11

. ' ., '

'• w. C.••rr•it't••• Snff lf•1qta1 ........... , ... , .• , ........ , .. , .... 1'UfATIYI TIACT IHtJ (11all ... •kt"'1fl) LBCATltat tl)IQ lradt•1. · ... ,, ..... ....... ..·. .

, ............... ..,., •• 1 .. •f. ..... ..... .. .•••.• ,· ................. , • ., .. . .......... flt14 ............. "., ........ , ......... '""' .. , •. ,,..,..",_,. ott•• •••'-'''' w••• ••" ••••••• 2.u ••n• •f ,.._.,, lt-41 •••• ot•• Hr••1• ,., •••••n•••• of •tql• fMtll raatf.IM.11•

fq UMi ltea la tutlf .. ll•p.tQ 't.,..ta tll4 ao fAillMl tNd.ta1 .,. .................. .-1. .. ............... .. . ,,.. ,,.., tt ·····- ........ , .. ,, .......... ,, ... ,.., .. .

. $hl• If Ulfftratt 1,..qt11 l&••t.•1 Z-••• ttt.lilllut •.Cw haplff 1.$, atti11t•1 I 1f. th.hllttc 11 .. VQt Ctlittt, .. t.a •• ···· ,, .......... , .. 1.l•At.& .................. ,. .. , ........ .., .. . U. p.ltrt&.·· .. t••1 .... •• tt14.•fl4. t •f. llll .. ltft .. ;.f•a•t " ... Jhr' .. t ... I fOIH .. H t•• 1t14. .d'.'' ...... *• .. •••• ts "."·tc11'4 ta .. ••1.·. '.'.·.•. •r f••.•. ot iJU.lillit• lrutlre• ta tr•• H1fft_. .,,. k•• 1. klltrMl (.c111 . •>.··~·.· . , ..... ,... ........ ,414•• ,., , .... , ............ ,. .. , •• ,.,.,..... . ......... ,. ' . '

till ... ,.., 111 s.tt1 cttt••wtwt ·*"''• •' , ... ,..._., •t . · i.tt•""tif 1'1• t.,ta•u taat • ••"''" wt11· .. ui •• tt•lllc•l•t•

,.. .·

T•n•••• T••• 1a1• •• ,.,.. • ., .. •"I•* "' tu f•11•••tt ••••- · ttu1.a · . . · · · · · . . · > ·.·

· t.. S.lll·fi· tf··.•.• .. ·f .•ff.· ...... • ... tat• ... ••.· .·11 ........ • ... · ... •tllt &ll• .... pa. H• ••• , •f ............... ,.,, ••••.. ,...,.., h ........ •• . · •••f•,...•• wtta tit• irailt•t "'4t•••• •f Mil• ... , •Mtt•1•• hl14fat Cfft prior t• tie• rn1 .. tt1a ef &1'a fl.Ml JltlJ•

l. flat t•l•tlll au,., .. t11: dlta..· •11 'nwfq an4 .,,..... t•• •••t-4 ,, .... ,..,.,.·I•••••••• of ••1 ,.,.,__ .... ·, .

\

·'.'''' .. · ............. · ........ ·.•·· ..... ~ •. . . .. .. , .. ., ... . ' ,.,. . .. ..

•• ll1 .......................... ., .... ••••• . ,: ''·: ..... .:. ' < '

••• ·.f!!.. I ....... ·. I ··.··.·-. If.tie ..... · .. •. Nt••h •. · I•. fl.-.··· .. ·.·.:::= .. ·.·. . · m•--!~..!...--•; •• ,.. ••· ,,,, •• !91· . •· ::.c1 ::·r.:::.=..:-t::· ... -::::r::s .i:s1..::· .... .... ............ . .• . . .·.•

...... ' ...... ····.·• ....... ·.·.•.•·.··=···· .................. , ••• ,, .. ,. .. ... - .. fit..... . . ., llfftt ........... , ......... . ......... ·. . . .•

., •• { 111 .... , ............ U.lt ...................... . .................... . . . · .. .

'· '" ......................... ft .......... lliiltf .. ... . ·. . .. . ..

* ...... ... . . ·· ... ··.. .. . .· .·

-s.....~ · .. ··. '9. ~ .. · . ··.· .• .• , ....... · ...... . '...... ··. . I.•·... ..~ .... i.I -...... • .. I ,... · . ................. . ...............

