3598 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD CITY OF LYNWOOD
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORaNIA
LYN 000623
May 8, 2014 Project No. 14317-70
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD~ LLC 3598 Martin Luther Kirtg
Jr. Boulevard Lyawood, California 90262
Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed
Suneor Lynwood Facility Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard, City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
In aecordanee with your request, CW Soils is pleased to present
ola" supplemental geoteehnieal inlerpretive 1~:port for the
proposed Suncor Lynwood Facility Upgrades located at 3598 Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood, Los Angeles
County, California. The purpose of o~ work was to evaluate the
nature, distribution, and engineering properties of the geologic
formations underlying the site based on the referenced report (Soil
Exploration, 2014) with respect to the proposed improvements and
review comments letter dated March 27, 2014 prepared by the
S~atewide Health Planning and Development.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of fur~er assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils :’.
Distribution: (6) Addressee \.
o CW SOILS, 23251 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 ~ 951-304-3935 *
cwsoils.eom *
LYN 000624
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
..................................................................................................................
1 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
.........................................................................
t
Field Exploration
.........................................................................................................................................
1 FINDINGS
.......................................................................................................................................................
l
Regional Geology
.........................................................................................................................................
1 Local Geology
...............................................................................................................................................
2 Faulting
........................................................................................................................................................
2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
..........................................................................................
2 - General
.........................................................................................................................................................
2
Earthwork
....................................................................................................................................................
3 Grading Operations
.................................................................................................................................
3 Groundwater
............................................................................................................................................
3 Ground Preparation
................................................................................................................................
3 Deeper Ground Preparation Compaction Grouting
...............................................................................
3
- Compacted Fill Placement
.......................................................................................................................
4 Import Soils
..............................................................................................................................................
4 Geotechnieal Obse~Tations
......................................................................................................................
4
- SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
..............................................................................................................
4 Ground Motions
...........................................................................................................................................
4 Histbric Seismic Activity ................................... :
.......................... :
............................................................ 5
Llqnefaetion and Lateral Spreading
...........................................................................................................
5 Foundation Observations ....................... :
....................................................................................................
5
GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
............................................................. 6 --
REPORT LIMITATIONS
...............................................................................................................................
6
Attaohments: APPENDIX A - References APPENDIX B- Seismic Design
Criteria APPENDIX C - Liquefaction & Settlement Analysis Plate
1 - Geoteelmieal Map Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections
LYN 000625
INTRODUCTION
This report prepared by CW Soils, presents a supplemental
interpretive geotechnical and geologic evaluation for the proposed
improvements. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the nature,
distribution, and engineering properties of the geologic formations
underlying the site based on the referenced report (Soil
Exploration, 2014) with respect to the proposed improvements and
review comments letter dated March 27, 2014 prepared by the
Statewide Health Planning and Development.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The existing building is located at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California.
The subject property is primarily surrounded by multi-family
residential and commercial developments.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on our understanding of the proposed project, the existing
building will be remodeled, which will include a seismic upgrade.
The proposed improvements are anticipated to consist era wood,
concrete, or steel framed one-story construction.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Exploration
No additional field exploration or laboratoD, t.esting was
pertbrmed as part of this supplement. A truck mounted
hollow-stem-auger drill rig was mobilized on December 26, 2013 to
advance two borings in the project area to a maximum depth of 50
t~et, by Soil Exploration Co., Inc. The exploratory locations and
geologic conditions at the project are illustrated on Plate 1 -
Geoteehnical Map and Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections.
Regional Geology
Regionally, the project is located in the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are
characterized by northwest trending sediment filled elongated
valleys divided by steep mountain ranges. Associated with and
subparallel to the northwest trending San Andreas Fault, are the
San Jacinto Fault, Newport-lnglewood Fauk, and the
Whittier-Elsinore Fault zones. The northwest trend of the province
has played a major role in shaping the dominant structural geologic
features in the region as well. The Perris Block forms the eastern
boundary of the Elsinore Fault, while the west side is comprised
ofthe Santa Ann Mountains. The Perris Block is in turn bounded to
the east by the San Jacinto Fault. The Peninsular Ranges Province
and
o-- the Transverse Range Province are separated by the northern
perimeter of the Los Angeles basin, which is formed by a northerly
dipping blind thrust fault.
The low lying areas within the Peninsular Ranges Province are
principally made up of Tertiary and Quaternary non-marine alluvial
sediments consisting of alluvial deposits, sandstones, elaystones,
siltstones, conglomerates,
LYN 000626
and occasional volcanic units. The mountainous regions are
primarily made up of Pre-Cretaceous, metasedimentary, and
metavolcanle rocks along with Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the
Southern California Bathotith.
Local Geology
The most relevant local geologic units expected to be present at
the site are summarized in this section. A general description of
the dominant soils that form the geologic units is provided
below:
¯ Quaternary Young Alluvial Deposits (map symbol Qya): Quaternary
young alluvial deposits were encountered to a maximum depth of 50
feet. These alluvial deposits consist predominately of interlayered
light brown, grayish brown to gray, silty sand and silty clay.
These deposits were generally noted to be ina slightly moist to
~vet, loose to very dense (medium stiffto very stiff) state.
Faulting
Significant ground shaking will likely impact the site within the
design life of the proposed project, due to the project being
located in a seismically active region. The geologic structure of
the entire southern California area is dominated by
northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas Fault
system. The San Andreas Faull system accommodates for most of the
right lateral movement associated with the relative motion between
the Pacific and North American tectonic plates.
The subject property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault
Rupture Hazard Study Zone, established by the State of California
to restrict the construction of habitable structures across
identifiable traces of known active faults. No active faults are
kn6wn to project through the proposed project. As defined by the
State of California, an active fault has undergone surface
.displacement within the past l i,000years or during the Holocene
geologic time period.
Based upon our understanding of the site and our analysis using the
referenced software (USGS 2002 Interactive Deaggregation), the
Newport lngle~,ood Fault with an approximate source to site
distance of 7.2 kilometers is the e!osest known active thult
anticipated to produce the highest ground accelerations, having an
estimated maximum modal magnitude of 7.0. The potential for surface
ruplure to adversely impact the safety of the existing structures
inhabitants is very low to remote. The Puente Hills Blind Thrust
Fault is located approximately 7.1 kilometers from the proposed
project.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
From a soils engineering and engineering geologic point of view,
the subject property is considered suitable for the pt’oposed
improvements, provided the conclusions and recommendations herein
ar~ incorporated into the plans and are implemented during
construction.
May 8, 2014 2 CW Soils
LYN 000627
G~ding Operations
Grading operations are subject to the provisions of the 2013
California Building Code (CBC), including Appendix J Grading, as
wott as all applicable grading codes and requirements of the
appropriate reviewing agency.
Groundwater
As noted in the referenced report (Soils Exploration, 20t4),
groundwater was observed during the field exploration at a depth of
35 feet below exiting grade. The historic high groundwater level
was reported as 8 feet below exiting grade.
Ground Preparation
Below the existing stab, the removal of low density, compressible
earth materials, such as any upper undocumented artificial fill and
young alluvial deposits, is recommended. Removal excavations are
subject to verification by the project engineer, geologist or their
representative. Prior to placing compacted fills, 1:he exposed
bottom in each removal area should be scarified to a depth of 6
inches or more, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near
optimum moisture conditions and then compacted to a minimum of 90
percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557. Care
should be taken to ensure that the existing foundations remain
supported during the removal and recompaction operations. Temporary
vertical excavations removing support from the existing build.lug
may require the use of slot ct,tting (ABC method).
The slot cutting method uses the remaining earth filled slots as a
burgess and allows the excavation to proceed in phases. The initial
excavation is made at a slope of 1: I. Alternate slots of I0 feet
in width may be worked. The remaining earth buttresses should be 20
feet in width. The slots should be backfilted before the "B" earth
buttresses are excavated. The "C" earth buttresses may be excavated
upon completion of the walls and backfilling of the ’W’
slots.
The geologist should be present during excavating to see temporary
slopes. It is imperative that grading schedules minimize the
e×posur~ time of unsupported excavations. Water should be prevented
from flowing towards or ponding at the top of the
excavations.
