project no. 14317-70 issued: may 8, 2014

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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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."
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
COMMENT NO. 3
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
Response - The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure on page 4 may apply to lateral resis~mco for the building as well.
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE " ?o:: c:,,.’., Jo~i A.’~rp3~e, CEG, GE, P~ Principal Geologist/Engineer .......
P~oject ?eo~ehnieal Engineer
LYN 000654
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
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
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE J, Principal Geologist/Engineer Engineer
LYN 000655
May 9, 2014 Project No. 14317-70 OSHPD Project No. G140040
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
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."
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
COMMENT NO. 3
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
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.
cw Soiis £
~. 6-3o-16 I
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE ----~ ".... 3n~ Irvine, CEG, GE, P~ c,~ i;o "
Jt Geoteehnieal Engineer
LYN 000657
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
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.
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
Chad E. Welke, PG, CEG, PE Principal Geologist/Engineer ... Geoteehnical Engineer
~ CW SOILS, 2325:1 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 o 951-304-3935 o
LYN 000658
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suneor Lynwood Facility Upgrades, 3598 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
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
’.
~ CW SOILS, 23251 Kent Court, Murrieta, CA 92562 ~ 951-304-3935 o
LYN 000659
May 6, 2014 Project No. 14317-10
Subject: Change in Consultant of Record, Proposed Suncor Lynwood Facility Upgrades, 3598
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County, California
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
":~’,,i.i~:,"~ , ..
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,