Halt Leading the Blind

Wal-Mar Seismic Paramaters.

GPI took a preliminary whack at CBC-98 Seismic paramaters in their excavation and grading report which wasthen co-opted for the EIR. It's not an EIR report but DCA used what they had. No Idea if GPI knew.

It was out of date by EIR time so one would think that if GPI had been asked they would have updated...

GPI also states tht the structural engineer should determinethe construction paramaters

GPI has left out the fault running through the property and the source of the 1987 earthquake and a couple of other faults.

SOC has been raising objections :)

DRC requests and on July 22, 2005 Hushmand responds.
Determining that the fault through the property is type "C"
HAI provides no references.

No Mention of Puente Hills or Upper Elysian Park thrusts.
No realization that fault through the property is the Whittier-Elsinore (a major fault which is shown as such in the A-P Zone Fault evaluation report (FER 222) by CGS 1991 and other literature since then including the Leighton report on the property 1994.

Hushmand is a Civil engineer not Geotechnical or Seismic...

Sept 1 2005 Wildan's Steve Widmayer writes to Arroyo Geotechnical

States that Structural was considering as "type C" , attaches the July 22 HAI letter and indicates that there is no justification for the conclusion. Steve also is the first insider to mention CBC "Table 16 footnote 1 requires that: "Subduction sources shall be evaluated on a site-specific basis"

Subduction sources means the two (or three) thrust faults.

Steve continues referencing CBC 1629.4.2
"Our concern is that it might be a Type B fault, which would change the current structural design of the building."

HAI writes to DRC Sept 6 and still concludes that the Alhambra Wash Fault (AWF) is a Type C and is seperate from the Whittier as he lists them sepeartly. He still does not mention the "subduction"
This time the letter is also stamped by a Certified Engineering Geologist.
HAI changes the AWF Magnitude from <6.5 to =6.5 but does not change the "C"
(Which has a near soure factor of 1)

Arroyo writes Sept 14 To Wildan's Ken Rukavina as Rosemead City Engineer and Wildan's Steve Widmayer catching the <6.5 to =6.5 change and stating that the result should be Class "B" under CBC-98

HAI NEVER GET's it right.

(however being Geotechnical (Civil, Soils) you should not be doing this)
However Ross does NOT make the final call.

"It is our recommendation that the consultant of record should clairfy their fault classification and the Seismic Design Paramaters prior to approval."

Problem is that there is NOT a Certified Engineering Geologist of Record-never was.
Not even a Geologist, much less a Seismologist.

This is the end of the response given to me under CPRA.

What happens?
Do the Puente Hills Thrust and Upper Elysian Park Thrust get included?

Does AWF get upgraded to Class "B"

Was a site specific Probablilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) ever done as required by SHMA?

What Seismic design paramaters was the Supercenter designed to?

And how do they compare with the ones for PANDA?

Does the Supercenter meet the 98-CBC?

Is the Supercenter Safe?

Safe? Not on your life.

No, it obviously is NOT safe, but since when has Wal-Mart evinced concern for the safety of its customers? It is well known in law enforcement circles, that Wal-Mart parking lots are some of the most crime-ridden places in every city that they are located in. In the past, the cameras in most Wal-mart parking lots were used to monitor the lots for union organizing activity ONLY.

Shakeout Excersize and Supercenter

Take the conservative November Shakeout Exercise Data for Whittier Narrows a.k.a Whittier golf course site and compare with Wal Mar
positively scary.
I'll be at the Panda Opening but no way am I going near the block buster
(that's concrete block buster)
Thanks for the comment

Planning Commission Hearing

I mentioned the above facts which came out of the Panda project at last Monday's planning commission agenda item. on Wal-mart

Standing on the sidewalk after the meeting I was assaulted by the Wal-mart attorney. I have asked several Commissioners if my presentation was out of line. Based on their favorable response I have filed an incident report with the City Attorney. The public (me in this case) has the right to speak before a public body without threats and intimidation by the real party at interest.

Bottom line is that Seismic design parameters for Panda are much larger than they came up with for the Wal-mart when they should be the same. Both are supposed to be CBC 98 projects.

These inadequate parameters invalidate any liquefaction study and invalidate any purported SHMA report. SHMA do over time.

The building may also be under-designed structurally- not in compliance with CBC-98.
No statute of limitations on this one and the City may not waive these minimal building code requirements.
The building my require a major retrofit.

Is there a big crack in the floor?
Does the store have to shut down to fix it?
Stay tuned.