Panda purchased outright the "outpad" from the Wal-Mar Supercenter.

The Outpad was supposed to be "Certified Grading"
This means turnkey ready to go
read on.

First we asked the City- Wildan for copies of all the requirements of the Grading Code- The Grading Permit for the the Super-duper-center
Never received them.
Panda had to get their own grading permit which they shoud not have had to do to show completion of grading requirements to get their building permit which they obviously now have.
I just asked for the Supercenter documents again last week.

A couple of questions to think on till the next installment.

How much additional work did Panda have to do?

How did Wal-mar get a building permit without completing the requirements of the grading code?

If the requirements of the grading code were not met for the Super-duper-center what was not completed?

And who was minding the store?

Los Angeles County Grading guidlines here

and here is the CPRA request referencing the CODE
This is not Rocket Science- so why no answer?
Does Wildan have a checklist?

Renewed CPRA request for Supercenter Grading documents to validate Panda Building permit
These documents are required by the Supercenter Grading Permit
The City attorney has previously requested these documents so those available should be easily found

Current CPRA request restated

Monday, December 3, 2007 the Rosemead Planning Commission acting pursuant to the Condition of Approval of the Project for an Annual Review of the Wal-Mart Supercenter directed Staff to produce, analyze and report on Compliance on the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and All Conditions of Approval.

WE therefore make this CPRA request to the City of Rosemead to produce all required documents and reports for our review and review by the Rosemead Planning Commission or if not readily available to obtain true copies of them from the project proponents, or to state that they do not exist.

This Request is keyed to the duly adopted City Building and Grading Codes
Supercenter Grading Permit Submittal Requirements
Rosemead Building Code Section 3309.4 (see Grading Guidelines page 7 for any clarification)

including but not limited to:
Supercenter Grading Plans

REQUEST 1 at the time of issuance of the Supercenter Grading permit
Current (less than one year old at time of submittal) soils engineering and geology investigation reports
Supplemental documentation such as hydrology/ hydraulic calculations
Approved Hydrology map
Approved Tentative Map and Conditions
3309.4.6 Recommendations
3309.4.10 Statement by owner

Information Required on Grading Plans:
(Engineered Grading pages Guidelines pages 7 & 8)
Soils Engineering Report 3309.5
Engineering Geology Report 3309.6
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Report SP-42, CGS Note 49, review and section 111 statement
Liquefaction Study see SHMA
(Supercenter PROJECT is in a Mapped Seismic Hazards Zone A SHMA report is required addressing all Seismic Hazards both on and off site)
See Geotechnical Report Guidelines, CGS SP-117 and SCEC 1999 implementation Guidelines. SHMA report to be signed by CEG AND RGE RBC Section 111 statement

Review and approval of the Supercenter Grading Plans by Geotechnical and Geology professionals and remedial actions is proposed or completed (see Grading guidelines P 10)
During and at completion of grading after the issuance of Supercenter Grading permit

Supercenter Grading Inspection Sections 3317- 3317.5 (see p 11)
Professional inspection of the engineered grading shall be provided by the civil engineer RBC Chapter 33 Section 3317.2, soils engineer 3317.3

and the engineering geologist 3317.4 retained to provide such services.

Inspection Requests 3318.2 (P 12 ) please provide all requests for inspection for the Supercenter

Supercenter Required Inspections Section 3317 and 3317.9 (P 12 )

Supercenter Pre Grade Meeting
Please provide an attendance list and any notes

Initial 3317.6
Please provide the request for Initial Supercenter inspection and the inspection report

Please provide any surveys to accurately locate all trenches: geological, asbestos abatement, utility, test pits, etc.

Request 10
Please provide any review or inspection of the “Final Delineation of No Build Zone” required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.

Request 11
Supercenter Supplemental Inspections
Please provide any requests for Supplemental Inspections and the inspection reports.
Please provide results for any inspection on grading and excavations deeper than shown on grading plans or any unexpected or unusual findings.

Please verify that geologic trenches, ancestral Alhambra Wash, utility, and asbestos removal trenches were excavated and compacted with engineered fill.

Supercenter Rough Grading
Please provide the request for Rough inspection and the inspection report
Please provide required consultants statements

Compaction Tests
Compaction tests on geologic trenches, ancestral Alhambra wash, utility trenches, asbestos removal trenches, test pits

Final and section 3318
Please provide the request for Final inspection and the inspection report for the Supercenter

Please provide the Supercenter as-graded plans and required statements and reports
Civil Engineers Statement 3318.1
Civil Engineers As-built grading plan 3318.1
Soils Engineers Report, Findings of the Soils Engineer, statement 3318.2
Engineering Geology Report and statements 3318.3
Grading Contractors statement 3318.4

Request 14
Please provide the Building Code Section 111 statements on all required documents and on all reviewable reports as required by the Rosemead Building Code

Request 15
Section 3318.2 Notification of Completion for the Supercenter

Request 16
Field Revisions
Please Provide any Field Revisions or state that there are none

Request 17
Please provide results for any inspection proving or disproving Dr. Perry Ehlig’s allegation of horizontal landslide, including any recommended investigation and/ or inspection by “bucket Auger” or “Flyte Auger”, or inspection of excavation.

