HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 11984 Parcel 1 Geotechical ReportW. La Monte Company Inc.
Soil and Foundation Engineers
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Proposed Mexico Cafe
North of the Pechanga Parkway & Clubhouse Dr. Intersection
Temecula, California
Assessor's Parcel Number 961-440-015
JOB NO. 14 6406
June 2, 2014
Revised November 6, 2017
Prepared for:
Mr. Art Gaitan
43710 Piasano Place
Temecula, CA. 92592
4400 PALM AVENUE, SUITE B LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941
Phone: (619) 462-9861 Fax: (619) 462-9859
C W,1 La Monte Company nc.
Soil and Foundation Engineers
4400 PALM AVENUE, SUITE B LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941
Phone: (619) 462-9861 Fax: (619) 462-9859
June 2, 2014 Job No. 14 6406
Revised November 6,2017
TO: Mr. Art Gaitan
43710 Tiasano Place
Temecula, CA. 92592
SUBJECT: REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Mexico Cafe, North of the Pechanga Parkway &
Clubhouse Dr. Intersection, Temecula, California
Assessor's Parcel Number 961-440-015
Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Mexico Cafe,
Assessor's Parcel Number 961-440-015, North of the Pechanga Parkznay
Clubhouse Drive Intersection, City Of Temecula, Riverside County,
California, by CW Soils, dated March 5, 2014
In accordance with your request, and our proposal dated April 8, 2014, we have
performed an updated geotechnical investigation for the proposed restaurant
project. A soils report for the development of the site was previously prepared
by CW Soils and is referenced above. We have reviewed the referenced report
by CW Soils. Generally, we concur with the conclusions and recommendations
presented in the report. However, based on reinterpretation of the findings we
have modified the recommendations for site preparation. As of the date of this
letter, C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. is the new Geotechnical Consultant of
record and will be providing all necessary geotechnical consultation, plan
review, design recommendations, inspection and testing services for this project.
The accompanying report presents the findings of our study, and our
conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of
construction of the proposed development. Based on the results of our
investigation, it is our opinion that the development can be constructed as
proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed and
implemented during construction.
If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not
hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is
sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
C.W. La Monte Company Inc.
I- ,/W— —
Jerry Redolfi, Project Geologist
to.
Clifford W. La Monte,
R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495
dye tor? /
s Exp. `a - Exp. 'GD12/31/2017 Q 12/31/2017
ca m
5 No. 25241
y No. 495
Nz-
civic
x
C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INRODUCTIONAND PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................... 1
SITEDESCRIPTION........................................................................................................ 2
FINDINGS......................................................................................................................... 3
DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................... 3
GEOLOGICSETTING...................................................................................................... 4
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY....................................................................................... 5
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................................. 8
GEOLOGICHAZARDS................................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSIONS AND DICUSSIONS......................................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ 13
EarthWork and Grading.............................................................................................. 1.3
Specification Guidelines.........................................................................................13
FillSuitability...........................................................................................................14
SitePreparation....................................................................................................... 14
Excavation Characteristics..................................................................................... 15
Compaction and Method of Filling ......................................................................16
SurfaceDrainage .....................................................................................................16
ErosionControl........................................................................................................16
TemporaryCut Slopes............................................................................................17
Foundations....................................................................................................................17
General...................................................................................................................... 17
Dimensions and Embedment........................................................... . ................. 17
SoilBearing Value................................................................................................... 18
LateralLoad Resistance.......................................................................................... 18
Foundation Reinforcement.................................................................................... 18
AnticipatedSettlements ......................................................................................... 18
Foundation Excavation Observation.................................................................... 19
FoundationPlans Review...................................................................................... 19
CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE................................................................................20
InteriorFloor Slabs.................................................................................................. 20
Exterior Concrete Flatwork.................................................................................... 20
SLABMOISTURE BARRIERS...................................................................................... 21
Interior Slab Curing Time ...................................................................................... 21
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES.................... 22
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 23
FIELDINVESTIGATION............................................................................................... 24
LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION.................................................24
CORROSIVESOILS....................................................................................................... 26
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 26
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
Figure No.1 Site Location Map (Topo)
Figure No.2A Plot Plan and Geotechnical Map
Figure No.2B Site Plan(Aerial)
Figure No.3 Test Boring Logs
Figure No.4 Regional Geologic Map Excerpt
Figure No.5 Fault Activity Map(2010)
Figure No.6 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map
Figure No.7 Geotechnical Hazard Map
Figure No.8 Flood Hazard Map
APPENDICIES
Appendix "A"-Standard Grading Specifications
Appendix "B"-Unified Soil Classification Chart
Appendix"C"-Test Boring Logs by CW Soils
Appendix "D"-Liquefaction SPT
Appendix"E"-References
REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Proposed Mexico Cafe
North of the Pechanga Parkway & Clubhouse Dr. Intersection
Temecula, California
Assessor's Parcel Number 961-440-015
INRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following report presents the results of an updated geotechnical report
performed for the above restaurant project. It is our understanding the site is being
developed to receive a single restaurant building. The proposed restaurant is
anticipated to consist of wood, concrete, or steel framing, will be one- and/or two-
story in height utilizing slab on grade construction with associated parking.
This report updates the recommendations of the previously referenced report. We
accept the findings of their field investigation and laboratory test results. However,
the recommendations for site preparation have been modified based on our
additional analysis and interpretation of the data.
Our scope of work was limited to the following:
Identify the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the
proposed grading and construction.
Based on laboratory testing and our experience with similar sites in the area,
identify the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the
proposed construction, including the allowable soil bearing pressures,
expansive characteristics and settlement potential.
Describe the general geology of the site including possible geologic factors
that could have an effect on the site development, and provide seismic design
parameters established in the latest 2016 edition of the California Building
Code.
Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil
conditions, groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these
problems.
Develop soil-engineering criteria for site grading.
Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure
anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended
foundation designs.
Present our opinions in this written report, which includes in addition to our
findings and recommendations, a site plan showing the location of our
subsurface explorations, logs of the test borings and a summary of our
laboratory test results.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the stated client and his design
consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the
project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to C.W. La
Monte Company, Inc. for review to determine their conformance with our
recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,
laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services
have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in
accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This
warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is located north of the Pechanga Parkway and Clubhouse Drive
Intersection in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Figure Number 1
attached) provides a vicinity map showing the approximate location of the property
and area topography. The lot is bounded on the south with Pechanga Parkway, on
the east with an RV storage yard, and on the north and west with undeveloped land
associated with Temecula Creek.
The property consists of a gently sloping, vacant lot that is somewhat triangular-
shaped and approximately 2.4 acres in area with approximately 650 feet of slightly
radial frontage along Pechanga Parkway. The site is located within the Temecula
Creek Flood Plain. The earthen banks of Temecula Creek descend from the north
end of the property forming a slope approximately 5 to 9 feet in height. The surface
of the site has been modified by the placement of up to 4 feet of fill soils. Elevations
within the project site range from approximately 1001 to 1011 feet above mean sea
level (msl).
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 2
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
FINDINGS
DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is underlain with recent alluvium and associated topsoils. Also, portions of
the site have been capped undocumented fill. The encountered soil types are
described individually below in order of increasing age. Exploration included a
recent hand-augered boring attached as Figure 3. Prior exploration by CW Soils
included 3 drilled test borings. Logs of the CW Soils borings are attached as
Appendix A. The boring locations are located on the Site Plan and Geotechnical Map,
Figure No. 2A. A regional geologic map excerpt is included as Figure No. 4.
Fill: The building area of the site is capped with undocumented fill soils
ranging up to 5 feet in thickness. The estimated location of the fill is shown on
the attached Plot Plan and Geotechnical Map. The fills consist primarily of
light brown, medium dense, silty sand with some gravel. The fills are
undocumented and, therefore, unsuitable to support structural improvements
and require remedial grading.
Topsoils: Underlying the fill and mantling the alluvium is a thin veneer of
natural ground topsoil. The topsoils encountered in our exploration were less
than one foot in thickness and consist of dark brown, firm/loose, silty sand
and sandy silt.
Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qya): According to Digital Geologic
Map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, by Kennedy -
Tan (2005) site is underlain with Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits
described as Holocene and late Pleistocene, mostly poorly consolidated,
poorly sorted, permeable flood plain deposits.