The intent of remedial grading is to improve the near surface soils
for slab and foundation support. For cursory purposes the
anticipated removal depths are shown on the enclosed Plate 1 -
Geotectmical Map and Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections. In general,
the anticipated removal depths should be 3 feet bdow existing slab
grade.
Deeper Ground Preparation Compaction Grouting
Compaction grout improvements are recommended below the existing
building and 5 feet beyond the perimeter. These improvements should
extend to firm competent earth materials encountered at depths
ranging from 5 to 15 feet deep. We recommend that the compaction
grout contractor be required to monitor and be alerted to any
movement within the existing structure during the grouting
process.
May 8, 2014 3 CW Soils
LYN 000628
The improved earth materials should be tested to a depth of 1.5
feet upon completion to insure
that the sandy earth materials have obtained a corrected (N:t}60
value of 30 or greater. The testing should be conducted utilizing
three hollow stem auger borings utilizing an automatic trip safety
hammer.
Compacted Fill Placement
Well mixed soils should be placed in 6 to 8 inch maximum
(uncompacted) lifts, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve
uniform near optimum moisture content and then compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by
ASTM D1557-12.
Import Soils
If needed to achieve final design grades, all potential impoll
materials should be non-expansive, free of deleterious/oversize
materials, and approved by the project soils engineering consultant
prior to delivery onsite.
Geotechnical Observations
Clearing operations, removal of unsa~itable materials, and general
grading procedures should be observed by the project soils
consultant or his representative. Compacted fill should not be
placed without prior bottom observations being conducted by the
soils consultant or his representative to verify the adequacy of
the removals.
The project ~ils consultant or his representative should be present
to observe grading operations and to check that the minimum
compaction reqtfirements are beiiag obtained. In addition,
verification of compliance with the other grading recommendations
presented herein should be provided concurrently.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Gronnd Molions
To resist the effects of design level seismic ground motions,
structures are required to be designed and constructed in
accordance with the 2010 California Building Code. The majority of
the design parameters have been provided in the previous repo~t
referenced herein (Soil Exploration, 2014).
A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the site was
conducted in accordance with the 2010 CBC. The probabilistie
seismic hazard maps and data files were jointly prepared by the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the California
Geological Survey (CGS). Actual ground shaking intensities at the
subject property may be substantially higher or lower based on
complex variables such as the near source directivity effects,
depth and consistency of soils, topography, geologic structure,
direction of fault rupture, seismic wave reflection, refi’action,
and attenuation rates. The anticipated horizontal ground
acceleration for evaluating the potential for liquefaction at the
site during the design earthquake event is 0.42 g (S~s/2.5, per the
2010 CBC
-- Section I803.5.t2).
LYN 000629
Historic Seismic Activity
The subiect property is located in a seismically active region of
southern California and has undergone several seismic events since
construction. The Los Alamitos Fault and Charnock Fault having late
Quaternary activity are located approximately 7.5 and I0 miles
south and west of the proposed project, respectively. These faults
have a north to northwest trend which is typical for southern
California. Past strong ground shaking experienced at the property
has likely come from the Elsinore Fault 0Nhittier Section), Palos
Verdes Fautt, Raymond Fault to the north or ltollywood Fault, right
lateral Newport lnglewood Fault, and Puente Hills blind thrust
Fault to the east.
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
The three requirements for liquefaction to occur include seismic
shaking, poorly consolidated cohesionless sands, and groundwater.
Liquefaction results in a substantial loss of shear strength in
loose, saturated, cohesionless soils subjected to earthquake
induced ground shaking. Potential impacts fi’om liquefaction
include loss of bearing capacity, liquefaction related settlement,
lateral movements, and surface manitbstation in the form of sand
boils. The potential tbr design level earthquake induced
liquefaction and lateral spreading to significantly impact the
existing structure is considered low due to the recommended
compacted fill, relatively low groundwater level, and the proposed
ground improvements.
We have provided liquefaction analyses that model the existing
ungraded conditions and recommended graded conditions, using a
groundwater level of 7 feet to ~present a conservative historic
high groundwater level. The analyses of the existing conditions
revealed thin potentially liquefiable soils were encountered in
boring B-l, fi, om 0 to 7 feet and from 25 to 43 feet deep. Our
analyses were performed utilizing the guidelines of Recommended
Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication t 17,
Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigatihg LiqueJbction Hazards in
Califo~wia (SCEC, 1999) and Guidethtes for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards" in California, California Geological
Survey, Special Publication t 17A 2008.
Based on our calculations, we esthnate that dynamic settlement of
sands due to liquefaction will be on the order of 6.8 inches
without the recommended ground improvements. Based on our
calculations, we e~timate that dynamic settlement of sands due to
liquefaction will be on the order of 5.2 irtehes with the
recommended ground improvements. However, according to Fig. 10
oflshihara (1995) liquefaction should not man|lest itself at the
surface, due to the recommended ground improvements, the depth of
the liquefiable soils, and the volume of overburden materials above
the liquefiable zone. The liquefaction potential and dynamic
settlement of sands calculations can be found h~ Appendix C.
Foundation Observations
Prior to the placement of forms, concrete, or steel, all foundation
excavations should be observed by the geologist, engineer, or his
representative to verify that they have been excavated into
competent bearing materials, in accordance with the 2010 CBC. The
foundations should be excavated per the approved plans, moistened,
cleaned of all loose materials, trimmed neat, level, and square.
Moisture softened soils should be removed prior to steel or
concrete placement. Soils fi’om foundation excavations should be
removed from slab on grade areas, unless they have been properly
compacted and tested.
May 8, 2014 S CW SoH~
LYN 000630
GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SUNCOR
LYNWOOD, LLC and their authorized representative. It is unlikely to
contain sufficient information for other parties or other uses. CW
Soils should be provided the opportunity to review the final design
plans and specifications prior to construction, in order to verify
that the recommendations have been properly incorporated into the
project plans and specifications. If CW Soils is not accorded the
opportunity to review the project plans and specifications, we are
not responsibility for misinterpretation of our
recommendations.
We recommend that CW Soils be ~’etained to provide soils
engineering and engineering geologic services during the grading
and foundation excavation phases of work, in order to allow for
design changes in the event that the subsurface conditions differ
fi’om those anticipated prior to construction.
CW Soils should review any changes in the project and modify the
conclusions and recommendations of this report in writing. This
report along with the drawings contained within are intended for
design input purposes only and are not intended to act as
construction drawings or specifications. In the event that
conditions during grading or construction operations appear to
differ from those indicated in this report, our office should be
notified immediately, as appropriate revisions may be
required.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill
ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable
soils et.~gineers and geologists, practicing at the time and
location this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice
included in this report.
Soils vary in type, strength, and other engineering properties
between points of observation and exploration. Groundwater and
moisture conditions can also vary due to natural processes or the
works of man on this or adjacent properties. As a result, we do not
and cannot have complete knowledge of the subsurface conditions
beneath the proposed project. No practical stndy can completely
eliminate uncertainty with regard to the anticipated geologic and
soils engineering conditions in connection with a proposed project.
The conclusions and recommendations within this report are based
upon the findings at the points of observation and are subject to
confirmation by CW Soils based on the conditions revealed during
grading and construction operations.
This report was prepared with the understanding that it is the
responsibility of the owner, to ensure that the conclusions and
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of
the other project consultants and are incorporated into the plans
and speeificationso The owners’ contractor should implement the
recommendations in this report and notify the owner as well as our
office if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein
to be unsafe or unsuitable.
.... May 8, 2014 6 CI&’ Soils
LYN 000631
APPENDIX A
References
California Building Standards Commission, 2010, 2010 California
Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part Z
Vohame 2 of 2, Based on 2009 International Building Code.
Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, William A., 199Z Fault Rupture Ilazard
Zones in CaliJbrnia, CDMG Special Publication 42, revised
2003.
Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
h~vestigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Slructu~’esfo~"
Sunem° Lynwood Facility, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, duted January 3, 2014.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended
Procedures’for Implementation of DMG ,Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards" in
California, Moa’ch.
Oft’ice of Statewide Health Planning ~nd Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
LYN 000633
APPENDIX B
14317- 70 Ge..~gmphtc [_k’~agg. Seista~ic Haz md
f,)r 0.00-s Spectr~l Accel, 0.6420 g
Max, significant sotu’c¢ dictate )0. kin.
http:/leqint.er.usgs.govleq-menldeag#nt20021114317-70_9177_pga.jpg
5t5/2014
Pl~b. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation 14317-70 118.204° W. 33.932
bl.