,.'~.

\••'

·· .. ·"

. 'i

. ,~

l~oUNDATION ENGINEERING Co., lNc. G~orr;.cllNICAL [NGINE~ RING

18344 OXNARD STRe<T • TARZANA, CALIFORNIA 91356

704 sour~ SPRING STRE.e.T LOS ,*.NGE.LE:S, CALIFORNIA 90014-

996-1600

873-~03:2

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED RESIOENTIAL OEVELOPMENT 13701 Bradley Avenue Sylmar, California

REQUESTED BY

MR. FRANK E. JONES WILSHIRE DIVERSIFIED, INC,

400 N. Central Avenue Glendale, California

240-0053 91 209

June 14, 1977

FouNDATION ENGINEERING Co., INc. GEOTEC~INIC}..L. ~NGIN[lRING

16344 OXNARD STREET

'704 sourH SPRING St~E.E:T

General

TARZAN/I, CALIFORNIA 91356

LOS ANGELE:S, CALIF=O~NIA 90014

996-1600

S73-!i03:2

A Geotechnical investigation has been conducted for a residential sub­division to be located at 13701 Bradley Avenue, Syl.mar, california. The site is located at the cormr of Bradley and Yarnell and has a frontage along Bradley of sane 675 feet and a depth of ab:>ut 150 feet.

This investigation was autl¥:>rized to classify the soil at the site, deter­mine if filled grourrl exists, measure the expansive potential of the soil and to oorrelate the soil oonditions with the applicable provisions of the Building Cbde for the designer's use.

In addition, as the site is in the City of Los Angeles' designated seismic study area, a geologic inspection was conducted.

This report p:rovides our opinion of the engineering properties of the soil, based on rand:ln sanpling on a limited al!Ount of the foundation soil. Beeause the character of soil can be highly variable, variations can occur and changes must be expected during construction. Even tl"Pu;ih the soil report is prepared on the basis of a limited anount of testing, it is usually sufficient for design and to act as guide for oonstruction; this testing is certainly much better than the risks associated with no eKPloration or testing of a site. It is with this intent of providing general guidance and our opinions, that this report is prepared, use for any other purpose is mt intended.

SUrface Conditions

The site is nearly level and is presently O=lJied by nunerous olive and citrus trees. Soil exposed on the g:rourrl surface is sandy silt and is in a soft conlltion.

, 1 ,,,11 .~I,' Streets, and adjoining buildings were inspected for setUement and effects 1 1 , _-, T7 I

of expansive or unstable soils. No distress £:can these ca.uses was observed. ·" ~·. ~ I

No surficial inlica.tions of filled ground were I'Pted.

Geotechnical Report

13701 DJ'.'adley Avenue SylJrur, California

Foundation Conditions

2

Sandy silt was found in eadl of the test pits and was consist.ent for the entire depth of the excavations. 'l'his material was generally soft/l!Dist for tw:i ± feet, after which the material beoaim ll'e<lium l!Dist/naliun stiff. Below b.o feet ± the soil becarre l!Dre sandy in nature. Neither fill nor groundwater was encountered in the test h:>les.

Testing

TeSting consisted of field exploration and laboratory tests at randon locations through::mt the site. Test pits Wf'.re excavated by a backh:>e. The awraidmate location of the test h:>les are shcWn on the attached plan. An inspection trench was also excavated across the width of the site with the backh:>e.

Ulgs of the test h:>les are attached and are based on laboratory tests and visual inspection by the engineer in the field. A visual log of the geology inspection trend! is also attached. The test h:>les re­present the conditions at the particular location, changes in soils type and variations in the thickness of various layers of soil can occur between the test h:>les.

Classification tests consisting of grading analysis and l!Disture content indicate that the soils on which the building will be supp:>rted are IlDBtly sandy silt. Density tests sh::M the undisturbed soils to have unifonn densities (O.D.); thus settlenents of similar footings will be unifonn.

The maximJnl density and opt:lrnun noisture content were detennined in the laboratory in aa::ordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (AS'lM) Test Method D 1557. The cmpaction test was made in a four-inch diameter l!Dld having a 1/30 cubic foot volure, with 25 blaiis of a ten­pound hamner falling 18 inches of each of five layers. A l'lEM batch of soil was used for each point on the cxmpaction curve. The maxllnul\ density of the soil is 126 pounds per cubic foot. Cb!q:laring the in-place density with the maximl.fn density, the soils are considered to be in a soft state.