The alluvial materials underlying the site generally consists of light gray, loose
to medium dense, silty sands, poorly sorted sands and well sorted sands with
occasional thin lens of silt.
Pauba Formation (Qps): The Quaternary-aged Pauba Formation was
generally encountered below the alluvial materials at a depth of 32 feet in CW
Soils Test Boring No. 3. These materials primarily consisted of light yellowish
brown, fine to coarse grained sandstone with varying amounts of gravel.
These materials were generally noted to be moderately hard.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 3
Revised November 6,2017 Temecula, CA
Ground Water: No well data was available at the site; however, C.W. Soils Test
Borings B-2 and B-3 encountered groundwater at depths of 21 and 20 feet
respectively). B-1 was dry and drilled to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet. The C.W.
Soils borings were advanced on February 18, 2014. Our Test Boring B-1 was placed
on May 20, 2014 and encountered saturated soil at a depth of 16 feet and was
terminated before reaching the groundwater table.
Temporarily, groundwater can potentially reach near the ground surface during a
rare future flooding event. This assumption is based on a mapped historic ground
water depth contour of 0 feet, recorded during the autumn of 1971 (Kennedy, 1977),
crossing through or very near the site. Also, the California Department of Water
Resources recorded a groundwater depth (Elevation 1023.6 feet) of approximately 5
feet as measured in a well (State Well Number 08S02W20C001S) on October 1, 1967
DWR, 2015) located approximately 0.8 mile east of the site.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regionally, the project is located within the alluvial basin of Temecula-Wolf Valley 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-Inglewood Fault, 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 of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Perris Block is, in turn, bounded
to the east by the San Jacinto Fault. The Peninsular Ranges Province and 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, claystones, siltstones, conglomerates, and some volcanic units.
The mountainous regions are primarily made up of Pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary
and metavolcanic rocks along with Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern
California Batholith.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 4
Revised November 6,2017 Temecula, CA
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much
of Southern California, including the Riverside County area, is characterized by a series
of Quaternary-age fault zones, which typically consist of several individual, en echelon
faults that generally strike in a south easterly - northwesterly direction. Some of these
fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active.
According to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology, active fault
zones are those, which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the
Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years). An excerpt from the 2010 Fault Activity
Map of California is attached as Figure No. 5.
The nearest fault segments within the Elsinore Fault Zone are in the Wildomar Fault
and Wolf Valley Fault Zones (Kennedy, 1977; 2000; Tan and Kennedy, 2000; Kennedy
and Tan, 2005), located approximately 0.5 mile northeast and 0.5 mile south (see
Figure Nos. 4 and 6 of above-referenced report dated June 2, 2014), respectively, from
the site. Other regional significant active faults, the San Jacinto, Newport-Inglewood,
Rose Canyon, and San Andreas faults, are approximately 22, 26, 28, and 40 miles,
respectively, from the site. These and other significant faults within 100 km of the
site are listed in the following Table I.
TABLE I: SELECTED FAULTS WITHIN 100 KM OF PROJECT SITE
FAULT NAME DISTANCE,km DIRECTION MAX.CRED.
mi.)' FROM SITE MAGNITUDE2
Elsinore(Temecula) 0.8(0.5)NE&S 6.8
San Jacinto(Anza) 35(22) NE 7.2
Newport-Inglewood(offshore) 42(26) SW 7.1
Rose Canyon 45 (28) SW 7.2
Whittier 59(37) NW 6.8
Chino-Central Ave. 59(37) NW 6.7
Earthquake Valley 59 (37) SE 6.5
San Andreas (Coachella)64 (40) NE 7.2
Pinto Mountain 75 (47) NE 7.2
Cucamonga 83(52) NNW 6.9
Sierra Madre 100(62) NW 7.2
1 Fault distances measured from Jennings and Bryant (2010) and CDMG (1990a, 1990b)
2 Maximum moment magnitude calculated from relationships (rupture area) derived from
Wells and Coppersmith(1994; values listed in Appendix A of Cao and others, 2003)
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 5
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
Our engineering geologist reviewed stereo-paired aerial photographs dated 1938 and
1953 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 1967 by the U.S. Geological Survey
and performed a geologic reconnaissance of the site. According to the 1938 aerial
photographs, the site exposed predominantly braided stream and channel bar
geomorphic features with no evidence of faulting, such as fault scarps or
photographic lineaments, traversing the site. No geomorphic features suggestive of
faulting were observed on the site during the geologic reconnaissance. Based on the
aerial photograph review and site visit, the engineering geologist concludes that the
potential for surface rupture due to faulting on the site is low.
Significant seismic events of magnitude 5.0 or greater within 100 km of the site and
within the past 100 years, with estimated distances from the site, are listed in the
following Table II. Site coordinates: Latitude = 33.4728 N, Longitude = -117.1246 W.
TABLE II:MAJOR SEISMIC EVENTS WITHIN PAST 100 YEARS3
EVENT MAG. DEPTH, LAT. LONG. DIST.,km DIRECTION
DATE km mi.) FROM SITE
2014/03/29 5.10 4.77 33.93250 N -117.91720 W 90(56)NW
2010/07/07 5.43 13.97 33.42050 N -116.48570 W 64(40)ESE
2008/07/29 5.39 14.70 33.95300 N -117.76130 W 83(52)NW
2005/06/12 5.20 13.05 33.53250 N -116.56670 W 53(33) E
2001/10/31 5.02 13.68 33.5083°N -116.51430 W 59(37) E
1988/12/16 5.03 6.89 33.97900 N -116.68100 W 72(45) NE
1986/07/08 5.65 9.47 33.99900 N -116.60800 W 80 (50) NE
1980/02/25 5.34 19.41 33.47530 N -116.49970 W 58(36) E
1969/04/28 5.46 6.00 33.25920 N -116.36100 W 56(35) SE
1968/04/09 6.60 10.0 33.17980 N -116.10300 W 83 (52) SE
1963/09/23 5.29 10.66 33.70370 N -116.93820 W 29(18) NE
1957/04/25 5.05 6.00 33.22270 N -116.02850 W 93 (58) SE
1948/12/04 6.00 6.00 33.9833°N -116.3308°W 93(58) NE
1944/06/12 5.06 6.00 33.98900 N -116.73120 W 67(42) NE
1938/05/31 5.23 10.19 33.69930 N -116.51120 W 61 (38) NE
1937/03/25 6.00 6.00 33.40000 N -116.25000 W 83(52) E
3 Sources of earthquake events from httpp://ww°w.earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search
and htt ://,N,ww.jicede.org/anss/catalop--search.html
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 6
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
1918/04/21 6.7 10.0 33.64700 N -117.43300 W 38(24)NW
1918/04/21 6.8 33.7500 N -117.00000 W 32(20) NNE
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 Fault
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 Earthquake Fault Zone,
established by the State of California to restrict the construction of habitable
structures across identifiable traces of known active faults (See Figure No. 6). 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 Holocene geologic time period. A fault was mapped
to project along the stream channel just north of the site by Jenkins (Jenkins, 1973).
However, this fault splay is not included in the newer Kennedy geologic map
Kennedy, 2005) and is not known to be active.
Based upon our understanding of the site the Elsinore Fault with an approximate
source to site distance of less than 1 kilometer is the closest known active fault
anticipated to produce the highest ground accelerations, having an estimated
maximum modal magnitude of 6.8. The potential for surface rupture to adversely
impact the safety of the proposed structures inhabitants is low.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 7
Revised November 6,2017 Temecula, CA
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
We have re-determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the site utilizing
current U.S. Seismic Design Maps from the USGS website.
The analysis included the following input parameters:
Design Code Reference Document: 2012/2015 IBC
Site Soil Classification: Site Class D
Risk Category: I or II or III
Site Latitude: 33.4728 N
Site Longitude: -117.1246 W
The values generated by the Design Map Report are provided in the following table:
TABLE I
Site Coefficients and Spectral ReWon-se Acceleration Parameters
Ss Sl Fa Fv Sms Sml Sds Shc
1.866 0.762 1.0 1.5 1.866 1.143 1.245 0.762
The values are not significantly different than was provided in the referenced report.
Application to the criteria in Table I for seismic design does not constitute any kind
of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will
not occur if ever seismic shaking occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to
protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically
prohibitive.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
General: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of
the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 8
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed
development.