~ .:-~. -- .-:.; .-~ .. ~- .~. ~;.. -..
Page 1 of 3
*** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of
Spectral Accel. *** *** Data from U,S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards
Mapping Project, 2002 version *** PSHA Deaggregatlon.
%contributions. site: 14317-70 long: 118,204 W.0 lat: 33.932 N.
USGS 2002-03 update files and programs, dM=0.2. Site descr:ROCK
Return period; 2475 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.6421 ~Pr[at least one eq
with median motio~=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00021 DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL EPS
EPSTLON>2 I<EPS<2 0<EPS<I -I~EPS<0
-2<EPS<-I
6.7 5.05 1.217 0,896 0.321 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.6 5.05 0.230
0,230 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 5,20 2.429 1.560 0,869
0.000 0,000 0,000 0.000
11.7 5.20 0.544 0.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 6.7 5.40 2,423
1.238 1.185 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11.8 5.40 0.662 0.662 0.000 0.000 0.0O0 0.000 0.000 6.8 5.60 2,422
0.926 1,496 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.0 5,60 0,792 0,776 0,017
0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 6.8 5.80 2.394 0.708 1,626 0.060 0.000
0.000 0.000
12.2 5.80 0,933 0,806 0.128 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.2 6.02 3.333
0.894 2.224 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.8 5.99 0.837 0.644 0.193 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.2 6.20 4,973
1.078 3.320 0.575 0.000 0.000 0,000
14.7 6.20 2,082 1,750 0,331 0,000 O.000 0.000 0,000 7.0 6.40 5.334
0.859 3.305 1.170 0.000 0,000 0.000
14.8 6.35 3.385 2.005 1.380 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.0 6.39 0.109
0,109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.2 6.64 17,363 2.144 i0.I12
5,106 0.D00 0.000 0,000
14.6 6.55 3,602 2.100 1.502 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21,7 6.58 0.299
0.299 0,000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0,000 6.9 6.82 12,279 2,1S6 7.274
2,849 0.000 0,000 0.000
16.5 6.79 1.368 1.197 0.171 0.000 0,000 0.000 0,000 22.2 6.79 0.139
0.139 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.OO0 7 2 6.96 19.885 1,796 9.689
8.401 0.000 0,000 0,000
16 6 6.96 0.436 0.357 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7 I 7.16 9.127
1,015 5,127 2.955 0.030 0.000 0,000
19 6 7.17 0.454 0.454 ~.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 25 3 7.14 0.05~
0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 ~.000 7 1 7,41 0.270 0.020 0.121
0.127 0.002 0.000 ~.000
19.6 7.39 0.476 0.476 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000
Summary statistics for abo~e PSHA PGA deagg~egation, R=distance,
e=epsilon: Mean src-site R= 8.4 km; M= 6,54; eps0= 1.08. Mean
calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 7.2 km; M= 6.96; eps0= 0.55 from peak (R,M) bin
Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rib MODE R*= 7.2km;
M*= 6.64; EPS.INTERV~J~: i to 2 sigma % COk~fRIB.= 10,112
P~inclpal sources (faults, subductlon, random se~smlc~ty ha~ing
>10% contrlbut~on) Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0
(mean values) Calif. thrust/reverse faults 29.89 8.8 6.78 0.72
California shallow gridded 40.50 8.0 6.09 1.32 Calif b, SS or
Thrust 28.52 8.1 6.91 1.06 ~nd£vidual fault hazard details ~f
contrlb.>l%: 2 Newport-Ingle~d 15.49 7.2 7.01 0.91 2
N~wport-Inglewood GR M-distri 11.33 7.5 6.76 1.04 2 Upper Elysian
Park 6.11 15.0 6.38 2.82 2 Puente Hills blind thrust 12.08 7.1 7.00
0.36 2 Puente Hills blind thl~/st OR 11.71 7.3 6.75 0.52
Elsin~re-15 1.09 18.2 6.77 2.50 ******************** Southern
California **************************************** PSHA
Deaggregation. %contrlbutlons. ROCK site: 14317-70 lon~: 118,204 d
W., lat: 33.932 N, USGS 2002-2003 update files and programs,
Analysis on DaMoYr:05/05/2014 Return period: 2475 yrs. 1.00 s. PSA
=0.5649 g. #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PSA in 50
yrs]=0.00O01 DIST(km) MAG(Mw) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 I~EPS~2
0<EPS~I -I<EPS<0 -2<EPS<-I EPS<-2
6.2 5.22 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.6 5.41 0.158
0.158 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.7 5,61 0.313 0.302 0.010
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
http://eqint.er.usgs.gov/eq-men/deaggint2002//14317-70_9177_.txt
5/5/2014
LYN 000637
11.6 5.62 0.071 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
6.7 5.80 0.510 0.398 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.1 5.81 0,207
0,207 0.000 0.000 0,000 0,000 0.000 7.1 6,02 1.043 0.668 0.375
0,000 0,000 0.000 0.000
13.3 6.00 0.321 0 321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.1 6.21 2.088
0 924 1.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.9 6.25 1.809 3 801 0.008 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.5 6.21 0.077
0 077 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 6.8 6,40 2.950 0 827 2.123
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.6 6.39 1.278 1 086 0.192 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 21.3 6 38 1.033
I 033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.D00 0.000 6.9 6 59 6.722 1.425 5.035
0.262 0.000 0.000 0.000
16,0 6 59 4.951 3.950 1.001 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 22.2 6 59 2.342
2.342 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 52.2 6 61 0.092 0.092 0.0O0
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.0 6 79 19.028 2.628 12.836 3.564 0.000
0.000 0.000
17.6 6 83 ~.540 3.505 1,035 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 25.2 6 80 1.177
1.171 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.7 6 79 0.126 0.226 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000
"" 7.1 6,98 17.534 2,225 11.337 3.972 0.000 0.000 0,000 18.5 7.02
2,285 1.584 0.701 0.000 0,000 0,000 0.000 26.0 6.98 1.032 0.974
0.057 0.000 0o000 0.000 0.000 35.9 6.98 0.129 0.129 0,000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
-" 7.1 7.16 10.663 0.832 5,280 4.551 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.7 7.23
6.331 3.843 2.487 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 28.1 7.14 0.768 0.718
0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.2 7.23 0.417 0.417 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
-~ 45.6 7.13 0.054 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.1 7.36
0.733 0.047 0.300 0.384 0.002 0.000 0,000
19.6 7.47 1.780 0.595 1.185 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 29.7 7,32 0,299
0.227 0.072 0.000 0,000 O.000 0.000
"-- 31.3 7.46 0.~13 0.079 0.034 0.000 0 0O0 0.000 0.000 45.8 7.37
0.315 0.315 0.000 0,000 0 0D0 0.000 0,000 65.5 7.42 0.052 0.082
0.000 0.000 0 000 0.000 0.000 19,7 7.65" 0.098 0,023 0.075 0,000 0
0O0 0.000 0.000 45.9 7.58 0.725 0.725 0.000 0.000 0 000 0.000 0.000
65.5 7.61 0,160 0.160 0.000 0.000 0 000 0.000 0.000 76.4 7.57 0.153
0.153 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45,7 7,80 0.092 0.078 0.014
0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000
"’" 65.5 7.84 2.637 2,637 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 76.3 7.77
0.890 0.890 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.O00 65.5 8,03 0.835 0.835
0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.5 8.20 0.939 0.751 0.188 0.000
0.000 0.00O 0.000
Summary statistics for above l. Ds PSA deaggregatlon, R=distance,
e=epsilon: Mean src-si~e R= 14.8 M~; M= 6.90; e~s0= 1,36. Mean
calculated for all s~n~rces.