Provide any “down hole logging” of the 24” bucket auger holes

Investigation of any suspected “clay lens”
(this is NOT the same as the liquefaction/ lateral spreading possibilities addressed by Tania Gonzalez on Nov. 10, 2008)

Request 18
Any site specific soil response analysis Shear Wave Velocity aka ( SW30) investigation

Please provide any cross sections showing the location of any undocumented fill, the ancestral Alhambra wash, utility trenches, asbestos removal trenches, geologic trenches, test pits, landfill sites in the vicinity of the Outpad and Garden Center

Sincerely yours
James I Flournoy

ALL of the above requirements must be met before a building permit is issued

Supercenter Mitigation Monitoring Plan 4.2.1

Let's start with CPRA request item 10
Request 10
Please provide any review or inspection of the “Final Delineation of No Build Zone” required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.

MMP 4.2.1 required a "final deliniation of the no build zone"
This report is M.I.A.
So what did Panda Have to do to comply?

The City's Certified Engineering Geologist Consultant co-incidentially worked on the site in 1994 so no way to flim flam her.

She determined that the Outpad site was not "clear" of potential faulting.

Reason 1 is that the trench that GPI wanted to use to exclude faulting was too far away and not really in the linup of fault traces.

Reason 2 is that trench did not go through Holocine (as is a basic requirement) and down to Plesitocene soils.-- In other words it was not deep enough.

So Panda got a rude jolt that their guaraneteed turnkey site was not quite so turnkey at all, more like turkey.

Panda hired Pacific Materials Labs to do a fault investigation. PML did a thourough review of the record and then performed 22 Cone penetration Tests to intercept potential faulting coming from the golf course accross Walnut Grove Ave.

Ther really good news is that the Panda site is now clear and the City's reviewer has accepted PML's report.

Turns out that the Supercnenter's fault investigation was...

Remember Gary Taylor talking about... all the holes drilled of the Wal-Mart site investigation
He said something like "they drilled over 30 holes and ran over 30 tests it's the most thourough investigation in history" or something to that effect.

Note that PML had to drill 22 just for the small outpad...

And where is the report required by the MMP?

And what else did PML find??

Tune in Same Bat Time Same Bat Station

Super Center Site Faulty

Why was there a Mitagation Measure required?

There were three fault studies for the SuperCenter Site

In the 90's there was LEIGHTON
(Our City C.E.G worked on tis one)

Prior putting the property up for Sale SCE did a real estate disclosure report entitled "Alquist-Priolo Report"
SCE staff was aided by the late Dr. Perry Ehlig of Cal State and by Stratigrapher Roy Shelmon.
Not that a disclosure A-P report is different from a "prior to construction" report
We'll call this one SCE

Third was a "prior to purchase" report for Wal-Mar by Dr Ben Hushmand PhD Civil Engineer and Associates. One Associate was Bruce Schell C.E.G. who is licensed for fault studies.
here let's call it HAI

What is not obvious is that Geotechnical Professionals Inc (GPI) was doing their excavation requirements analysis about the same time as Hushmand.
Also thre was Asbestos removal work in process.

A plot plan was required NOW for this project.
Hushmand's report was not available to GPI so they used SCE's report to do a plot plan.


Hushmand's report was later sent to the State as an Alquist Priolo report but we'll cover that later.

SCE had found several fault traces about 50 feet apart. They drew two parallel lines 25 feet away from each fault trace giving a 100 foot zone requireing more investigation for a purchaser- fair enough.

However GPI copied SCE's map directily onto the plot plan.

What's the problem?

Alquist Priolo states that ALL areas within FIFTy (50) feet are PRESUMED to be underlain with faulting.
Structues are NOT permitted within this zone without a wavier (and more investigation).

It does not appear that a wavier was ever requested and certainly never granted.

The Mitigation Measure is intended to require a large scale map to be prepared showing the fault traces found by all THREE investigations.
With a ZONE of Presumed Faulting 50 feet from each trace found.

Just using SCE we can see that a zone 150 feet wide would be required- not 100.- and could be wider.

HOW far is it from the SuperCenter to the Garden Center? Not 150 feet

Prior to grading it was pointed out to Wal-Mart that they needed to complete the MM as grading might destroy the data in the ground.

Another suggestion made that the do some "grubbing" in the areas nearest the zone.

Grubbing is narrow trenches looking for faulting. They did not have the time and claimed that HUSHMAND's report covered everyting.