Ground Shaking: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a
result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above.
Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to severe,
depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to
the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one
moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. Construction
in accordance with the minimum requirements of the California Building Code, the
Structural Engineers Association of California lateral force design requirements, and
local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity.
According to a map showing location of 1987 ground fissures and adjacent fault
zones in the Temecula-Wolf Valley area, southwestern Riverside County, California
by Corwin and others (1991), the site is located about 0.4 mile north of an area of
documented ground fissures which lies along a portion of the Wolf Valley Fault Zone
Kennedy, 1977). Ground fissures occurring in 1987 extended discontinuously along
a 12-km long zone in the Temecula-Wolf Valley area of southwestern Riverside
County, California (Corwin and others, 1991).
Slope Stability: Due to the sites level topography and geologic conditions, deep-
seating landsliding does not present a significant hazard.
The approximately 6 to 10-foot high about 1:1 (horizontal to vertical ratio) to near-
vertical north-facing slope along the northern edge of the property is susceptible to
rotational slippage. Some tension/subsidence cracks were noted within about 5 feet
of the top edge of the slope during the field reconnaissance made by the engineering
geologist. Normal setback requirements from the top of slope would mitigate
potential damage from potential slope instability.
Settlement Potential: Hydroconsolidation, or soil collapse, typically occurs in
recently deposited Holocene (less than 10,000 years before present time) soils that
were deposited in an and or semi-arid environment. Soils prone to collapse are
commonly associated with man-made fill, wind-laid sands and silts, and alluvial fan
and mudflow sediments deposited during flash floods. Particles of these soils, which
typically contain minute pores and voids, may be partially supported by clay or silt,
or chemically cemented with carbonates. When saturated, collapsible soils undergo
rearrangement of their grains and the water removes the cohesive (or cementing)
material, and a rapid, substantial settlement may occur. Generally speaking, an
increase in surface water infiltration (such as from irrigation) or a rise in the
groundwater table, combined with the weight of a building or structure, may initiate
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 9
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
settlement, causing foundations and walls to crack.
In Riverside County, collapsible soils occur predominantly at the bases of the
mountains and river plains, where Holocene-aged alluvial sediments have been
deposited during rapid runoff events. Additionally, some windblown sands may be
vulnerable to collapse and hydroconsolidation. Typically, differential settlement of
structures occurs when lawns or plantings are heavily irrigated in close proximity to
a structure's foundation. The loose consistency of the predominantly silty
sand/sandy silt encountered locally in the upper approximately 5 feet of artificial fill,
topsoil and of the uppermost part of young alluvial flood plain deposits in the
referenced soil test boring may be susceptible to soil collapse (The upper 5 to 7 feet of
existing fill and topsoil will be recompacted and would no longer be susceptible
hydroconsolidation). Locally loose sediment reportedly encountered at the 10-foot
depth in the approximately 51-foot deep boring by C.W. Soils may also be
susceptible to collapse.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state
into a liquid state with vibration (most commonly seismic shaking) in the presence of
water. It is a phenomenon that tends to occur in areas with shallow groundwater and
where the soils are composed of loosely compacted granular materials. During an
earthquake, saturated, cohesionless soil particles tend to decrease in volume
condense) because the vibration causes smaller particles to shift and fill in the voids
pores) between larger soil particles normally filled with water. As the soil
condenses, less space is left for water, causing an increase in pore water pressure. If
the pore water pressure increases sufficiently, the soil loses its strength and
transforms into a liquid state. Liquefiable conditions, when present, can lead to
damage of overlying structures caused by loss of bearing, settlement, or subsidence
of the soil.
According to the Temecula General Plan- Public Safety Element, Figure PS-1 (see
attached Figure No. 7); the site is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone.
Therefore, the referenced investigation included liquefaction analysis. Their analyses
of the pre-graded conditions revealed that potentially liquefiable soils were
encountered in boring B-3, from 7 to 32 feet. The analyses of the post graded
conditions revealed that potentially liquefiable soils were encountered in boring B-3,
from 23 to 33 feet Upon completion of the recommended grading and based on our
calculations, their analysis estimated dynamic settlement of sands due to liquefaction
will be on the order of 2.3 inches.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 10
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
The previous liquefaction analysis used estimated grain size analysis with no actual
laboratory testing. Our firm re-analyzed liquefaction potential using a software
program titled Liquefaction SPT Analysis (v 3.0). For this analysis we placed a
supplemental boring to obtain samples for grain size distribution and soil
classification. Blow count information was derived from the CW Soils test borings
with the values averaged between the borings.
The liquefaction software is based on the 2008 publication "Soil Liquefaction during
Earthquakes" by Idriss & Boulanger and provides analysis of liquefaction potential,
dynamic settlement of layers above and below the GWT and lateral spreading
calculations. The results of the analysis are attached as Appendix B; input data is
included on the first page of the Appendix. In summary, the result of the
liquefaction analysis indicates layers at approximately 10, 20, and 30 feet with a
factor-of-safety of less than 1.5. Total dynamic settlement is on the order of 3 inches.
The vast majority of the settlement calculation occurs at depths below 20 feet.
CDMG Special Publication 117 states that "... it can be concluded that the differential
settlements at level ground sites with natural soils are expected to be small even if
the total settlement is large compared to the total settlement for conditions that
typically exist in southern California...Where there are relatively uniform conditions
at a site with deep sediments (if demonstrated by the field program), minimum
differential settlement of less than one-half of the total settlement may be used in the
design...When the subsurface condition varies significantly in lateral directions
and/or the thickness of soil deposit (Holocene deposits and artificial fills) varies
within the site, a minimum value of one-half to two-thirds of the total settlement is
suggested.
Special Publication 117 suggests that "The differential settlement between adjacent
structural supports, or distortion, is a more useful parameter for the structural
designers than the differential settlement estimate.
As such, employing the above described methodology to estimate the potential for
differential settlement of the subject site and considering relatively uniform
subsurface conditions, a conservative estimate of potential differential settlement
across the subject site in its current state would be taken as less than one--half of the
total dynamic settlement estimations, or 1.0 to 1.5 inches.
Flooding: According to the Temecula General Plan- Public Safety Element, Figure
PS-2, the 100-year Flood Zone (See attached Figure No. 8) encroaches onto the
property. Appropriate elevation design should be provided for the project.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 11
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
Also, according to Figure No. 8 of the above referenced report, the site is within an
area of potential dam inundation according to the City of Temecula General Plan-
Public Safety Element. Also, the northern edge of the site is within the 100-year flood
zone of Temecula Creek.
Tsunamis: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or
volcanic eruptions. Based on the project's inland and elevated location, the site is
considered to possess a very low risk potential from tsunamis.
Seiches: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes,
harbors, bays or reservoirs. The site is considered to have a very low risk potential
for damage caused by seiches.
CONCLUSIONS AND DICUSSIONS
In general, we found the subject property suitable for the proposed construction,
provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. The most significant
findings and geotechnical conditions that will influence site development are
summarized below. Detailed recommendations for precede this section of the report.
The building site is overlain with up to 5 feet undocumented fill overlying
moderately consolidated, young alluvium. The alluvium is capped with a
thin veneer of compressible topsoils consisting of sandy silt, anticipated to be
1 to 2 feet in thickness. The alluvial materials are generally medium dense in
consistency to depths of approximately 15 to 20 feet. However, the surficial
fills and topsoils considered unsuitable in their present condition to support
structural fill and/or settlement sensitive improvements. As such, all topsoils
and fill materials not removed by planned site grading will need to be
removed from areas to support fills and/or settlement sensitive
improvements and, where necessary to achieve planned site grades, be
replaced as properly compacted fill.
Our Liquefaction analysis indicated potential for over 3 inches of differential
settlement. Analysis by CW Soils calculated over 6 inches of seismically
induced settlement. To reduce settlement potential related to liquefaction, CW
Soils recommended report recommended remedial grading consisting of soil
removals up to 19 feet in depth.
Our analysis used different analysis methods and some different input data
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 12
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
some based on new grain size distribution tests) and calculated considerably
less potential for dynamic settlement. Further, the majority of the settlement
we calculated occurs at depths below 20 feet. Therefore, based on this finding,
it does not appear there is a significant advantage to removing and
recompacting the upper 20 feet of soil. It is our professional opinion removal
depths may be decreased to approximately 5 to 7 feet below the existing
grade, as needed to remove undocumented fills and loose topsoils.