Modal src-site R= 7.0 km; M= 6.79; eps0= 0.91 fro~ peak (R,M} bin
Gridded source distance m~trics: Rseis Rrup a~d Rjb MODE R*= 7.1km;
M*= 6,79; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma % CONTRIB,= 12.836
Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismiclty having
>10% contribution) Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0
(mean values) California SS faults 10.58 44,3 7.39 2.16 Calif.
thrust/reverse faults 22.73 8.4 6.83 0.87 California shallow
grldded 19.08 9.0 6.48 1.45
--. Calif b, SS or Thrust 47.6~ 13.7 6.99 1.38 Indlv~dual fault
hazard de~a~l~ if contrib.~%: 2 Newport-lnglewood 18,06 7.2 7,03
0.88 2 Sierra Madre Char M 1.57 30.2 7.19 2.16
-~, 2 Anacapa-Dume Ch M 0.96 45.8 7.56 2.30 2 Newport-Inglewo~d GE
M-disuri 11.08 7.8 6,79 1.14 2 Raymond 1.46 20,9 6.53 2.40 2 U~r
ElyB~an Park 3.78 15,0 6,41 1.98
.-. 2 Puente Hills blind thrust 10.59 6.9 7.02 0.51 2 Puente H~IIs
bl~nd thrust OR 8.36 7.1 6.77 0.82 2 Palos Verdes 8.07 19.6 7.27
1.73
http:tleqint.cr.usgs.govleq-menldeaggint2OO2fl14317-70._9177_.txt
515/2014
LYN 000638
2 Palos Verdes GR M-dlstrib 3.01 20.3 6.97 2.03 SAF-AII southern
segments Amodl 1.68 65.5 8,13 2.10 SAY - 1857 Amodl 1,16 65.5 7.84
2.33 SAF - 185~ Amod2 ~.68 65,5 7.84 2.33 Elsinore-15 4.96 18.2
6.81 2.00 *********4********** Southern California
*****4********************************** pSPL~. Deag~regation.
%contributlons, ROCK site; 14317-70 long: USGS ~002-200E update
f~les and programs. Analysis on DaMoYr:05/05/2014 Return period:
2~75 yrs. 0,20 s. 9SA ~1.5S64 @Pr[at l~ast one eq w~th median
motion>~PSA in 50 yrs]=0,00002
6.7 5.05 1.211 0.922 0.289 0.000 ~.000 9.000 0.000 11.5 5.05 0.R34
0.234 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 6.8 5.20 ~.393 1.558 0.835
0,000 0.000 0,000
~1.7 5,20 0.585 0,585 0o000 0,000 0.000 0,000 0.000 "’" 6,8 5.40
2.353 1.241 1.111 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000
11.9 5.40 0.739 0.739 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 6.8 5.60 2.325
0,948 1.377 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.1 5.60 0,904 0.887 0.0~ 0,000 0.000 0,O00 0.O00 6.8 5.80 2.282
0,734 1.526 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.4 5.80 1,064 0.930 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.3 6,02 3.226
0,932 2,148 0.146 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.1 5.99 0,979 0.g78 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ~- 7.2 6,~0
4.803 1.114 3.26~ 0.429 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.8 6,20 2.253 1.870 0,383 0,000 21.2 6.~I 0.0~8 0.078 0.000 0.000
0.000 0o000 0.000
6.9 6.40 5.070 0,877 3.268 0.924 0,000 0.000 0.000 ~ --" ]4.8 6.35
3.985 2~323 1.662 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000
21.2 6.37 0.375 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 7.2 6.62 ~3.904
1.895 B.578 ~.431 0.000 0.000 0.000
15,2 6,57 4.917 3.177 1,740 0.000 0.000 0.000 0o000 "- 22.0 6,58
0.847 0.847 0.000 0.000 0.000 G,O00 0.000
?.I 6,80 14.~I~ 2.201 9.070 3.540 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.6 6,83 1.831
1.538 0.~93 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ~3,3 6.78 0.269 0.269 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000
-" 7.1 6,94 14.5~5 1.808 8,382 4.365 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.4 7,00
0.656 0.556 0.i01 0o000 0.000 0.000 0,00~ 24.2 6.95 0.~3~ 0.231
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.i 7.1~ ~I,067 1.251 5.~76 3.840
0.000 0.000 0.000
19.7 7,14 0.507 0,507 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 27.9 7.14 0,100
0,100 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 7.2 7.39 0.326 0.023 0,133
0.167 0.003 0.000 0.000
19.7 7.34 0.908 0,908 0,000 O.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 ’ 29.7 7.33
0.063 0,063 0,000 0.000 O.OOO 0.000 D.O00
Sum~zy sta~ist$c~ ~or above 0.2s PSA dea~gregation, R=dlstanee,
Mean arc-alto R= 8,9 km; M= 6,53; eps0= t.20, Mean calculated for
all sources,
Modal src-s~te R= 7.1 k~ M= 6,80; eps0= ~.86 ~r~m peak (R,M) bin
Gr~dded source dfstance metrics: Rsels Rrup and MODE ~= 7.1km; M*=
6.80; EPS.INTERVAL: I to 2 sigma % CONTRXB.= 9,070
Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seism~city havins
>~08 contribution) Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0
(mean values) Calif, thrust/reverse faults 28.00 9.~ 6.75 0.86
California shallow ~r~dded 40,40 8.3 6.09 1,41
-- Calif b, SS or Thrust 29.71 9,1 6.90 1.17 Indlvldual fault
hazard details if eontrib.>l%~ 2 Newport-Inglewood 14.78 7.1
7.00 0.93 2 Newport~Inglewood GR M-distrl 11.27 7,6 6.76 1.08
- 2 Upper Elys~an Park 6,96 15.0 6.38 1.79 2 Puente Hills blind
th~st 10.47 7,1 7.00 0.48 2 Puente Hills blind ~hr~st GR 10.57 7,3
6.74 0,62 2 Palos Verdes 1.45 19.7 7.26 2.34 Elslnore-15 1.89 18,2
6.78 2.56 ~*******~********~** Southern California
http://eqintcr.usgs.gov/eq-merddeaggint2002//143 ! 7-70_9 ! 77_.txt
51512014
LYN 000640
LYN 000641
LYN 000642
Suncor Lynwood July 8, 2015 Suncor Lynwood, LLC. Proposal No.
P-15-2103
ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been made in the preparation of our
scope of services:
[] Any permits to proceed with the exploration will be provided by
the client, at no cost to Independent
Solutions.
[] Right of entry will be provided by the land owners.
[] No environmental endangered species are present in the proposed
area of exploration.
[] Natural soils are relatively close to the existing ground
surface.
[] The excavation locations are accessible with a hollow stem type
drilling equipment.
[] Our services will not include the evaluation of hazardous
materials or contaminated soils.
[] Conducting this exploration and testing of the soils as
described in the scope of services above, does not
constitute that all sites can always be developed for their
intended use.
[] Conducting this exploration and testing does not guarantee that
favorable results can always be provided.
SCHEDULE If you should choose to accept our proposal, we can start
to work within approximately one week after receipt of
your authorization to proceed. It is estimated that the initial
testing will take approximately 2 to 3 weeks to
complete, depending on the equipment availability and assuming that
there are no delays due to inclement
weather. Should favorable results be obtained we estimate another
week to complete the report.
As an alternative, we can provide the report in a three-week
period, however, due to added costs due to expediting
and overtime the fee will increase to $21,500.00. (This time frame
applies only to the field work, lab testinl~ analysis and the
preparation of the report, commencing
with the date of drilling. It is not intended to apply to the
process of applying for the Alternative Method of
Compliance (AMC). Since the AMC has to be approved prior to
providing the recommendations in our report, the
above stated schedule will not be applicable should the paper work
for the AMC, significantly delay the project.
CLOSING We look forward to working with you on this project and
providing cost-effective geotechnical services. Should
you choose to accept our proposed scope of work, please sign and
return both copies of the attached Work
Authorizations to our office. Please include the required retainer
to initiate testing. Upon receipt, we will sign and return one copy
to you for your records. The balance of each phase is due in full
upon completion of the reports.
It is important to note that there are two phases to each project,
the design phase and the construction phase. This
authorization is applicable only to those services provided during
the design phase of your project. A separate contract will be
required prior to initiating services necessary during the
construction phase of your project.
If you have any questions regarding this authorization, please
contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
Steven B. IVliller Vicki Williford 0 Certified Engineering
Geologist Vice President
500 Chaney Street, Suite E; Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(951) 674-3222 office/(951) 231-2564 fax
LYN 000643
Suncore Lynwood, LLC. Proposal No. P-15-2103
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FOR THE
WORK AUTHORIZATION
(951) 674-3222 office / (951) 231-2564 fax
LYN 000644
Suncore Lynwood, LLC. Proposal No. P-15-2103
WORK AUTHORIZATION (Please sign and 2 copies)
Date: July 7, 2015
Project Address: 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Lynwood,
California.