At that point the developer DRI may not have known that GPI had not used Hushmand.

But they did know that the MMP had not been satisfied.

So what to do
First The MMP must be satisfied.
Second Wal Mart can ask for a wavier.

Note however that reduced Setbacks are not granted for Class III High Occupancy buildings.
Whild a reduced setback might be ok for a "hard rock site" with a definate fault line granting one where there are many discontinuous traces is very probablimatical.

The record shows that the Supercenter Site is in a "step-over" area which means that the fault may be transfering from one line to another.

Others describe the faulting as a "flower structue" Think one fault down deep but branching upward in the softer aluvium.

Note that the Alquist Priolo map shows a possible fault along Angelus Ave and there may be a branch under Delta- All uninvestigated.
In other words the Supercenter may be in the middle of a fault zone.


Garden Center is Faulty

The Garden center is described in early documents as "Shade Covered Garden Center"

No mention of a stiff-heavy concrete block structure.

It was also shown on the plot plan as being up near Rush Street.

That area was thrououghly trenched for faulting.

Some how all that got changed without updating the fault studies.

A road is now up near Rush with the garden center moved South.
And the Garden center has a stiff-heavy building in addition to the shadecloth.

Did they move the garden center into what should be a "no build" zone?

Is the North East Corner of the Supercenter built in an area of presumed faulting (within 50 feet of foound, active, faulting)?

To Do.
Get the large scale map showing all three fault studies done by an independed licensed surveyor.

Response Today to CPRA request

Phone call from our hard working Clerk so I hustled up to City Hall.

Let's Deal with East side- Panda related here.
I can see no compaction reports aligned with the ancestral Alhambra Wash.

I see no inspection report prior to the emplacement of fill.

There are several inches of GPI observation logs but little on the East Side.

There was no map showing removal depths, trench bottoms. So how was the test tech to determine where the trenches had been after fill started?
No map to show where the asbestos removal trenches and utility trenches were.

Well he knew where the trenches were before they reached the rest of the removal bottom.

Why no compaction tests?

Emphasis was on the driveways.

GPI did intercept some contaminated fill, but some other slipped through.

Not enough staff on the job for the speed of the job?

Most of the other requested items are not in the file I was given.

No wonder Panda had to complete a new grading permit/ inspection process.

Pacific Materials Lab PANDA findings

On 2-22 I indicated that there was more to PML's report.
This ties in with the lack of a grading/ plot plan by GPI with all the trenches plotted,

PML did 22 CPT tests in the outpad area.
PML found correctly compacted fill down to certain depths. Then they hit SOFTER layers.

PML indicates that this may be undocumentd/un engineered fill, the old dump, unmarked Abestos trenches,uncompacted trenches, whatever. Can't tell with CPT by itself.

PML indicates that this softer surface may have been "scarified" 12 inches then compacted and then fill emplaced.
Would you call this a Cover UP :)?

PML wonders why this softer layer was not removed during excavation. Good Question!

Some would like PML to butt out.
These observations are "NOT IN THEIR SCOPE OF WORK"
However as porfessionals they are duty bound to report all findings to Panda and to the City.

Some at the City went to a softer layer in the geologic trench- the one that is too far away- let's hope this is the case- a natural soft layer. But if so why not recompact it?

How to tell.
Well CPT's must be correlated with 2" core samples and Stnadard Penetrtion Tests (SPT's)
Cores and SPT's were not part of PML's job description.

What about all those holes GPI did Gary Taylor?

GPI used a 24" bucket auger which PML indicates is only usually used for "man down hole" investigations. Why?
A 24" bucket auger does not give reliable core samples or SPT results.

Arroyo Geotechnicals review of the GPI report also mentions the lack of rigor in GPI's investigation.

Also mentioned by Arroyo is the fact that only one CPT out of 33 and one SPT out of 30 went deep enough.

Any questions on why this soft layer under Panda was not found and excavated or mitigated?

PMI recommends a "formal investigation" in their letter to Panda.

How's it coming Wildan?

Anyone else think we ought to look at the Garden Center?

Perry Ehlig's slipery clay layer- the Teflon cookie sheet- slip and slide theory. Well Dr Ehlig recommend a bucket auger or flyte auger investigation.

GPI drilled the holes.
Did they ever send anyone down them?
and why use a VERY EXPENSIVE 24" bucke auger when a little 2" core drill would hve been MUCH BETTER for Cores and SPT's.

Turns out that most agree that GPI's 2002 investigation was just a preliminary screening, an excavation estimation report, an earthmoving and fill estimation report. a parking lot "R" value report.
GPI did not even know where the buildings were going to be exactly.
No way it should have been used for grading/construction.

I can find NOTHING that show what is below the "rough" (almost finished) grade.

Sorry Panda