Good engineering practice requires that where an investigation indicates that
liquefaction is possible, the hazards that might reasonably be caused by
liquefaction that could result in the collapse of a structure and/or loss of life be
mitigated. As such, it is our opinion that the site preparation and foundation
recommendations contained in this report will provide a satisfactory life-safety
performance level for the structure (considering the low potential for
liquefaction). These recommendations include heavy reinforcement of footings
and floor slabs, which will be founded in properly compacted fill. Our
recommendations do not, however, preclude the possibility of structural
damage and settlement occurring as a result of a local,major seismic event.
The soils underlying the site are considered to possess a low to very low
expansive potential as determined by ASTM D4829.
Since the recommended grading includes a compacted fill mat under the
structure, transition conditions will not impact the proposed development.
Erosion protection should be provided for the creek channel embankment
along the northern perimeter of the property. There are many products and
methods available to mitigate erosion, such as Riprap, Gabions, Caltrans Rock
Weir design, etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Work and Grading
Specification Guidelines
Any site grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2016 California
Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Temecula, and the
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 13
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
Standard Grading and Construction Specifications, Appendix "A", attached hereto,
except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a
representative of C.W. La Monte Company Inc. should be present at the
preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and
to review the earthwork schedule.
Observation and testing by the soil engineer is essential during the grading
operations. This allows the soil engineer to confirm the conditions anticipated by our
investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect the actual field
conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general
accordance with the recommendations contained herein
Fill Suitability
On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill. The
on-site materials are anticipated to posses a very low- to low-expansion potential.
Any potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to importation. At least two working days notice of a
potential import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that
appropriate testing can be accomplished. The type of material considered most
desirable for import is a non-detrimentally expansive granular material with some
silt or clay binder.
Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of all vegetation and other
deleterious materials from the portion of lot that will be graded and that will receive
improvements. This should include all root balls from the trees removed and all
significant root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off-site.
After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should continue with the removal all
existing loose topsoil and fill material from areas that will be graded or that will
support settlement-sensitive improvements. As the project is presently planned,
topsoil removals are, generally, expected to vary from about 5 to 7 feet. Please note
the estimated removal depths may be thicker in localized areas. The loose soil shall
be removed to expose firm natural ground as determined by our field representative
during grading. Remedial grading should extend horizontally beyond the perimeter
of the proposed structures a distance equal to the depth of compacted fill below the
proposed footing or a minimum of 5 feet,whichever is greater. The upper two feet of
pavement subgrade should be removed and recompacted.
Where existing grade is at a slope steeper than five units horizontal to one unit
vertical (20-percent slope) and the depth of the fill exceeds 5 feet (1524 mm) benching
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 14
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
shall be provided in accordance with Figure J107.3 (reproduced below) of the 2016
California Building Code (A copy is attached to the back of Appendix A). A key
shall be provided which is at least 10 feet (3048 mm) in width and 2 feet (610 mm) in
depth. All removal areas should be approved by a representative of our office prior
to the placement of fill or improvements.
LAP t1F FILL FILL SLOPE
q 5 FT.(1524 rum) OR GREATER
NATURAL SLOPE
r r
r
r W
r
rr
r
r
r r
r
r
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
2 FT. (610 mm) MATERIAI
KEY MINIMUM
I I^
7
Figure J107.3 from the 2016 California Building Code
Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that
have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth
of approximately 6 to 12 inches, be moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least
90 percent relative compaction.
Excavation Characteristics
The on-site topsoil materials will excavate with easy to moderate effort using typical
heavy equipment. No significant amounts of oversize materials (greater than 8
inches) are anticipated.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 15
Revised November 6,2017 Temecula, CA
Compaction and Method of Filling
All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test
D1557-91 guidelines. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture
content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical
means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots,
vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or
project geologist. All material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of
twelve inches in maximum width. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no
rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed.
Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structure and beneath all
pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
of its maximum dry density. The upper one-foot of pavement subgrade and base
material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative density. All grading and
fill placement should be performed in accordance with the local Grading Ordinance,
the 2016 California Building Code, and the Standard Grading and Construction
Specifications, attached hereto as Appendix A.
Surface Drainage
Per Section 1804 of the 2016 California Building Code, in general, the ground
immediately adjacent to foundations shall be sloped away from the building at a
slope of not less than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope) for a
minimum distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured perpendicular to the face of the
wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet (3048 mm) of horizontal
distance, a 5-percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of
diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be
sloped a minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the
building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the building
foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building.
Exceptions are allowed where climatic or soil conditions warrant, the slope of the
ground away from the building foundation shall be permitted to be reduced to not
less than one unit vertical in 48 units horizontal (2-percent slope). The procedure
used to establish the final ground level adjacent to the foundation shall account for
additional settlement of the backfill.
Erosion Control
In addition,,appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during
construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations,
ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 16
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Appropriate Best Management
Practice (BMP) erosion control devices should be provided in accordance with local
and federal governing agencies.
Temporary Cut Slopes
No "long term" temporary excavations over 5 feet in height are anticipated during
site grading. However, it should be noted that the contractor is solely responsible for
designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore,
slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of
the excavation sides where friable sands or loose soils are exposed. The contractor's
responsible person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for
Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations
as part of the contractor's safety process. In no case should slope height, slope
inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed
those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
Foundations
General
Dimensions and Embedment
Conventional shallow and/or deepened foundations may be utilized in the support
of the proposed structures. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with
the recommendations of the project structural engineer and the minimum
requirements of the California Building Code. The following table provides
suggested foundation dimensions:
TABLE II-FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS
Number of Floors Width of Footing Embedment Depth
Supported by Inches) Below Undisturbed Soil'
The Foundation
1 12 12
2 15 18
3 _ 18 1 24 j
Assumes non-expansive as-graded condition
Isolated pad footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Isolated footings
and wide door openings should be provided with a tie beam.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 17
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
Soil Bearing Value
A bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be assumed for said footings when founded a
minimum of 12 inches into properly compacted fill. This bearing capacity may be
increased by one-third, when considering wind and/or seismic loading.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of
the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing.
The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.4. The
passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 250
pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against
undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the
friction value should be reduced by one-third.
Foundation Reinforcement
It is recommended that continuous footings be reinforced with at least four No. 5
steel bar; two reinforcing bars shall be located near the top of the foundation, and
two bars near the bottom.
The steel reinforcement will help prevent damage due to normal, post construction
settlement or heaving, resulting from variations in the subsurface soil conditions.
The minimum reinforcement recommended herein is based on soil characteristics
only and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural
considerations).
Anticipated Settlements
Based on our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils should
experience settlement in the magnitude of less than 0.5 inch under proposed
structural loads.
It should be recognized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs
and foundations due to shrinkage during curing and/or redistribution of stresses
and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of
excessive vertical movements.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 18
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
Horizontal Distance of Footings from Slopes
According to Section 1808.7 (Foundation on or adjacent to slopes), of the 2016
California Building Code foundations on or adjacent to slope surfaces shall be
founded in firm material with an embedment and set back from the slope surface
sufficient to provide vertical and lateral support for the foundation without
detrimental settlement. Generally, setbacks should conform to Figure 1808A.7.1,
which is reproduced below. Where the slope is steeper than 1 unit vertical in 1 unit
horizontal (100-percent slope), the required setback shall be measured from an
imaginary plane 45 degrees to the horizontal, projected upward from the toe of the
slope.
Figure 1808.7.1 from the 2016 CSC FACE OF
FOOTING
TOP OF
SLOPE
FACE OF
STRUCTURE
TOE OF
SLOPE AT LEAST THE SMALLER
OF H13 AND 40 FEET
AT LEAST THE SMALLER OF W/2 AND 15 FEET
Foundation Excavation Observation
The general contractor is responsible for implementing the foundation
recommendations in this report. All foundation excavations should be observed by
the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order
to verify compliance with the foundation recommendations presented herein. All
footing excavations should be excavated neat, level and square. All loose or
unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete.
Foundation Plans Review
The finalized, foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to
ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and
that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended
recommendations may be issued based on this review.