Legal Description: APN 6191-016-021, Lot 69, Tract 20680 Type of
Exploration: Supplemental Geotechnical - Uquefaction
Proposed Structure: Proposed Building Upgrades to Skilled Nursing
Facility
Scope of Work: See Attached Cover Letter
Property Owner: Suncore-Lynwood Telephone:
Fee: $18,500 (Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) plus drilling
costs (Estimated at $2,000.00 - $2,5oo.oo)
Amount of Retainer: $ 8,500.00 (Eight Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars) Balance Due: Upon completion of the report. Invoice to:
Client Report Distribution: (5) to Client
Conditions of Agreement: This work authorization agreement permits
Independent Solutions (herein after referred to as IS) to provide
geotechnical services at the subject site. Charges for services
during construction are not included. Fee is due and payable upon
presentation of invoice. IS reserves the right to charge the
maximum allowable interest on any unpaid balance. Client agrees to
pay collection fees, if required, to secure payment. Canceled or
uncompleted projects will be invoiced on the basis of expended time
and materials.
The scope of our study is based upon our best judgement of accepted
procedures for the munidpal jurisdictions reviewing agency and our
understanding of current standards of practice for the area. IS
cannot and does not guarantee approval of its reports by these
agencies. If additional work or analysis is required by the
reviewing agency, our additional costs will be billed at an hourly
rate. Services rendered herein do not include submittal of reports
to any agency nor do they include obtaining any permits.
The Client/Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless IS against
all claims, all suits, demands, liabilities, losses, damages and
costs, including all reasonable attorney’s fees, and all other
costs of defense, including court costs arising out of any damages
to the site property due to the negligence, omission, fault, or
willful misconduct by all third parties including, but not limited
to the owner, contractor, subcontractors and designers connected
with the project.
Client/Owner agrees to pay IS and to save thisfirm harmless from
all reasonable costs or attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing any
of the provision hereof or in defending against any wrongful claim
asserted against this firm growing out of or caused hereby or by
the work done pursuant hereto.
Client/Owner assures that the right of entry to the site is granted
by this agreement.
500 Chanev Street, Suite E; Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
1951) 674-3222 office / (951) 231-2564 fax
LYN 000645
Suncore Lynwood, LLC. Proposal No. P-15-2103
Work Authorization - Continued
Client/Owner will remove or protect his property, inside and out,
including all landscaping, shrubs, and flowers, and Consultants
shall not be responsible for damages to lawns, shrubs, landscapes,
walks, sprinkler systems, or underground utilities and
installations caused by movement of earth or equipment.
Client/Owner will locate for Consultants all underground utilities
and installations. Consultants will not be responsible for damage
to any such utilities or installations not so located, and any such
damage may, at Consultants option, be repaired by Consultants and
billed at cost plus 15% to Client/Owner.
The Client/Owner understands that drilling machines, commercial
trucks, backhoes, excavators and other heavy equipment may be used
in the course of our exploration. Such equipment and trucks may be
set up on driveways, property accessing driveways, property
accessing driveways or other forms of property to access the
intended work area. Though reasonable care will be exercised,
damage may occur. The client/owner understands that repair or
replacement of driveways, hardscape, landscape, underground
utilities, streets, curbs, gutters, or similar structures, is
expressly excluded from this proposal and contract. The
Client/Owner will accept all liability for such repair.
The Client/Owner agrees to require his/her Contractor to indemnify
and hold harmless the geotechnical consultants against any further
claim and expense, including reasonable attorney’s fees and all
other costs for defense, arising out of the negligence of or breach
of contract by the Client/Owner’s contractors, sub-contractoVs, or
the agents, employees, or sub- subcontractors of any of them.
In the event such provision is not included in the Client/Owner’s
contract with his/her Contractor due to the neglect of the
Client/Owner, the client shall indemnify and hold harmless the
geotechnical consultants from and against any claims or actions and
any expenses which should have been indemnified by his/her
Contractor, but for the Client/Owners neglect.
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this
contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in
accordance with the Uniform Rules for Better Business Bureau
Arbitrator(s). Arbitration may be entered in any Court having
jurisdiction in the county in which the work was done.
It is the responsibility of the owner to disclose to the
consultants if this project is publically funded or if prevailing
wage laws are applicable. Should the owners fail to disclose this
information, they shall agree to be responsible for any and all
claims, penalties, fines and compensations thereof, incurred by the
consultant resulting from the owners failure to disclose.
Certificate of Merit The client shall make no claim for
professional negligence, either directly or in a third party claim,
against IS, the consultant’s officers, partners, directors,
employees, agents and independent professional associates and
consultants unless the client has first provided IS with a written
certification executed by an independent professional currently
practicing in the same discipline as IS and licensed in the State
of California. This certification shall, a) contain the name and
license number of the certified; b) specify each and every act or
omission that the certifier contends is a violation of the standard
of care expected of a professional performing services under
similar circumstances and same vicinity; and c) state in complete
detail the basis for the certifier’s opinion that each such act or
omission constitutes such a violation. This certificate shall be
provided to IS not less than thirty calendar days prior to the
presentation of any claim or the institution of any arbitration or
judicial proceeding.
Time of Performance The Geotechnical Consultant agrees to exercise
usual and customary professional care and diligence in the
performance of its services hereunder, but due to the nature of
professional services, the consultants cannot guarantee a spedfic
timetable for completion of its services or any portion thereof.
The Client/Owner waives any right to make any claim against
Consultants for any damages or expenses claimed resulting from
delays in the consultant’s performance so long as usual and
customary care and diligence has been exercised by the
Consultant.
PAGE 1
(951) 674-3222 office / (95:~) 231-2564 fax
LYN 000646
Suncore Lynwood, LLC. Proposal No. P-15-2103
Client’s Benefit Only The services to be performed by the
geotechnical consultants pursuant to this Agreement are intended
solely for the benefit
of the client, and no benefit is meant to be conferred upon any
person or entity not a party to this Agreement. No such person or
entity shall be entitled to rely on the consultant’s performance of
its services hereunder, and no right to assert
claim against the consultants shall accrue to the contractor or to
any subcontractor, consultants, architect, engineer,
supplier,
fabricator, manufacturer, lender, tenant, insurer, surety, or any
other third party as a result of this agreement or the
performance or nonperformance of the consultants services
hereunder.
Umitations of Uability To the fullest extent permitted by law, the
total liability, in the aggreRate, of the geotechnical consultants
and the consultant’s
officers, partners, directors, employees, agents and independent
professional associates and consultants, and any and all
injuries, claims, losses, expenses, or damages whatsoever arising
out of or in any way related to the geotechnical consultant’s
services, the project, or the agreement from any cause or causes
whatsoever, including but not limited to the negligence,
errors, omissions, strict liability, or breach of contract of
warranty of the geotechnical consultants or officers,
partners,
directors, employees, agents and independent professional
associates and consultants, or any of them, shall not exceed
the
total compensation received by the geotechnical consultants under
this agreement.
Client/Owner Authorization
The foregoing is accepted and approved and Independent Solutions.,
is authorized to perform the scope of work described
on page one.
PAGE 2
(95:1) 67/I-3222 office / (951) 231-2564 fax
LYN 000647
Phone # 951-304-3935 hwelke~wsoil~eom
Bill To
Suncor Lynwood, LLC Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Blvd.
6/15/2014 293
Preliminary Work: Background Review/Setup 1 250.00 250.00 Consdting
Services: Project Management 1 150.00 150.00 Preliminary Work:
G-eoteehnieal Analysis 1 1,000.00 1,000.00 Preliminary Work:
Response & Update Report Preparation 1 2,000.00 2,000.00
Thank you for your business. Total: $3,4oo.oo
LYN 000648
May 9, 2014 Project No. 14317-70 OSHPD Projoet No. G140040
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Response to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development Review Comments, Proposed Lynwood Facility Upgrades -
28238, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of Lynwood, Los
Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 35895 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated
March 27, 2014.
Introduction
CW Soils has prepared this response to the Review Comments letter
for the above referenced project prepared by Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) dated March 27, 2014. The
five comments will be listed below followed by our response to each
comment. The following changes and clarifications should be
considered part of and attached to the report referenced
above.