An expansion test is an indrnc test to classify expansive soil measuring the pei:.cent of swell under a surcharge load. The san'{lle was caipacted to at least 90 perC1.111t of the rnaximuTI density and allowed to dry to a noisture content below the shrinkage limit. It was then laterally restrained, loaded with the ra:jllired surcharge and satw;ated. After 24 hours and after all expansion had taken place, the degree of expansion was mt.ea. The expansion is b.o percent. This soil is considered to be slightly

FOUNDA-1'10N ENGINEl>RING c o .. I N C.

Geotechnical Report

13701 Bradley /\venue Syl.IMr, California

3

expansive. EKperience with footings on similar soils indicate that the measured expansion will not require special foundation treat:irent.

Geologic Structure

The main geologic :;tructural features affecting the site are the presence of the Olive View Fault and the San Fernando Fault; both offsite and con­cealed beneath the alluvium. Based on available data provided by T. L. Youd, the Olive Vie:w Fault is approximately 700 ± feet southerly, while the San Fernando Fault segrrent is 1160 ± feet northwesterly of subject property. Probable locations of these faults were a:wpiled by Youd from several different sources, consicerin::r sub-surface data primarily based on water well data; these postulated locations are shONn on the. attached Fault Vicinity Maps. , ..

No known -~i;u:face brea}\_§ _in :tilis yiqiqi;t.y weni directly attributable to faulting. However, approximatel:ir539~'feet to the south of subject site, a scarp was fonred apparently when--the underlying soils were partially er ccmpletely liquified during the earthquake. This scarp extended 3800 feet to Upper Van Norman Lake. Vertical displacenents along the scarp ireasured as much as 3 feet.

'Ihe exploration trench, five to six feet in depth, was inspected and a continoous geologic log was prepared from the data obtained. 'Ihe log is attached as a graphic cross section. 'Ihe investigation indicated no fault rupture, offsets, displaoerrents, or any indication which could be inter­preted as indicative of faulting. 'Iherefore, it is concluded that the property is free of potential fault rupture; confinning that the San Fernando Fault and Olive View Fault are offsite as shown on the attached map.

BaSed upon infonnation supplied by well data in the vicinity, the ground­water is · 30 feet or rrore below the surface . Therefore, groundwater should not affect subject develop:rent from a liquefaction standpoint.

y<'.'._. .. 1 l~

After a detailed field investigation and review of available data, no evidence has been found for fault activity, or ground rupture on subject site. The property has been investigated in accordance with the City of Los Angeles. The site should l:e developed in aco:>rdance with the latest adopted City lluildin::r Code within a seismically active area. Additional reccmrendations are discussed in the aicamendation secton of this te.."{(:,

·' .' .. -. t~: . . ~ 1:· .r

Descriptim of Proposed Structures and Grading

It is inten:led to subdivide the property into 9 lots and to oonstruct a sirqle story stn:cture on each lot. Foundationloads are expected to be relatively light.

Grading will be required to rerrove the various trees in order to proviee suitable sites for the strlx:tures, otheIWise, no extensive grading is con­terrplated.

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING c o ..

t~1·f:e' ('.\'/···

(~' ( ·''ii .

N C.

Geot.echnical Report

13701 Bradley Avenue Syl.mar, California

4

'Ihi.s report is interiled for construction similar to the propose:! building and grading described above. Major changes should be revie-..ed for addi­tional recamendations.

Reccmnendations for Design of FOotings

The Building Code specifies the mininnlm requirenents for design, and the soil is classified as sandy silt. 'Ihe Building Code assigns an allowable foundation pressure for this soil in a compacted state of 1000 pounds per square foot.

As an al t.ernat.e to design of footings, continuous footings for wood frarre buildings and one story masonry buildings may be dinensioned for Table 48A of the Building Code • 'Ihe table provides the following:

No. Stories Depth, Inches Width, Indl.es

l 12 12

2 18 16

'Ihe weight of the footing below the lowest adjacent grada can be neglected. 'Ihe allowable foundation pressure rray be increased up to three tines the given value for earthquakes or other tenparary foroes .