Post Tensioned Slab/Foundation Design Recommendations
In lieu of the proceeding foundation recommendations, post tensioned slabs are appropriate for
the proposed structure. Post tension foundations are generally considered to be a superior
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 19
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
foundation system,but may be slightly higher in overall cost. Parameters for the design of a post
tensioned foundation system can be provided on request.
CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE
It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed structure will consist of
concrete slab-on-grade floors. We anticipate that the concrete slabs-on-grade will be
supported by non-detrimentally expansive, competent formation and/or properly
compacted fill material. The following recommendations assume that the subgrade
soils have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the
Grading and Earthwork" section of this report. In addition, the following
recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil
conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations.
Interior Floor Slabs
It is our opinion that the minimum floor slab thickness should be five inches (actual).
The floor slab should be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars placed at 18 inches on
center each way. The slab reinforcing bars should extend at least six inches into the
perimeter footings and be integrally tied to the foundation steel. Slab reinforcing
should be supported by chairs and be positioned at mid-height in the floor slab.
Exterior Concrete Flatwork
On-grade exterior concrete slabs for walks and patios should have a thickness of four
inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24
inches on center each way. Exterior slab reinforcement should be placed
approximately at mid-height of the slab. Reinforcement and control joints should be
constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and
movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the
location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with
the American Concrete Institute specifications. Foundations they should be doweled
into the footings.
Subgrade Preparation
At least the upper two feet of subgrade soils underlying concrete flatwork should be
compacted at near optimum moisture to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM test method D1557-00. Prior to placing concrete,
the subgrade soils should be moistened to at least optimum or slightly above
optimum moisture content
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 20
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
SLAB MOISTURE BARRIERS
A moisture barrier system is recommended beneath any new interior slab-on-grade
floors with moisture sensitive floor coverings or coatings to help reduce the upward
migration of moisture vapor from the underlying subgrade soil. A properly selected
and installed vapor retarder is essential for long-term moisture resistance and can
minimize the potential for flooring problems related to excessive moisture.
Interior floor slabs should be underlain by a minimum 10-mil thick moisture retarder
product over a two-inch thick layer of clean sand (Please note, additional moisture
reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the
performance requirements for future floor covering products). The moisture retarder
product used should meet or exceed the performance standards dictated by ASTM E
1745 Class A material and be properly installed in accordance with ACI publication
302 (Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction) and ASTM E1643 (Standard Practice
for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under
Concrete Slabs). Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and
recommendations for concrete placement and curing are purview of the structural
engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the project
architect and developer.
Moisture Retarders and Installation
Vapor retarder joints must have at least 6-inch-wide overlaps and be sealed with
mastic or the manufacturer's recommended tape or compound. No heavy equipment,
stakes or other puncturing instruments should be used on top of the liner before or
during concrete placement. In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the
retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or
jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce
the retarders' effectiveness. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the
moisture retarder is properly placed in accordance with the project plans and
specifications and that the moisture retarder material is free of tears and punctures
and is properly sealed prior to the placement of concrete.
Interior Slab Curing Time
Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed
prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may
result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor
materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing (calcium chloride test and/or
relative humidity) should be performed to determine if the slab moisture emissions
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 21
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer of the specified floor-
covering product.
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
Lateral Pressure: Refer to the FOUNDATIONS section of this report for lateral
pressure values.
Active Pressure for Retaining Walls: Lateral pressures acting against masonry and
cast-in-place concrete retaining walls can be calculated using soil equivalent fluid
weight. The equivalent fluid weight value used for design depends on allowable
wall movement. Walls that are free to rotate at least 0.5 percent of the wall height can
be designed for the active equivalent fluid weight. Retaining walls that are restrained
at the top (such as basement walls), or are sensitive to movement and tilting should
be designed for the at-rest equivalent fluid weight.
Values given in the table below are in terms of equivalent fluid weight and assume a
triangular distribution. The provided equivalent fluid weight values assume that
either on-site on imported granular soils consisting of sand, or gravel (SP, SW, SM,
and GP) will be used as backfill. Clay soils (CL-CH) may not be used as retaining
wall backfill.
Table III
Equivalent Fluid Weights (efw) For Calculating Lateral Earth Pressures
Using Non-detrimentally Expansive Backfill)
Level Backfill
Conditions pcf)
Backfill-SM/SC Soil
Active 30
At-Rest 60
Vehicular Loads: In the case of vehicular loads coming closer than one-half the
height of the wall, we recommend a live load surcharge pressure equal to not less
than 2 feet of soil surcharge with an average unit weight of 125 pcf.
Retaining Wall Foundations: Retaining wall foundations shall be designed by the
structural engineer based on the appropriate parameters provided in this report.
Waterproofing and Drainage: In general, retaining walls should be provided with a
drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and be
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 22
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
waterproofed as specified by the project architect. Also refer to American Concrete
Institute ACI 515.R (A Guide to the Use of Waterproofing, Damp Proofing, Protective
and Decorative Barriers Systems for Concrete).
Positive drainage for retaining walls should consist of a vertical layer of permeable
material positioned between the retaining wall and the soil backfill. Such permeable
material may be composed of a composite drainage geosynthetic or a natural
permeable material such as crushed rock or clean sand at least 12 inches thick and
capped with at least 12 inches of backfill soil. The gravel should be wrapped in a
geosynthetic filter fabric. Provisions should be made for the discharge of any
accumulated groundwater. The selected drainage system should be provided with a
perforated collection and discharge pipe placed along the bottom of the permeable
material near the base of the wall. The drain pipe should discharge to a suitable
drainage facility. If lateral space (due to property line constraints) is insufficient to
allow installation of the gravel-wrapped "burrito" drain, a geocomposite system may
be used in lieu of the typical gravel and pipe subdrain system. TenCate's MiraDrain
and similar products) provide a "low-profile" drainage system that requires minimal
lateral clearance for installation. MiraDRAIN and similar products may also be
incorporated into a waterproofing system and provide a slab drainage system (Please
note that supplemental manufacturer's details will be required to provide a
waterproofed system).
Backfill: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
Imported or on-site sands, gravels, silty sand materials are suitable for retaining wall
backfill. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate
strength. Soil with an expansion index (EI) of greater than 50 should not be used as
backfill material behind retaining walls, which includes the predominant on-site
material.
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Asphalt Pavement Section
Final pavement design should be based upon sampling and testing of post graded
conditions. For preliminary design and estimating purposes, the following pavement
structural sections can be used for the range of likely Traffic Index wheel loads. The
preliminary sections are based on an assumed R-Value of 40, which in our opinion is
a conservative estimate for local material.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 23
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
TABLE IV
Preliminary Pavement Design
Traffic Asphaltic Aggregate
R-Value*Index Concrete Thickness Base
Inches) Thickness
Inches)
4.5 4 3 . —
40 6 4 4
7 4 7
Estimated value-testing required during site grading.
Site Preparation for Pavement Areas
Prior to receiving the pavement section the upper 8 to 12 inches of existing subgrade
should be scarified, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture requirements
and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. The aggregate
base material should also be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry
density. All materials and methods of construction should conform to good
engineering practices and the minimum standards set forth by the City of Temecula.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Eight exploratory test borings s were placed on the site, using a hand auger sampling
system. The explorations were placed specifically in areas where representative soil
conditions were expected and the structure will be located. Our investigation also
included a visual site reconnaissance. The excavations were visually inspected and
logged by our field geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils
throughout the field operation. Test excavation logs have been prepared on the basis
of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figure No. 3. The
predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (refer to Appendix B).
LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION
CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual
examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 24
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were
determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to
classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with
depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place
moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results
are summarized in the test excavation logs.
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: The maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content of a typical on-site soil samples was
determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557. The
results of these tests are presented below:
Sample Location: Boring B-1 @ 1'-2'
Description Dark brown, silty sand/sandy silt (SP)
Maximum Density 124 pcf
Optimum Moisture Content 10 percent
GRAIN SIZE DISTRUBUTION: The grain size distribution of selected samples was
determined in accordance with ASTM D 422. The results of these tests are presented
below.