COMMENT NO. 1
1. "Provide an engineering geology report signed by a Certified
Engineering Geologist in accordanee with 2010 CBC Section
1803A.6.1.1."
Response - An engineering geology report signed by a Certified
Engineering Geologist in accordance with 2010 CBC Section
1803A.6.1.1 has been completed by CW Soils for submittal, see
supplemental report dated May 8, 2014.
COMMENT NO. 2
2. "The report discusses a "California Building Code (CBC) 2010
Update" dated 12/12/13, but we note that it was not submitted for
review. If the Geotechnical Engineer of Record considers it part of
the construction documents for this project, three copies of the
report are to be submitted to OSHPD for review."
[] CW SOILS, 23251 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 , 95~1-304-3935
o
LYN 000649
Response - It is our understanding that the report dated 12/12/13
does not need to be considered as part of the construction
documents. An updated Consultant of Record Letter has been
completed by CW Soils, see Consultant of Record Letter.
COMMENT NO. 3
3. "Ensure that analyses and recommendations for dynamic settlement
are fully addressed and that the site coordinates used for
developing ground-motion parameters are provided."
Response - The site coordinates used for developing the
ground-motion ~eters may be taken as the following; latitude:
33.9329 degrees and longitude: -118.2048 degrees. The dynamic
settlement of sands was analyzed and the results are included on
the Liquefaction & Settlement of Sands Analysis, attached
hereto. The analysis indicated that without any subsurface ground
improvements, dynamic settlement of sands could be on the order of
7 inches. As a result, we have provided ground improvement
recommendations in the supplemental report dated May 8, 2014.
COMMENT NO. 4
4. "Please address "Standard Geotechnical Report Review Comments
Based on the 2010 California Building Standards Code" items (G2)
and (G3), which can be found at the following web address:
www.oshpd.ca.gov/FDD/Plan_Review/Documents/StrdGeoteechnRpt_Rev_Comments-
OSHPD_I_2010.pdL"
Response - In response to item (G2), a faetor of safety of 3 may be
used for the allowable soil bearing value of 1,500 psf. In response
to item (G3), the friction coefficient and passive soil resistance
values provided should be considered allowable, with a factor of
safety of 2.
COMMENT NO. 5
5. "Clarify whether the parameters provided on page 4 for
coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure apply to lateral
resistance for the building, or only to retaining walls."
Response - The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure
on page 4 may apply to lateral resistance for the building as
well.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
projeet. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils ,~: .~ , ~:
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE .... ~ ’" ..... ~ "--: Jon A.im ~,e,
CEG, Principal Geologist/Engineer
,~ t., ’"~"~’
Attachment: Review Comments Letter (Rear of Text) Distribution: (6)
Addressee
May 9, 2014 2 CW SOILS
LYN 000650
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suncor Lynwood
Facility Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of
Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
This letter has been prepared to inform you that CW Soils will be
the consultant of record for the above referenced project located
at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California. We have reviewed the referenced
report and essentially concur with the conclusions and
recommendations presented within. However, we reserve the fight to
recommend more conservative recommendations as we deem
necessary.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE Principal Geologist/Engineer
En~neer
Distribution: (6) Addressee
LYN 000651
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suncor Lynwood
Facility Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of
Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
This letter has been prepared to inform you that CW Soils will be
the consultant of record for the above referenced project located
at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California. We have reviewed the referenced
report and essentially concur with the conclusions and
recommendations presented within. However, we reserve the fight to
recommend more conservative recornmendations as we deem
necessary.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE Principal Geologist/Engineer Geo
~teehnical Engineer
Distribution: (6) Addressee "/
LYN 000652
May 9, 2014 Project No. 14317-70 OSHPD Project No. G140040
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYN’vVOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Response to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development Review Comments, Proposed Lynwood Facility Upgrades -
28238, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of Lynwood, Los
Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 3589.~ Martin Luther Kin~ Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated
March 27, 2014.
Introduction
CW Soils has prepared this response to the Review Comments letter
for the above referenced project prepared by Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) dated March 27, 2014. The
five comments will he listed below followed by our response to each
comment. The following changes and clarifications should be
considered part of and attached to the report referenced
above.
COMMENT NO. 1
1. ~Provide an engineering geology report signed by a Certified
Engineering Geologist in accordance with 2010 CBC Section
1803A.6.1.1."
Response - An engineering geology report signed by a Certified
Engineering Geologist in accordance with 2010 CBC Section
1803A.6.1.1 has been completed by CW Soils for submittal, see
supplemental report dated May 8, 2014.
COMMENT NO. 2
2. "The report discusses a "California Building Code (CBC) 2010
Update,, dated 12/12/13, but we note that it was not submitted for
review. If the Geotechnical Engineer of Record considers it part of
the construction documents for this project, three copies of the
report are to be submitted to OSHPD for review.,,
~ CW SOILS, 23251 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 951-304-3935
LYN 000653
Response - It is our understanding that the report dated 12/12/13
does not need to be considered as part of the construction
documents. An updated Consultant of Record Letter has been
completed by CW Soils, see Consultant of Record Letter.
COMMENT NO. 3
3. "Ensure that analyses and recommendations for dynamic settlement
are fully addressed and that the site coordinates used for
developing ground-motion parameters are provided."
Response - The site coordinates used for developing the
ground-motion parameters may be taken as the following; latitude:
33.9329 degrees and longitude: -118.2048 degrees. The dynamic
settlement of sands was analyzed and the results are included on
the Liquefaction & Settlement of Sands Analysis, attached
hereto. The analysis indicated that without any subsurface ground
improvements, dynamic settlement of sands could be on the order of
7 inches. As a result, we have provided ground improvement
recommendations in the supplemental report dated May 8, 2014.
COMMENT NO. 4
4. "Please address "Standard Geotechnieal Report Review Comments
Based on the 2010 California Building Standards Code,, items (G2)
and (G3), which can be found at the following web address:
www.oshpd.ca.gov/FDD/Plan_Review/Documents/StrdGeoteechnRpt_Rev_Comments-
OSHPD_I_2010.pdf."
Response - In response to item (G2), a factor of safety of 3 may be
used for the allowable soil bearing value of 1,500 psf. In response
to item (G3), the friction coeftieient and passive soil resistance
values provided should be considered allowable, with a factor of
safety of 2.
COMMENT NO. 5
5. "Clarify whether the parameters provided on page 4 for
coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure apply to lateral
resistance for the building, or only to retaining walls."
Response - The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure
on page 4 may apply to lateral resis~mco for the building as
well.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE " ?o:: c:,,.’., Jo~i A.’~rp3~e, CEG, GE,
P~ Principal Geologist/Engineer .......
P~oject ?eo~ehnieal Engineer
Attachment: Review Comments Letter (Rear of Text) Distribution: (6)
Addressee
May 9, 2014 2 CW SOILS
LYN 000654
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suncor Lynwood
Facility Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of
Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
This letter has been prepared to inform you that CW Soils will be
the consultant of record for the above referenced project located
at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California. We have reviewed the referenced
report and essentially concur with the conclusions and
recommendations presented within. However, we reserve the fight to
recommend more conservative recommendations as we deem
necessary.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE J, Principal Geologist/Engineer
Engineer
Distribution: (6) Addressee
LYN 000655
May 9, 2014 Project No. 14317-70 OSHPD Project No. G140040
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Response to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development Review Comments, Propo’~i Lynwood Facility Upgrades -
28238, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of Lynwood, Los
Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 35895 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
Introduction
CW Soils has prepared this response to the Review Comments letter
for the above referenced project prepared by Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) dated March 27, 2014. The
five comments will be listed below followed by our response to each
comment. The following changes and clarifications should be
considered part of and attached to the report referenced
above.
COMMENT NO. 1
1. "Provide an engineering geology report signed by a Certified
Engineering Geologist in accordance with 2010 CBC Section
1803A.6.1.1."
Response - An engineering geology report signed by a Certified
Engineering Geologist in accordance with 2010 CBC Section
1803A.6.1.1 has been completed by CW Soils for submittal, see
supplemental report dated May 8, 2014.