Cbntinuous footings should be reinforced with at least one no. 4 bar of steel near the top of the foundation wall and one no. 4 bar of steel near the base of the footirg.

Although no fault ruptures were encountered or are expected at this site, in the event of a seismic event similar to that of February, 1971, severe ground rrotion and resultant shaking would occur. It is recamended that a horizontal a:niponent of 0 .2g be used in foundation design and that close attention be paid to eliminating dangerous construction methods such as unsecured chiimeys , large open spans or expanses of glass , or free stand­ing parapets or rock veneers. It is recomrended that all bearing footings be continuous and that isolated piers not be used, exoept for floor suwart.

Fecormaldations for Construction

In the renoval of trees required for the building pads, the tree roots should be completely rerroved and properly backfilled. In addition, to provide a uniform subgrac:E, two feet of material in the buildirg area should be re­noved after \Jl.idl. the subgrac:E should be deep scarified to at least 12 ind'les and compacted. 'Ihe excavation should ext.erd at least 4 feet beyaid the footings.

If a seepage pit or oesspool is eno:>untered, do not fill until awroval is obtained fran the grading inspector and Foundation Engireering Coopany. If

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING c a .. I N C.

Geot:echnical ~port

13701 Bradley Avenuo SylIMr, California

5

fill is folID.d during the course of the grading, a ·portion should be re­llDVed and stockpiled, and FolID.dation Engineering Corrpany should 1::e noti­fied.

Prior to placing any fill the prepared subgrade should be insr:ected by the soil engineer. During placerrent of the fill, it should be tested by the soil engineer. Import fill shall be silty sand, clayey sand or sand and shall haw not nore than two percent expansion.

On completion of the w;:,rk, the site should be graded to slope awa:y frun the buildings. Areas where water could pend adjacent to the buildings, in planter areas or where walks and drives 11\0Uld create depressed areas, should be eliminated.

conclusions

We oonclude that the site will be suitable for the proposed grading and con­struction. Our recormendations are based on site conditions during ei<plora­tion, laboratory tests, and ei<perienoe with similar sites; and are in accor­dance with generally accepted prcx:edures of SOil M;chanics and Folll1dation Engineering.

The recarnendations in the report are based on random sanpling, Soil de­p:>sits may vary in type, consistency and many other inportant properties bebeen the borings, Therefore, this report should be considered only preliminary in nature; its purpose is to determine the general fotmdation system for the structure described in the rep:>rt. Fo\ll1dation Engineering Corrpany should continue to be retaimd for the project in orcer that con­tinued observation of the sub-surface conditions can be made and additional reoorrnendations made for changes in resign, if neeeed. Provision should be mad; for possible dlanges in qu;'llltities during const:ru::tian.

The soil and fOlll1dation engineer is responsible for the conclusions and opinions contain=ct in this report, and should, therefore, be considered as relating only to the si,:ecific project and location discussed herein. In the event conclusions or recarnendations based on these data are made bY others, such conclusions or recomrendations are not the responsibility of the soil and folJl1dation engineer unless the soil and f0\ll1dation engineer has been given an opportunity to review and concurs in such conclusions or recomrendati s in wri tirq.

tD Gt:

FD U N ENGINE N C.

... 0

c z CJ

> -t

0

z

Ill

z liJ

z l'I

l'I

;a

z Ii)

n 0

z n

FAULT TRENCH 'PWF11 E

0+00 O+ZO o+uo o+ec -~ ~~-~rr:..;,..~: ; ~~ ·.: ~~-=--=~~~~~~~~-:==:=:-~~~~~ ~ .

.. ,_ ''-:,;.~'.~~~~:~~·:: . :~:~~~~~5,fali;:~_;;\2fi~i~i-~f;W:'.~\~ii~L.~~J,:,;~ihLi:';~;;:·-;~:.:,'.i/1tiWJ;;~

1+00

© "SAIUD'f 'SILi. 01::'... BIZ.ODU UUI R)IUJ.. LDO'SE. µQ("ST

@451LN ~Al.D, LT. BILDWU. OCCA'SlO"-Y.l.L S.12.AVEL A LID CALICJ.JE S-n2.I ~EES, lltJ\ FOe.M ,.DAMP, Fl tM.