TABLE III
Grain Size Distribution
Sample No. B1,5-7 B-1,7-9' B-1,10-12' B-1114-16"
Sieve Size Percent Percent Percent Percent
Retained Retained Retained Retained
1/2 inch
3/8 inch
10 4 12 14
30 3 22 30 33
60 21 62 38 42
100 20 9 12 6
200 29 5 8 4
200 35 4 4 4
Classification SM SP SP SP
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 25
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
CORROSIVE SOILS
Testing for corrosive soils was included in the CW Soils report. The values are
summarized below (Also refer to Appendix C of the CW Soils report):
Soluble Sulfates (ppm): 0.003 (% by weight)
Soluble Chlorides (ppm): 50 ppm
Resistivity (ohm-cm): 4700 ohm-cm
pH: Ranged from 7.68
LIMITATIONS J
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of
final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made
available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may
review and verify their compliance with this report and Sections 1804 and Appendix
J" of the 2016 California Building Code.
It is recommended that C.W. La Monte Company Inc. be retained to provide
continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to
verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and
to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to start of construction.
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate
of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions
encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the
soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be
recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be
influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may
occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not
covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be
brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make
modifications if necessary.
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site
grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are
appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 26
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified
by a written addendum.
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a
property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to
natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,
changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to
such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by
changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a
period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the
conclusions and recommendations.
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing
under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that
subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our
borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and
recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be
responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be
responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our
services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty
of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with
the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or
other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
It is the responsibility of the stated client or their representatives to ensure that the
information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of
the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the
project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the
necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out
such recommendations during construction. The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall
not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as
addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to the
issuance of this report.
We do not direct the Contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the
safety of Personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of other is the
responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he
considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
June 2, 2014 Mexico Cafe Page 27
Revised November 6, 2017 Temecula, CA
SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Clubhouse Drive and Pechanga Parkway
A.P.N.961-440-015
Temecula,CA
ru
f
stCre
P ".art 1•i i,rt.l.y" `
1
f,ram ` ld y.•.r.
t}tom, - p r ;
1
a
u Los'. 1 + r rr r
F,Ss I r t-
I 1"
Rninherw C nvnn VilEngz'`_. s`
Ale
Excerpts from USGS Topographic Maps Temecula,and Pechanga Quadrangles,
7.5-Minute Series,2012
C.W. La Monte Companv Inc.
Soil and Foundation Engineers
Figure No. 1
o G N
G G G
F m W • • as eo
O i,
U G ao
M w
m V m°
jra'
U Q FO F ate` v
0., o a o i
as
w u s
g
r
S A
p pyf sR1
LU§W
w
uuiLL1E
UWU La
Z W f v'
0
1 4,
r
I
F
s
III Jim—
Ir
s--•v tla.]fib
n*
lip
F
A
44
y J
v - fl;-
SAMPIE
TYPE Test Boring No. B-1
8
r, C7 ro B ° Surface Elevation: Logged By: JBR Date: 05/20/2014
r r d Drilling Method: 4"Dia.Hand Auger Drive W elght: 35# Drop: 24"
Sampling Methods:2.5" I.D.Califomia Swnpler(CA)
Soil Description
SM
FILL
Light brown,dry, loose to medium dense,
1 fine to medium sand,some gravel
Dark brown,slightly moist,firm,sandy silt/silty sand
2 ML a little gravelSM
3 Reddish brown,slightly moist,stiff,very sandy clay,
CL some gravel
ML TOPSOIL Dark brown,slightly moist,loose./
4 soft to firm, silty sand/sand silt
YOUNG ALLUVIUM (Qya)
5 SM
ML Grayish brown,slightly moist,loose to medium dense/
firm,silty fine to medium sand and sandy silt
6
Light gray, slightly moist to moist, medium dense,
S SP fine to medium sand and slightly silty sand
SM
10 Light gray, moist,medium dense,
fine to medium and fine to coarse sand
11 SP
SW
12
13
14
15 feet becomes wet
Excavation
16 @ 16 feet becomes saturated Bottom G16.3'/d
C. W. La MonteCompany Inc. Mexico Cafe (APN 961-440-015)
Pechanga Blvd.,Temecula,CA
Sod and-Po1m,n 711&eeers Figure No. 3
GEOLOGIC MAP EXCERPT
to
2 -
J
30
L2 u
i ", - f a •' y`1/' ram.
op
40
f T Yf
f/ /n jpie
r.
t
1',
1
it _ %1 • " ! 1>' .l r,!'.+
d
J
f.
1 .
P
it
it
Excerpt from:
DIGIT-IL GF_OLOCK:Il fit P OF T71F OCF_L\UDF_ 30'X h0'/)UiIDR,,I.'GLF,,,S'OI;TIIF-R`d
ILTR)RNI.I r100?i. By Knwle,4- Tan
LEGEND(Localized)
Qya=Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits
Holocene-Late Pliestocene)
Qps=Pauba Formation
Co W. la Monte Company •
Soft and Founda on Enginevers
FFigure No. 4
r 4.' j'.' /.',.''•V - + ,a Y rye /' N
O v
A. /
y
Cy
CY
r
ccLd
CY o
Z r v
ii4a'tHlier.ems.a, p
NE
coo
10
p µ+Lo
ca
cn
40
v
i r, r y, >: :` ;` '
f• ,.
4
K s
m on trod "J O
1" •-;i7• ._ ., `'
are k+ M '- .-,
v >, ca
71 w.
k -t• s y. - 7. y ^,r a sy,+ a-. it w G
to
C.
J ad
I f J' P:ro A.• .. 1 ~-JJ 'i - ,-'1 sP
12.; L. -'
l. /` Y VtY' s f s`. -.-
1
4
Y,i.. „/
1p
CD
re'ti i::.
Y..
I {?r° .'
1'
r* u `I
6S
j "
t •» ,
y''`_e ff"
w „/
41
La
cog
r `..
l1 SI _ % /fit -
RARr'-
po
yam.y f7.f
J ',•
Yp1. f.f+
I ``! f ' `
y •.
r,
r-..`" -
ti/`
1J
1
4 •.
7'. "Lt+.
i
a
r
r .
t -
c,>
J rc{ :\i CAM
4
J - j.4;•,
r7'
6 -
e
rr
4.•, La
6
SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPI-UC MAP
Mexico Cafe(APN 961-440-015)
Pechan a Blvd.,Temecula,CA
an Vista
II
0000
1
t
L
Seismic Hazards
U- N OF U-MVICULA GMIRIM-PI-AN
4 nga
Arta erit
Legend Grater * '''
Liquefaction Hazard Zones
INEENEEN Estimated Fault Locations
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Planning Area Boundary Excerpt from the Temecula General
Plan-Public Safety Element, Figure PS-1
Source:Temecula GI5 and Cotton/Bridges/Associates
C.W. La Monte Company Inc.
Soil and Foundation Engineers Figure No. 7
SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Meluco Cafe(APN 961-440-015)
Pechanga Blvd,Temecula,CA
Ran
J
l
SO
f
ram# -
Flood Hazards
and Dam Inundation Areas
l
UIN OF ZEMEWLA GENERAL PLAN
r
Legend 0r
100 Year Flood done
JWDam Inundation Areas
Temecula City Boundary Excerpt from the Temecula General Plan-
Sphere of Influence Boundary Public Safety Element,Figure PS-2
Planning Area Boundary
Sources: City of Temecula,FEMA Q3 Flood Data.
C.W. La Monte. Conipwav Inc.
Soil and Foundation Engineers Figure No. 8
Appendix "A"
STANDARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
Appendix "A"
STANDARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which C.W. La Monte
Company is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where
specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report or in other written communication signed by
the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist of record.
GENERAL
A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist is the Owner's or Builders'representative on the Project.For
the purpose of these specifications,participation by the Soils Engineer includes that observation performed
by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils
reports.
B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor
under the supervision of the Soils Engineer.
C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the
Soils Engineer and to place,spread,mix,water,and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of
the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils
Engineer.
D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site
to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit
completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due
consideration for the fill material,rate of placement,and time of year.
E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these
specifications.
SITE PREPARATION
A. All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site.This removal shall be concluded prior to
placing fill.
B. Soil,alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer, as being unsuitable for placement in
compacted fills shall be removed from the site. The Soils Engineer must approve any material incorporated
as a part of a compacted fill.
C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the
Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may
prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture,mixed as required, and compacted
as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth,the excess shall be removed and placed
in lifts restricted to 6 inches.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved
by the Soils Engineer.