COMMENT NO. 2
2. ~The report discusses a "Cafifornia Building Code (CBC) 2010
Update" dated 12/12/13, but we note that it was not submitted for
review. If the Geotechnical Engineer of Record considers it part of
the onstruction documents for this project, three copies of the
report are to be submitted to OSHPD for review."
o CW SOILS, 23251 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562,
951-304-3935
LYN 000656
Response - It is our understanding that the report dated 12/12/13
does not need to be considered as part of the construction
documents. An updated Consultant of Record Letter has been
completed by CW Soils, see Consultant of Record Letter.
COMMENT NO. 3
3. "Ensure that analyses and recommendations for dynamic settlement
are fully addressed and that the site coordinates used for
developing ground-motion parameters are provided."
Response - The site coordinates used for developing the
ground-motion parameters may be taken as the following; latitude:
33.9329 degrees and longitude: -118.2048 degrees. The dynamic
settlement of sands was analyzed and the results are included on
the Liquefaction & Settlement of Sands Analysis, attached
hereto. The analysis indicated that without any subsurface ground
improvements, dynamic settlement of sands could be on the order of
7 inches. As a result, we have provided ground improvement
recommendations in the supplemental report dated May 8, 2014.
COMMENT NO. 4
4. "Please address "Standard Geoteehnieal Report Review Comments
Based on the 2010 California Building Standards Code" items (G2)
and (G3), which can be found at the following web address:
www.oshpd.ca.gov/FDD/Plan_Review/Doeuments/StrdGeoteechnRpt_Rev_Comments-
OSHPD 1 2010.pdL"
Response - In response to item (G2), a factor of safety of 3 may be
used for the allowable soil bearing value of 1,500 psf. In response
to item (G3), the friction coefficient and passive soil resistance
values provided should be considered allowable, with a factor of
safety of 2.
COMMENT NO. 5
5. "Clarify whether the parameters provided on page 4 for
coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure apply to lateral
resistance for the building, or only to retaining walls."
Response - The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure
on page 4 may apply to lateral resistance for the building as
well.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we ean be of further assistanee, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
cw Soiis £
~. 6-3o-16 I
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE ----~ ".... 3n~ Irvine, CEG, GE, P~ c,~
i;o "
Jt Geoteehnieal Engineer
Attachment: Review Comments Letter (Rear of Text) Distribution: (6)
Addressee
May 9, 2014 2 CW SOILS
LYN 000657
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suneor Lynwood
Facility Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of
Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevara~
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
This letter has been prepared to inform you that CW Soils will be
the consultant of record for the above referenced project located
at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California. We have reviewed the referenced
report and essentially concur with the conclusions and
recommendations presented within. However, we reserve the right to
recommend more conservative recommendations as we deem
necessary.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE Principal Geologist/Engineer ...
Geoteehnical Engineer
Distribution: (6) Addressee
~ CW SOILS, 2325:1 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 o 951-304-3935
o
LYN 000658
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suneor Lynwood
Facility Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of
Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
This letter has been prepared to inform you that CW Soils will be
the consultant of record for the above referenced project located
at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California. We have reviewed the referenced
report and essentially concur with the conclusions and
recommendations presented within, However, we reserve the right to
recommend more conservative recommendations as we deem
necessary.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils
’.
~ CW SOILS, 23251 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 ~ 951-304-3935
o
LYN 000659
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard Lynwood, California 90262
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suncor Lynwood
Facility Upgrades, 3598
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of Lynwood, Los Angeles
County, California
References: Soil Exploration Company, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Soil
Investigation Report, Proposed Upgrade of Existing Structures for
Suncor Lynwood Facility, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
City of Lynwood, California, dated January 3, 2014.
Office of Statewide Health P18nning and Development, 2014, Review
Comments Letter, dated March 27, 2014.
This letter has been prepared to inform you that CW Soils will be
the consultant of record for the above referenced project located
at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California. We have reviewed the referenced
report and essentially concur with the conclusions and
recommendations presented within. However, we reserve the right to
reeoramend more conservative reeomraendations as we deem
necessary.
CW Soils appreciates the opportunity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CW Soils
":~’,,i.i~:,"~ , ..
Distribution: (6) Addressee
o CW SOILS, 2325:~ Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 ~ 95:~-304-3935
o
LYN 000660
LYN 000661
! Ms. Claudia Kano, SVP
I SUNCOR LYNWOOD, LLC 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
Lynwood, California 90262
! Subject: Supplemental Geote~hnleal Interpretive Report, Proposed
Suneor Lynwood Facility
I Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of Lynwood,
Los Angeles County, California
I In accordance with your request, CW Soils is pleased to present
our supplemental geoteehnieal interpretive report for the proposed
Suneor Lynwood Facility Upgrades located at 3598 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard,
I in the of Los California The of work to evaluate the City
Lynwood, Angeles County, purpose our was nature, distribution, and
en~neering properties of the geologic formations underlying the
site based on the referenced report (Soil Exploration, 2014) with
respect to the proposed improvements and review comments letter
dated
I March 27, 2014 prepared by Statewide Planning Development. the
Health and
CW Soils appreciates the opporttmity to offer our services on this
project. If we can be of further assistance,
I please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your
convenience.
I R espectfully submitted,
! Distribution: (6) Addressee
!
I o CW SOILS, 23251 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 o 951-304-3935 o
ewsoils.com o
I LYN 000662
INTRODUCTION
...........................................................................................................................................
1
Field Exploration
.........................................................................................................................................
1 FINDINGS
.......................................................................................................................................................
1
Regional Geology
.........................................................................................................................................
1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
..........................................................................................
2
General
.........................................................................................................................................................
2 Earthwork
....................................................................................................................................................
3
Grading Operations
.................................................................................................................................
3 Groundwater
............................................................................................................................................
3 Ground Preparation
................................................................................................................................
3 Deeper Ground Preparation Compaction Grouting
...............................................................................
3 Compacted Fill Placement
.......................................................................................................................
4 Import Soils
..............................................................................................................................................
4 Geotechnical Observations
......................................................................................................................
4
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
..............................................................................................................
4 Ground Motions
...........................................................................................................................................
4 Historic Seismic Activity
...........................................................................................................................
5 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
...........................................................................................................
5 Foundation Observations
............................................................................................................................
5
GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
............................................................. 6
REPORT LIMITATIONS
...............................................................................................................................
6
Attachments: APPENDIX A - References APPENDIX B - Seismic Design
Criteria APPENDIX C - Liquefaction & Settlement Analysis Plate
1 - Gcotechnical Map Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections
I I
I LYN 000663
I I INTRODUCTION
I This report prepared by CW Soils, presents a supplemental
interpretive geotechnical and geologic evaluation for the proposed
improvements. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the nature,
distribution, and engineering properties of the geologic formations
underlying the site based on the referenced report (Soil
Exploration, 2014)
I with respect to the proposed improvements and review comments
letter dated March 27, 2014 prepared by the Statewide Health
Planning and Development.
I SITE DESCRIPTION
I The existing building is located at 3598 Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard, in the City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California.
The subject property is primarily surrounded by multi-family
residential and commercial developments.
! PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
I Based on our understanding of the proposed project, the existing
building will be remodeled, which will include a seismic upgrade.
The proposed improvements are anticipated to consist of a wood,
concrete, or steel framed
I one-story construction.
Field Exploration
I No additional field exploration or laboratory testing was
performed as part of this supplement. A truck mounted
hollow-stem-auger drill rig was mobilized on December 26, 2013 to
advance two borings in the project area to a
i maximum depth of 50 feet, by Soil Exploration Co., Inc. The
exploratory locations and geologic conditions at the project are
illustrated on Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map and Plate 2 - Geologic
Cross Sections.
I Regional Geology
Regionally, the project is located in the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular
i Ranges are characterized by northwest trending sediment filled
elongated valleys divided by steep mountain ranges. Associated with
and subparallel to the northwest trending San Andreas Fault, are
the San Jaeinto Fault, Newport-Inglewood Fault, and the
Whittier-Elsinore Fault zones. The northwest trend of the province
has
i played a major role in shaping the dominant structural geologic
features in the region as well. The Pert’is Block forms the eastern
boundary of the Elsinore Fault, while the west side is comprised of
the Santa Arm Mountains. The Perris Block is in turn bounded to the
east by the San Jacinto Fault. The Peninsular Ranges Province
and
i the Transverse Range Province are separated by the northern
perimeter of the Los Angeles basin, which is formed by a northerly
dipping blind thrust fault.