'

•

LOG OF TEST HOLES

Continuous disturbed samples were taken for classification tests to identify the various soils, and 2-1/2 inch diameter undisturbed samples were taken at frequent intervals for detailed laboratory tests.

An explanation of the symbols and values shown on the logs is as follows:

M.C. Moisture content in percent of dry weight.

D.D. Dry Density in pounds per cubic foot

4 The percent of material that will pass a no. 4 (3/16") sieve. The materials larger than the no. 4 sieve and smaller than 3 inches would be designated as a gravel, and the material smaller than the no. 4 and larger than the no. 200 would be termed a sand.

200 The percent of the material that will pass a no. 200 sieve (the largest particle that will pass a no. 200 sieve is about the smallest that can be seen with the unaided eye). If more than half of the sample passes this sieve, it would be classed as a silt or clay.

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING COMPANY

'11-1-1 - ; ... .....

I I : I •

• ~ I •

••• ' i

' ' : . ' .. : .. . : . . . : . : ; : • : : I • • I j ' .... : : ; : :

~ - ... -~ - ... .

. ,_ -e • - • • I

' ' I I ' ~ I I I

I I > I I

. ' ' t > • I

' . ' , : I

1 I ' I

I t \ t

I • • I

' I I I . ' ~ ' I '

~ I : J : ' . ~ .

I I \ f J

I ' ' ' i 1 b .. ·. "

~I":. ;1·: , ·: ' I ' I 8 1 ' :1• I •

• I t I •

i ' • j •

• • • I I ( ' \

I ' lo ' 1

I i ' I

' 'j j' :

: I j, * t

I I j '

•• ' • j . . . . ' ~· . : . : . ""J j ••

: : : : ! < I I t t

' . . . . . j • • • . . . . I j, I ) . : . . . ' ... j ••• . . . . . . I 4 I I •

' I' ' ' . : : ; .

LOG OF TEST HOLE I tvcl ool 4 I@ o Es c:. R 1PT10N I ee 100 65 SANDY 'SILT, DI::'... MOWl) ID BIZfuJl

14 88 lex:> <o5 W/DEPIB 5CFT !. MOIST~ IVz. r ~-ID lYI MP t: 1-.\ CD. "5.17 FF

'1 ICO 55 ILJ! DE.PTH

103 SL . -:PLAS 11C..

f{o 100 55 SAt...lOY 'SILT, DK. '&RDWIWlD

(oO Btu:X.tJD @ z Fr. -:cf'T/ MDI-ST 1ZJ e_ Fr.

12':. q\ ICO ID UED. HOIST/ HE0.51\FF IJ.J/ OCPm

l"3 /CO <oO 'SL 'RASnC.. ICD

JO JOO G:f5

"51L IY SAUD. '5f20Wl'.l.f'l0Cbi'.AIO,

II u::o qO l\.IID UOl'ST HED. DEu:E. ~--:rw:snc.

18 JOO 65 'SAUD"'f 'SILT.. 'DI::'.. "?il'lCWLI 1D 'NIO.iJU

/(,p 107 to::> TDf' l'ft :! R". :o=r /UC6T

"5 MED. UOJS r I Sil FF

UJ! DEPIH 8 100 SS

11q <;L. l> LA'5T1 C..

Je /CO '15 "5f\lJOY ':>IL T, DI::'.:. 'l:>IW!.lJkJ 10 crulJ.ll.)

9 q.,. 100 85' -:DFT I IJ.0'5T FaZ.. L. F i. um . ..osr I UED.'5Tlff WIDE.Pru

'SL. "PLASTIC.. JO /CO "'ID

ICXo E XCAVATE.D S-10- '1'1 t-.D G [..OUf\lD WA"TE..12.. 13'10 I T.lfZADLE."'t A\.IC,

"!JYLMAP.., CALI!=.

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING COMPANY

•

•

VIC I NIT'i

/;{

FAULT IV\AP

• • '3Al.l FEWNJOO FALX.T

·./ • • •

11/• •• • • ••

y Av,c e • e • SITE. e e

'SLIDE C:.-~ \_ • e • ;pi.ul-""I ~RP l. e e

ti•~ ..... -...)\~ • • • • • o'-'~t..

0

1~101 B2.ADLE."f A\lE. S"YLJ..\A2., CALIF.

FOUNDATION ENGINEERING co .. I N C.

I Mli.E