D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe
lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer and/or governing
agency.
E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in
soil,colluvium, or un-weathered bedrock materials,the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3
feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill.
Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 2
COMPACTED FILLS
A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill,provided each material
has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer.Roots,tree branches,and other matter missed
during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer.
B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks.
3. The Soils Engineer shall supervise the distribution of rocks.
C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal.
D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable should not be used in the
compacted fill.
E. Representative samples of material to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory
of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously
tested is encountered during grading,the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the
Soils Engineer as soon as possible.
F. Material used in the compaction process shall be evenly spread, watered processed, and compacted in
thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed
and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer.
G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the
Contractor should re-work the fill until the Soils Engineer approves it.
H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing
method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general,ASTM D-1557-91,the five-layer
method will be used.)
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a
specific land use or expansive soils condition,the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent
shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils
report.
H. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into
sound bedrock or firm material except where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal
to one vertical,in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer.
I. The key for hillside fills should be a minimum of 15 feet in width and within bedrock or similar
materials,unless otherwise specified in the soil report.
K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling
governmental agency,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish
slope face of fill slopes,buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding
the slope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable
equipment,or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.
Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 3
M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion or by other methods specified in the soils
report.
N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or
firm materials,and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill.
CUT SLOPES
A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet.
B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are
encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils
Engineer,and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems.
C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a
non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or
steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.
Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental
agencies,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
GRADING CONTROL
A. Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading.
B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic
yards of fill placement. This criteria will vary, depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any
event,an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verily that the required compaction is being
achieved.
C. Density tests may also be conducted on the surface material to receive fills as determined by the Soils
Engineer.
D. All clean-outs, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be
inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be
the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
A. The Contractor shall provide necessary erosion control measures,during grading and prior to the completion
and construction of permanent drainage controls.
B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or
excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other
features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces,
interceptor swales,or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.
D. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during a future grading
operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted by the on-site representative of a
qualified soil engineering firm. These materials shall be removed and properly recompacted prior to
completion of grading operations.
E. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and
temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with section 1541 of Title 8,
Construction Safety Orders,issued by OSHA.
Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 4
APPENDIX " B"
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOI L DESC RI PTI ON
I. COARSE GRAINED: More than half of material is larger than No.200 sieve size.
GRAVELS: More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No.4 sieve size but smaller than 3".
GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES
CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines.
GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel sand mixtures,little or no fines
GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Appreciable amount of fines)
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel sand, clay mixtures.
SANDS:More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size
CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand,gravelly sands,little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines
SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands,poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
Appreciable amount of fines
SC Clayey sands,poorly graded sand and clay mixtures
II. FINE GRAINED: More than half of material is smaller than No.200 sieve size
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour,sandy silt
or clayey-silt with slight plasticity.
Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
Less than 50 gravelly clays,sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts,micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty
soils,elastic silt
Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays.
greater than 50
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT Peat and other highly organic soils.
VVEMBE 9
TEST BORING LOGS
From:
Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Mexico Cafe, Assessor's Parcel
Number 961-440-01 S, North of the Pechanga Parkway & Clubhouse Drive Intersection, City
Of Temecula, Riverside County, California, by CW Soils, dated March 5, 2014
Geotechnical Boring La B-1
Date: February 18,2014 Project Name: Mexico Caf6 Page: 1 of 1
Project Number: 13298-10 Logged By: CW
Drilling Company: California Pacific Type of Rig: Mobile B61
Drive Weight(lbs): 140 Drop(in): 30 Hole Diameter(in): 8
Top of Hole Elevation(11). 1010.5 Hole Location:See Geotechnical Ma
a
ISoZ4 c
v w d)
rnAas
0
U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 Artificial Fill,Undocumented(Afu):
awi sM Silty SAND;moderate yellowish brown, slightly moist,loose
as
14 R-1 110.2 6.4
5 [
36R-2105.0 5.2 Quaternary Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits(Qya):
SM Silty SAND;medium brown,moist,dense
R-3 109.2 11.5 medium dense
10R: 98.6 l2.9 sr-sM SAND; light grayish brown, slightly moist, edium dense, fine to coarse grained
15
x-5 _ 3.3
17
20
Ivu Sandy SILT;dark brown,very moist,medium stiff,thin lenses of SAND
R-6 - 42.2
4
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
No Groundwater
T
25
30
Geotechnical Boring Log B-2
Date: February 18,2014 Project Name: Mexico Cafe Page: 1 of 1
Project Number: 13298-10 Logged By: CW
Drilling Company: California Pacific Type of Rig: Mobile B61
Drive Weight Obs): 140 Drop(T): 30 Hole Diameter(in): 8
Top of Hole Elevation(ft): 1009.5 lHole,Location: See Geotechnical Ma
L U
o c
U o
w a
A A MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 Quaternary Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits(Qya):
sm Silty SAND;moderate yellowish brown, slightly moist,loose
36 R-1 126.9 2.1 dense
S R-2 101.9 1.4
10
R-3 light grayish brown,moist, loose, fine to medium grained, oxidation zones
io
93.4 2.4 P 1 Y
15
R-a 98.7 8.0 medium dense
18
20
N_1 _ 17.4 medium to coarse grained,groudwater at 21 feet
z
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
Groundwater at 21 Feet
25
30
Geotechnical Boring Log B-3
Date: February 18,2014 Project Name: Meidco Caf6 Page: 1 of 2
Project Number: 13298-10 ed By: CW
Drilling Company: California Pacific Type of Rig: Mobile B61
Drive Weight(lbs): 140 Drop(in): 30 Hole Diameter(in): 8
Top of Hole Elevation(ft): 1008 Hole Location:See Geotechnical Ma
py
L o
5
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 Quaternary Alluvial Wash Deposits(Qw):
sM Silty SAND;light yellowish brown,slightly moist, loose
26 R-1 99.1 2.5 medium dense
5
41 R-2 112.7 6.5 dense,fine grained
12 R-3 96.1 3.0 light grayish brown,medium dense
10
R-4 - 1.5 loose, sample disturbed
10
15
2.6 moist,medium dense,sample disturbed
12
Y_ groundwater at 20 feet
20
N-1 _ 38.0 wet,medium dense
B
25
8
R-6 104.6 16.41 medium to coarse grained
30
Geotechnical Boring Log B-3
ate: February 18,2014 Project Name: Mexico Caf6 Page:2 of 2
Project Number: 13298-10 Lmaed By: CW
Drilling Company: California Pacific Type of Rig: Mobile B61
Drive Weight Obs): 140 Drop(in): 30 Hole Diameter(in): 8
Top of Hole Elevation(ft): 1008 Bole Location:See Geotechnical Ma
a 8
a
U
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30
9
N-2 - 15.7 thin lenses of sandy SILT
Quaternary Pauba Formation(Qps):
35 SANDSTONE; light yellowish brown,very moist to wet, moderately hard
51 xa 115.6 13.7
40 N-3 _ 6.6 ImOist66
45 R s v moist,some gravel
4s
126.0 17.5 very
50
57
N-4 _16.0
Total Depth: 51.5 Feet
Groundwater at 20 Feet
55
60
NPUBM D
Liquefaction SPT Analysis
Liquefaction SPT Analysis 3.0
Organization: CW La Monte Company
Project Name: Mexico Cafe, Temecula
Job#:
Analysis by: JBR
Date: 5/30/2014
Input Parameters
Units: English
Variable Value Variable Value
Peak Ground Acceleration 0.530 g Design GWT(Historical) 7.00 ft
Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 MW Site GWT 17.0 ft
Bottom Depth 32.00 ft Average Soil Unit Weight
Bore Hole Diameter 8.0 in above GWT 110.0 pcf
Rod Length Height Stick up 4.9 ft below GWT 115.3 pcf
Correction for Sample Liners Yes Sloping Ground No
Geotechnical Properties
Material Type USCS Bottom Consistency Flags SPT field Fines Energy
Depth,ft Content, % Ratio, %
1 Granular Soil SM 2.50 Medium Dense Unsaturated 25 20 85
2 Granular Soil SM 7.00 Medium Dense Unsaturated 30 35 85
3 Granular Soil SW 10.00 Medium Dense 11 3 85
4 Granular Soil SW 15.00 Medium Dense 16 3 85
5 Granular Soil SW 20.00 Loose 8 5 85
6 Granular Soil SW 25.00 Medium Dense 18 20 85
7 Granular Soil SW 30.00 Loose 9 20 85
8 Soft Rock Bedrock Bedrock3 32.00 Dense 51 20 85
Results
Dynamic Settlement:3.06 in
Lateral Displacement: 0.00 ft
SoilStructure.com Liquefaction SPT 1
Granular Sod
0
SM,Medium Dense
L1
Granular Sol 2.50
SM,Medum Dense
L2
Granular SM 7.00
SW,Medium Dense
L3
10.00
15.00
t \
LS y
ram.•.: ,.•... _._..