I The low lying areas within the Peninsular Ranges Province are
principally made up of Tertiary and Quaternary non-marine alluvial
sediments consisting of alluvial deposits, sandstones, elaystones,
siltstones, conglomerates,
LYN 000664
I I and occasional volcanic units. The mountainous regions are
primarily made up of Pre-Cretaeeous,
metasedimcntary, and metavolcanic rocks along with Cretaceous
plutonic rocks of the Southern California
I Batholith.
Local Geology
I The most relevant local geologic units expected to be present at
the site are summarized in this section. A general description of
the dominant soils that form the geologic units is provided
below:
I ¯ Quaternary Young Alluvial Deposits (map symbol Qya): Quaternary
young alluvial deposits were encountered to a maximum depth of 50
feet. These alluvial deposits consist predominately of
I interlayered light brown, grayish brown to gray, silty sand and
silty clay. These deposits were generally noted to be in a slightly
moist to wet, loose to very dense (medium stiffto very stiff)
state.
I Faulting
Significant ground shaking will likely impact the site within the
design life of the proposed project, due to the
I project being located in a seismically active region. The
geologic structure of the entire southern California area is
dominated by northwest-trending faults associated with the San
Andreas Fault system. The San Andreas Fault system accommodates for
most of the right lateral movement associated with the relative
motion between
I the Pacific and North American tectonic plates.
The subject property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault
Rupture H~ard Study Zone, established by
i the State of California to restrict the construction of habitable
structures across identifiable traces of known active faults. No
active faults are known to project through the proposed project. As
defined by the State of California, an active fault has undergone
surface displacement within the past 11,000 years or during
the
i Holocene geologic time period.
Based upon our understanding of the site and our analysis using the
referenced software (USGS 2002
i Interactive Deaggregation), the Newport Inglewood Fault with an
approximate source to site distance of 7.2 kilometers is the
closest known active fault anticipated to produce the highest
ground accelerations, having an estimated maximum modal magnitude
ofT.0. The potential for surface rupture to adversely impact the
safety of
I the existing structures inhabitants is very low to remote. The
Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault is located approximately 7.1
kilometers from the proposed project.
I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
i General
From a soils engineering and engineering geologic point of view,
the subject property is considered suitable for
i the proposed improvements, provided the conclusions and
recommendations herein are incorporated into the plans and are
implemented during construction.
I ! i May 8, 2014 2 Cl~ Soils
LYN 000665
I I Earthwork
I Grading Operations
Grading operations are subject to the provisions oftbe 2013
California Building Code (CBC), including
I Appendix J Grading, as well as all applicable grading codes and
requirements of the appropriate reviewing agency.
I Groundwater
As noted in the referenced report (Soils Exploration, 2014),
groundwater was observed during the field
I exploration at a depth of 35 feet below exiting grade. The
historic high groundwater level was reported as 8 feet below
exiting grade.
I Ground Preparation
Below the existing slab, the removal of low density, compressible
earth materials, such as any
I upper undocumented artificial fill and young alluvial deposits,
is recommended. Removal excavations are subiect to verification by
the project engineer, geologist or their representative. Prior to
placing compacted fills, the exposed bottom in each removal area
should be scarified to a
I depth of 6 inches or more, watered or air dried as necessary to
achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM
D 1557. Care should be taken to ensure that the existing
foundations remain
I supported during the removal and recompaction operations.
Temporary vertical excavations removing support ~om the existing
building may require the use of slot cutting (ABC method).
I The slot cutting method uses the remaining earth filled slots as
a buttress and allows the excavation to proceed in phases. The
initial excavation is made at a slope of I:I. Alternate slots of 10
feet in width may be worked. The remaining earth buttresses should
be :20 feet in width. The slots should be
I backfilled before the "B" earth buttresses are excavated. The "C"
earth buttresses may be excavated upon completion of the walls and
backfilling of the "B" slots.
I The geologist should be present during excavating to see
temporary slopes. It is imperative that grading schedules minimize
the exposure time of unsupported excavations. Water should be
prevented l~om flowing towards or ponding at the top of the
excavations.
I The intent of remedial grading is to improve the near surface
soils for slab and foundation support, For cursory purposes the
anticipated removal depths are shown on the enclosed Plate 1 -
Geotechnical Map and Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections. In general,
the anticipated removal depths
I should be 3 feet below existing slab grade.
i Deeper Ground Preparation Compaction Grouting
Compaction grout improvements are recommended below the existing
building and 5 feet beyond
i the perimeter. These improvements should extend to firm competent
earth materials encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 15 feet
deep. We recommend that the compaction grout contractor be required
to monitor and be alerted to any movement within the existing
structure
I during the grouting process.
i May 8, 2014 3 CW Soils
LYN 000666
I I The improved earth materials should be tested to a depth of 15
feet upon completion to insure
that the sandy earth materials have obtained a corrected (~N1)60
value of 30 or greater. The
I testing should be conducted utilizing three hollow stem auger
borings utilizing an automatic trip safety hammer.
I Compacted Fill Placement
Well mixed soils should be placed in 6 to 8 inch maximum
(uncompacted) lifts, watered or air dried as
I necessary to achieve uniform near optimum moisture content and
then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM D1557-12.
I Import Soils
If needed to achieve final design grades, all potential import
materials should be non-expansive, fi~e of
I deleterious/oversize materials, and approved by the project soils
engineering consultant prior to delivery onsite.
I Geoteehnieal Observations
Clearing operations, removal of unsuitable materials, and general
grading procedures should be
I observed by the project soils consultant or his representative.
Compacted fill should not be placed without prior bottom
observations being conducted by the soils consultant or his
representative to verify the adequacy of the removals.
I The project soils consultant or his representative should be
present to observe grading operations and to check that the minimum
compaction requirements are being obtained. In addition,
verification of
I compliance with the other grading recommendations presented
herein should he provided concurrently.
I SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Ground Motions
I To resist the effects of design level seismic ground motions,
structures are required to be designed and constructed in
accordance with the 2010 California Building Code. The majority of
the design parameters have
I been provided in the previous report referenced herein (Soil
Exploration, 2014).
A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the site was
conducted in accordance with the 2010 CBC. The
I probabilistic seismic hazard maps and data files were jointly
prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the
California Geological Survey (CGS). Actual ground shaking
intensities at the subject property may be substantially higher or
lower based on complex variables such as the near source
directivity effects,
i depth and consistency of soils, topography, geologic structure,
direction of fault rupture, seismic wave reflection, refraction,
and attenuation rates. The anticipated horizontal ground
acceleration for evaluating the potential for liquefaction at the
site during the design earthquake event is 0.42 g (SDs/2.5, per the
2010 CBC
i Section 1803.5.12).
LYN 000667
l Historic Seismic Activity
I The subject property is located in a seismically active region of
southern California and has undergone several seismic events since
construction. The Los Alamitos Fault and Charnock Fault having late
Quaternary activity are located approximately 7.5 and l0 miles
south and west of the proposed project, respectively. These faults
have a north to northwest trend which is typical for southern
California. Past strong ground shaking experienced at the property
has likely come from the Elsinore Fault [Whittier Section), Palos
Verdes Fault, Raymond Fault to the north or Hollywood Fault, right
lateral Newport Inglewood Fault, and Puente Hills blind thrust
Fault to the east.
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
I The three requirements for liquefaction to occur include seismic
shaking, poorly consolidated cohesionless sands, and groundwater.
Liquefaction results in a substantial loss of shear strength in
loose, saturated,
l cohesionless soils subjected to earthquake induced ground
shaking. Potential impacts from liquefaction include loss of
hearing capacity, liquefaction related settlement, lateral
movements, and surface manifestation in the form of sand boils. The
potential for design level earthquake induced liquefaction and
lateral spreading to
I significantly impact the existing structure is considered low due
to the recommended compacted fill, relatively low groundwater
level, and the proposed ground improvements.
I We have provided liquefaction analyses that model the existing
ungraded conditions and recommended graded conditions, using a
groundwater level of 7 feet to represent a conservative historic
high groundwater level. The analyses of the existing conditions
revealed that potentially liquefiable soils were encountered in
boring B-l,
I from 0 to 7 feet and from 25 to 43 feet deep. Our analyses were
performed utilizing the guidelines of Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,