0.00Soil
SW,Medium Dense
L6
r f
25.00
41f
F
f .. "r!. !
f '
f ,
l
f '`r! ! rsJ! !i r J. 1'
r/.',:
1
Id
f
r. 30.00
Soft-Ro&Bede
geclroCk3 Dew
L8
32,00
Fig. 1: Subsurface profile
SoilStructure.com Liquefaction SPT 2
Liquefaction Analysis -Set 1/4
Sample# Depth,ft CE CB CR CS N60
1 2.50 1.42 1.15 0.75 1.30 39.71
2 7.00 1.42 1.15 0.80 1.30 50.83
3 10.00 1.42 1.15 0.85 1.27 19.27
4 15.00 1.42 1.15 0.95 1.30 32.19
5 20.00 1.42 1.15 0.95 1.17 14.52
6 25.00 1.42 1.15 0.95 1.30 36.22
7 30.00 1.42 1.15 1.00 1.18 17.26
8 32.00 1.42 1.15 1.00 1.30 108.01
Liquefaction Analysis -Set 2/4
Sample# Depth,ft 6 V, psf 6 V" psf CN N1)60
1 2.50 275.0 275.0 1.70 67.51
2 7.00 770.0 770.0 1.30 66.26
3 10.00 1115.9 928.7 1.38 26.50
4 15.00 1692.4 1193.2 1.19 38.37
5 20.00 2268.9 1457.7 1.19 17.24
6 25.00 2845.4 1722.2 1.06 38.34
7 30.00 3421.9 1986.7 1.03 17.70
8 32.00 3652.5 2092.5 1.00 108.24
Liquefaction Analysis -Set 3/4
Sample# Depth,ft AN-Fines N1)60-CS Stress Reduc. CSR MSF-Sand
1 2.50 4.48 71.99 0.999 0.344 1.203
2 7.00 5.51 71.77 0.983 0.339 1.203
3 10.00 0.00 26.50 0.971 0.402 1.203
4 15.00 0.00 38.37 0.948 0.463 1.203
5 20.00 0.00 17.24 0.922 0.495 1.203
6 25.00 4.48 42.82 0.895 0.509 1.203
7 30.00 4.48 22.18 0.866 0.514 1.203
8 32.00 4.48 112.72 0.854 0.514 1.203
Liquefaction Analysis -Set 4/4
Sample# Depth,ft KOSand CRR-M=7.5&ovc=1 CRR Liq.F.S.
1 2.50 1.100 2.00 n.a n.a
2 7.00 1.100 2.00 n.a n.a
3 10.00 1.100 0.33 0.437 1.09
4 15.00 1.100 2.00 2.000 2.00
5 20.00 1.044 0.18 0.221 0.45
6 25.00 1.060 2.00 2.000 2.00
7 30.00 1.009 0.24 0.286 0.56
8 32.00 1.002 2.00 2.000 2.00
Dynamic Settlement-Set 1/2
Sample# Depth,ft Lim.Shear Strain,ylim Fa Parameter Max.Shear Strain,ymax AH I,ft
1 2.50 0.00 3.472 0.000 2.50
2 7.00 0.00 3.452 0.000 4.50
3 10.00 0.07 0.139 0.029 3.00
4 15.00 0.01 0.682 0.000 5.00
5 20.00 0.22 0.656 0.216 5.00
6 25.00 0.00 1.019 0.000 5.00
7 30.00 0.12 0.398 0.124 5.00
8 32.00 0.00 7.295 0.000 2.00
SoilStructure.com Liquefaction SPT 3
Dynamic Settlement-Set 2/2
Sample# Depth,ft Vert.Consol.Str,sV Dyn.Sett,in Accum.Sett, in
1 2.50 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 7.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
3 10.00 0.006 0.234 0.234
4 15.00 0.000 0.000 0.234
5 20.00 0.026 1.556 1.790
6 25.00 0.000 0.000 1.790
7 30.00 0.021 1.267 3.056
8 32.00 0.000 0.000 3.056
SoilStructure.com Liquefaction SPT 4
N60 CRR
20 40 60 80 100 0 0.6 1 1.5 2
0 0
10 10
15 15
O O
r
r
a
20 -------------- 60.20 ._-
30... ........................... ................. •----•---.._.._:_._. 30
CSR
0.35 0.4 0.46 0.5
0
t
5
10
y
4
C 15
3
0
a 2p
a
0
25
30 =---------------------=----------•-•--•-•
SoilStructure.com Liquefaction SPT 5
Dynamle Settlement,In LIq, F.S.
00 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.6 3
p
0.5 1 1.5 2
m
1 0 10
a
C15 _. C 15
2p F _ 20 - ` . _0
0
aai
1 25
30 3 ---_--_------------ ------------------ ------------------------ --
References:
1. "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes",
I.M. Idriss& R.W. Boulanger, 2008, MNO-12, EERI
2. LiquefactionSPT by SoilStructure.com
SoilStructure.com Liquefaction SPT 6
APPENDIX"E"
REFERENCES
The following references were used in the review of the site geology and
geologic hazards, and preparation of this response report:
Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., 1995, Empirical prediction of liquefaction-
induced lateral spread: American Society of Civil Engineers,Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 121,n. 4, p. 316-329.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2015,Water Data Library -
Groundwater Level Reports,website:
h.ttp://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrEiry/groundwater.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, currently California
Geological Survey), 1990a, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Map
of the Pechanga Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, currently California
Geological Survey), 1990b Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Map
of the Temecula Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000.
Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The
revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June
2003: California Geologic Survey, 12 p., Appendix A.
City of Temecula,undated, Public Safety Element: Temecula General Plan.
Corwin, E.J., Alhadeff, S.C., Oggel, S.P., and Shlemon, R.J., 1991, Earth
Fissures, Urbanization and Litigation: A Case Study from the
Temecula Area, Southwestern Riverside County, California: in,
Land Subsidence (Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Land Subsidence, May 1991), IAHS Publication No.
200.
County of Riverside, 2014, Section 4.12, Geology and Soils: in, County of
Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review
Draft, dated March 2014.
Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California:
California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale
1:750,000.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore
Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131, 12 p., map scale
1:24,000.
Kennedy, M.P., 2000, Geologic Map of the Pechanga 7.5' Quadrangle, San
Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital database:
California Division of Mines and Geology (currently California
Geological Survey), scale 1:24,000.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2005 digital (2007 print), Geologic Map of the
Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California: California
Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 2, scale
1:100,000.
Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCEDC), 2015, Search Results-
Earthquakes, website: http:llww '•ncedc.oxg!'anss catalo7-
search.html.
Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 2000, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5'
Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A
Digital database: California Division of Mines and Geology
currently California Geological Survey), scale 1:24,000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1938, Aerial photographs, stereo paired,
Flight No. AXM-1938A,Frame Nos. 49-70 and 49-71, scale 1:20,000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial photographs, stereo paired,
Flight No. AXM-1953b, Frame Nos. AXM-2K-43 and -44, scale
1:20,000.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1967, Aerial photographs, stereo paired, Flight No.
GS-VBTA, Frame Nos. 1-243 and 1-244, dated May 8, 1967, scale
1:32,000.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, Topographic Map of the Pechanga 7.5'
Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24,000.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, Topographic Map of the Temecula 7.5'
Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24,000.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Earthquake Search Results, website:
htt : www.earth. uake.us s. ov earth uakes search.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Design Maps Detailed Report, website:
http://ehpl-
earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/Ea lication. h .
Wells, D.L., and Coppersmith, K.J., 1994, New empirical relationships among
magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface
displacement: Bull. Seismological Society of America, vol. 84, no. 4,
p. 974-1002.